Archives: Articles

By Pepe Escobar

June 21, 2013

@ Information Clearing House

Protests in Brazil indicate what goes way, way beyond a cheap bus fare.

When, in late 2010, Dilma Rousseff was elected President after eight years of the impossibly popular Lula, a national narrative was already ingrained, stressing that Brazil was not the “country of the future” anymore; the future had arrived, and this was a global power in the making.

This was a country on overdrive – from securing the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics to a more imposing role as part of the BRICS group of emerging powers.

Not unlike China, Brazil was breathlessly exploiting natural resources – from its hinterland to parts of Africa – while betting heavily on large agribusiness mostly supplying, you guess it, China.

But above all Brazil fascinated the world by incarnating this political UFO; a benign, inclusive giant, on top of it benefitting from a lavish accumulation of soft power (music, football, beautiful beaches, beautiful women, endless partying).

The country was finally enjoying the benefits of a quarter of a century of participative democracy – and self-satisfied that for the past ten years Lula’s extensive social inclusion policies had lifted arguably 40 million Brazilians to middle class status. Racial discrimination at least had been tackled, with instances of the Brazilian version of affirmative action.

Yet this breakneck capitalist dream masked serious cracks. Locally there may be euphoria for becoming the sixth or seventh world economy, but still social exclusion was far from gone. Brazil remained one the most (deadly) unequal nations in the world, peppered with retrograde landowning oligarchies and some of the most rapacious, arrogant and ignorant elites on the planet – inevitable by-products of ghastly Portuguese colonialism.

And then, once again, corruption raised its Hydra-like head. Here’s a first parallel with Turkey. In Brazil as in Turkey, participative democracy was co-opted, ignored or forcefully diluted among an orgy of “mega-projects” generating dubious profits for a select few. In Turkey it revolves around the ruling party AKP’s collusion with business interests in the “redevelopment” of Istanbul; in Brazil around public funds for the hosting of the World Cup and the Olympics.

The new capitalist dream could not mask that the quality of life in Brazil’s big cities seemed to be on a downward spiral; and that racism – especially in the police – never went away while the demonization of peasant and Native Brazilian leaders was rampant; after all they were obstructing the way of powerful agribusiness interests and the “mega-projects” craze.

What can a poor boy do

There’s no Turkey Spring – as there’s no Brazilian Spring. This isn’t Tunisia and Egypt. Both Turkey and Brazil are democracies – although Prime Minister Erdogan has clearly embarked on a polarizing strategy and an authoritarian drive. What links Turkey and Brazil is that irreversible pent-up resentment against institutional politics (and corruption) may be catalyzed by a relatively minor event.

In Turkey it was the destruction of Gezi park; in Brazil the ten-cent hike in public bus fares was the proverbial straw that broke the (white) elephant’s back. In both cases the institutional response was tear gas and rubber bullets. In Turkey the popular backlash spread to a few cities. In Brazil it went nationwide.

This goes way, way beyond a cheap bus ride – although the public transport scene in Brazil’s big cities would star in Dante’s ninth circle of hell. A manual worker, a student, a maid usually spend up to four hours a day back-and-forth in appalling conditions. And these are private transport rackets controlled by a small group of businessmen embedded with local politicians, who they obviously own.

Arguably the nationwide, mostly peaceful protests have scored a victory – as nine cities have decided to cancel the bus fare hike. But that’s just the beginning.

The mantra is true; Brazilians pay developed world taxes and in return get sub-Saharan Africa quality of service (no offense to Africa). The notion of “value for money” is non-existent. It gets even worse as the economic miracle is over. That magical “growth” was less than 1% in 2012, and only 0.6% in the first quarter of 2013. The immensely bloated state bureaucracy, the immensely appalling public infrastructure, virtually no investment in education as teachers barely get paid $300 a month, non-stop political corruption scandals, not to mention as many homicides a year as narco-purgatory Mexico – none of this is going away by magic.

Football passion apart – and this is a nation where everyone is either an expert footballer or an experienced coach – the vast majority of the population is very much aware the current Confederations Cup and the 2014 World Cup are monster FIFA rackets. As a columnist for the Brazilian arm of ESPN has coined it, “the Cup is theirs, but we pay the bills.”

Public opinion is very much aware the Feds played hardball to get the “mega-events” to Brazil and then promised rivers of “social” benefits in terms of services and urban development. None of that happened. Thus the collective feeling that “we’ve been robbed” – all over again, as anyone with a digital made in China calculator can compare this multi-billion dollar orgy of public funds for FIFA with pathetically little investment in health, education, transportation and social welfare. A banner in the Sao Paulo protests said it all; “Your son is ill? Take him to the arena.”

Remember “Standing Man”

The neo-liberal gospel preached by the Washington consensus only values economic “growth” measured in GDP numbers. This is immensely misleading; it does not take into account everything from rising expectations for more participative democracy to abysmal inequality levels, as well as the despair of those trying to just survive (as in the orgy of expanded credit in Brazil leaving people to pay annual interest rates of over 200% on their credit cards).

So it takes a few uprooted trees in Istanbul and a more expensive shitty bus ride in Sao Paulo to hurl citizens of the “emerging markets” into the streets. No wonder the Brazilian protests left politicians – and “analysts” – perplexed and speechless. After all, once again this was people power – fueled by social media – against the 1%, not that dissimilar from protests in Spain, Portugal and Greece.

Unlike Erdogan in Turkey – who branded Twitter “a menace” and wants to criminalize social networking – to her credit Rousseff seems to have listened to the digital (and street) noise, saying on Tuesday that Brazil “woke up stronger” because of the protests.

The Brazilian protests are horizontal. Non-partisan; beyond party politics. No clear leaders. It’s a sort of Occupy Brazil – with a cross-section of high-school and college students, poor workers who struggle to pay their bus fare, vast swathes of the tax-swamped middle class who cannot afford private health insurance, even homeless people, who after all already live in the streets. Essentially, they want more democracy, less corruption, and to be respected as citizens, getting at least some value for their money in terms of public services.

The die is cast. Once again, it’s people power vs. institutional politics. Remember “Standing Man” in Taksim Square. The time to take a stand is now.

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia.

 

By Franklin Lamb

20 June, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Beirut: The Group of Eight leaders meeting in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, having called for an international conference on the ongoing crisis in Syria to be held “as soon as possible” could not agree on much else that might end the civil war anytime soon there. The White House now is reportedly in private agreement with Russia and Iran that the Assad government will remain in power until next year’s election.

Consequently, an 18 month old US-led Plan B has been dusted off by the Obama administration according to Washington Congressional and Beirut diplomatic sources. If successful, there is growing confidence among pro-Zionist neocons in Congress that while Syrian regime-change has failed for several reasons that thwarted the Gulf funded military campaign, Syria can still be brought to heel through an economic campaign dressed to look, well, down right “humanitarian.”

The term “equivalent of the Marshall Plan” is being employed by some in the White House and Pentagon this month to describe a proposed large-scale “humanitarian rescue program” being prepared for Syria, according to some Western diplomats based in Lebanon.

However, the 1948 Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program or ERP) was an American program to aid Europe, through which the United States provided $ 13 billion, in today’s monetary terms, approximately 100 billion dollars of economic support, to help rebuild European economies devastated by war.

With respect to Syria, the “ equivalent of the Marshall Plan” currently being finalized is very different from what General George |C. Marshall explained to his Harvard University audience, 66 years ago this month, when he announced the post WW II initiative.

The already project Syria amounts to 19th century economic imperialism as a means to achieve control of Syria by hijacking its economy while shielding Israel from the rising tide of protests in this region, as armed groups across the spectrum are beginning to focus on directly confronting the Zionist theft and continuing occupation of Palestine.

What Washington has in mind constitutes an attempt to gain control over Syria by controlling its economy via contracts for rebuilding the country and “lending” the hoped for post-Assad Syrian government as much as 300 billion dollars to be secured by Syrian assets. IMF economists estimate the value of the public sector in Syria, exceeds half a trillion dollars. Under the US-led pan, creditors can take control of ownership of the public sectior, if Syria accepts the plan for pledges to secure debt. The buyers of the debt will be largely American and indirectly Israeli businessmen as well as from the Gulf. Qatar specifically is gambling on this plan, to work with “international parties”, to immerse Syria in debt, and then drive the country to sell the private sector at a very small fraction of their true values.

Some who are warning against the scheme point out that Syrians are capable of rebuilding their own country and have the labor force and raw materials to do it. Foreign aid will be welcomed by the Syrian government but not at the price of ceding the Arab Syrian Republic to a new western crafted economic order. What is hidden in the war on Syria is reported to be much bigger than has been divulged to date, and involves winding down the military actions in favor of economic aggression against the Syrian population which the layers of US sanctions to date is just a harbinger.

In this context, according to Western Diplomatic sources, the US government and some Gulf countries have tried to bribe Rami Makhlouf, a cousin of Syria’s President, to break with the government and leave the country. Some other well-known figures have also been offered large sums of cash to break ranks. Last month, one prominent Syrian nationalist who works with the government told this observer of receiving a $ 50 million dollar offer to defect and leave Syria. The official rejected the bribe and ridiculed the government that made the offer by explaining that as proud Syrian nationalists, no amount of money would break the sacred bond between Syrians and their country.

With respect to Mr. Maklouf, he did not react to being placed on the US Treasury Department’s “Specially Designated Nationals” (SDN) list which blocks assets and prohibits, under severe penalties, U.S. citizens from dealing with them, nor did he dignify an American clemency offer with even a reply. Rather he has maintained his steadfast support for Syria in the face of several attempts to assassinate him as well as targeting him, as a leader of the Syrian business community, with American orchestrated (OFAC) defamatory media campaigns, to pressure Presidenrt Bashar al-Assad to break with him. Rather than rejecting Syria for American offers of protection, Makhlouf channeled much of his assets for the benefit of domestic charities and rehabilitative projects, providing jobs for the unemployed and loans for small investors as well as “at cost” family housing for many of the internally displaced. This initiative continues. Makhlouf has provided his borse shares in the largest telecommunications companies in Syria to charity associations in order to insure financial independence and resources that the Authority can rely upon, to ease somewhat, the devastating effects on the current crisis on the Syrian civil society.

According to analysts among the Western diplomatic corps in Beirut, many wealthy Syrian capitalists fell into the U.S. trap, wherein SDN economic sanctions prompted them to leave Syria and defect from the regime. The United States and its European partners continue to wage an economic war against Syria by imposing crippling sanctions which are affecting the lives of ordinary citizens in many ways from food and fuel costs to medical care.

Why Rami Makhlouf and other strong nationalists in Syria’s business community are being targeted as a prelude to fully launching the US-led “Syrian Marshall Plan” is that their bonds with Syria as well as their business acumen are blocking the Western scheme because they provide the Syrian government with much needed additional financial strength to rebuild Syria, in cooperation with other countries, but without being subject to the economically fatal conditions the US-led plan envisages. Many in the financial and academic community view the proposed SMP plan as nearly certain to hold the Syrian economy hostage to foreigners for scores of years.

The US Treasury Department considers Makhlouf and others like him in the Syrian business community as fully capable, if allowed, of helping Syria’s government to collect huge sums from international investors to help rebuild Syria without being subject to Western domination.

“The anti-Mahhlouf black propaganda campaign, according to a Washington DC source familiar with the intensified preparations, commented that the SMP was designed to include a wide ranging assault in the visual and written media, audio, as well as in the electronic media: “ Almost certainty funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which like their western partners who are actually constructing the SMP project, view Makhlouf as a key obstacle to realizing their plans to hijack and control the Syrian economy as part of a soft war, whereby the US and its allies, western and middle eastern, controls Arab economies while keeping US boots off the grounds of Arabia or spending more US treasure in this region.”

Targeting Rami Makhlouf, and other Syrian businessmen by Qatari media and other Arabic paid media outlets, is designed to hit Syria economically, because weakening the Syrian economic security at its core, is a more certain path, than endless military campaigns, to quickly smash the state. Makhlouf and his colleagues are seen as preventing this.

The ultimate goal of Qatar and certain Gulf countries, with US complicity, is not just expanding their investments in this region, as much as Doha is intent on connecting the Arab world to the American-Zionist axis politically and economically. The speed with which Israeli, Gulf, and Western businessmen showed up at the Corinthian, Radisson, and Rixos hotels in Tripoli, Libya, literally within days of the murder of Moammar Qaddafi, “to help rebuild this country” is instructive on these same interests seeking to control a war damaged country by removing obstacles. Indeed, Russian intelligence reported at the time that the salafists who apprehended Qaddafi in Serte on October 20, 2011, as he attempted to flee, received verbal instructions from a Gulf country (UAE) to kill him in order to eliminate competition for dominating the Libyan economy and to silence those who might torpedo their best laid plans..

The targeting of Mr. Rami Makhlouf and dozens of like-minded Syrian businessmen, who refused to abandon their country, continues. Yet today, like thousands of other Syrian volunteers including the approximately 10,000 who work with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent Society (SARCS) their time and resources serve their country in order to lessen the suffering of the civilian population. They have stood firm and did not flee, as did some corrupt former supporters and officials of the government.

This week, Syria’s President put the goal of the Marshall Plan for Syria succinctly, without identifying it, “What is happening in Syria is a project for those states to push a non-submissive state towards the brink and to look for a new president who says ‘yes’ (to their orders). They have not found and they will not find in the future,” Assad stressed while adding, “The interference is a blatant violation of international law and the sovereignty of this country; they (western states and their Gulf allies) want to destabilize the country and spread chaos and backwardness.”

 

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and Lebanon and can be reached c/o fplamb@gmail.com

By Stuart Littlewood

16 June, 2013

@ Redressonline.com

The US ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, has branded Richard Falk as “unfit to serve in his role as a UN Special Rapporteur.”

It seems that in his role monitoring the occupied Palestinian territories he’s in the habit of expressing views that don’t coincide with the twisted dogma of the pro-Israel lobby and its handmaidens, like Donahoe and Susan Rice, the outgoing US ambassador to the UN and National Security adviser-designate This attack is merely the latest in a long line of attempts to smear, vilify and dump Falk.

Donahoe’s biography on the US mission website includes this high-tone gem. “On the front lines of the Obama administration’s strategy of multilateral engagement to promote democracy and respect for universal human rights, Ambassador Donahoe and the US delegation work to ensure that the courageous voices of human rights defenders from around the globe are heard.”

Yes, but only if they’re singing off the Tel Aviv hymn-sheet, lyrics by Mark Regev, also known as Mark Freiberg, Israel’s Australian-born chief propagandist.

She told the Human Rights Council:

The best way to truly address human rights issues in Israel and the Palestinian territories is to end the underlying conflict and forge a comprehensive peace. For this reason, the United States continues to work vigorously on a simultaneous two-track strategy: a political negotiations track which ultimately results in a two-state solution, with a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine living side by side in peace and security, and equally a Palestinian institution-building track in preparing for a future Palestinian state.

Get real, darlin’. How does any of this actually tackle the underlying conflict or restore long-denied human rights to Palestinians still languishing under the jackboot of the Israeli occupation after 65 years?

According to The Times of Israel, Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, says his organization agrees with Donahoe that Falk is unfit to serve in his role. “If he does not leave voluntarily, the Human Rights Council should remove him. Mr Falk’s attempt to paint himself as the victim of an Israeli government-sponsored defamation campaign, carried out by UN Watch, has echoes of classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”

Well, judge for yourselves.

Meet the other “smear” artists       

United Nations Watch, an advocacy group affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, recently submitted a draft resolution to the UN Human RIghts Council demanding the termination of Falk’s mandate. It includes a long list of wild allegations like these:

>> Falk is so extreme in his support for the Hamas terrorist organization that even the Palestinian Authority has sought to remove him, on grounds that he is a “partisan of Hamas”.

>> Falk recently published an article seeking to downplay, reinterpret and justify the latest call by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to destroy Israel, a member state of the United Nations.

A member state that is contemptuous of the rules of membership and permanently on the wrong side of international law.

Falk published on his website a cartoon showing a dog wearing a Jewish head covering, and with “USA” written on its body, urinating on a depiction of justice and devouring a bloody skeleton, for which he was condemned by British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Wish I’d seen that!

Falk endorsed a virulently anti-Semitic book entitled The Wandering Who? an act condemned by the British Foreign Office.

The book was also endorsed by Kathleen Christison, John Mearsheimer, James Petras, Karl Sabbagh, William Cook, Jeff Gates, Ramzy Baroud, Samir Abed-Rabbo, Robert Wyatt, Eric Walberg and Makram Khoury. These are sane, intelligent and knowledgeable people.

Here is what Falk actually wrote.

Gilad Atzmon [the book’s author] has written an absorbing and moving account of his journey from hard core Israeli nationalist to a de-Zionized patriot of humanity and passionate advocate of justice for the Palestinian people. It is a transformative story told with unflinching integrity that all (especially Jews) who care about real peace, as well as their own identity, should not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely.

Atzmon kindly sent me a copy, an excellent and timely work.

Falk has falsely and absurdly accused Israel of planning a “Palestinian holocaust”.

How would the clowns at UN Watch describe Israel’s carefully planned Operation Cast Lead and the great slaughter it caused among innocent civilians trapped and imprisoned in the narrow confines of the Gaza Strip, and the deliberate devastation of infrastructure necessary to human life, not to mention the starvation imposed by the cruel seven-year blockade?

Falk has become one of the world’s most high-profile supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who accuse the US government of orchestrating the destruction of the Twin Towers as a pretext to launch wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The conspiracy looks less and less like a theory.

>> He promotes the writings of David Ray Griffin, who has produced 12 books describing the World Trade Centre attack as “an inside job”.

>> Falk has repeatedly appeared on the “TruthJihad.com” show of Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and holocaust sceptic who rails against the “ethnic Jews” who he says run Washington and the media.

>> In 2011 Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued an unprecedented condemnation of Mr Falk’s 9/11 remarks, saying they were “preposterous” and “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack”.

Reuters news agency reported that UN Watch had written to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demanding that he “strongly condemn Mr Falk’s offensive remarks and… immediately remove him from his post”. A Ban Ki-moon condemnation has all the force of a slap with a wet kipper.

US Ambassador Susan Rice denounced Falk’s 9/11 remarks as “despicable and deeply offensive”, condemned his “one-sided and politicized approach”, deplored his comments for being “so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position”, and noted that “the cause of human rights will be better advanced without Mr Falk and the distasteful sideshow he has chosen to create”.

In conclusion the UN Watch’s issued a resolution which:

1. Finds that Mr Falk has committed gross and systematic violations of his duties as a council expert, including his obligation to uphold the highest standards of competence, integrity, probity, impartiality, equity, honesty and good faith;

2. Deeply regrets that Mr Falk has failed to heed calls for his resignation as expressed by Palestinian, American and other delegates to the United Nations, thereby obliging the council to exercise its responsibility and protect the credibility and integrity of its procedures;

3. Decides to terminate the mandate of Mr Richard Falk, effective immediately.

Fair comment

Falk’s “noxious” remarks about 9/11 simply broke the ridiculous taboo and questioned the US administration’s refusal to hold a proper independent inquiry. His “crime” was saying that the US administration’s reluctance to address the awkward gaps and contradictions in the official story, identified by several scholars, only fuelled suspicions of a conspiracy.

He suggested that “what may be more distressing than the apparent cover-up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an Al-Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials”.

 

This is fair comment and worded with sufficient care to avoid causing offence. After all, there can be no greater affront to the memory of the 3,000 than the Obama administration’s obvious reluctance to seek the truth.

And there are millions of us out here who are right behind Richard Falk because he stands for justice. We are not amused by indications that the official explanation of 9/11 doesn’t add up. Nor are we happy that it was used to sucker our own governments into sacrificing troops and treasure in unlawful, unwinnable wars that have caused mega-deaths and endless suffering to innocent civilians, trashed our good name abroad and made us vulnerable to reprisals at home.

And for what? Simply to advance the crazed ambitions of the US-Israeli Axis of Greed.

The ever-servile British government is also eager to stick the knife in, as demonstrated in this letter on 6 June by the Foreign Office’s Philippa Thompson, Deputy Team Leader of the Equality and Non-Discrimination Team (what a fatuous job title). It was written in reply to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act following a UK press release on 24 April 2013 containing a statement on comments made by Richard Falk.

It said the British government strongly objected to Falk’s comment that the “United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks”. The relevant paragraph from Falk’s article for the Foreign Policy Journal reads:

The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East.

These words should be framed and hung in every foreign minister’s office across the globe.

Thompson wrote that in the same article Falk said: “As long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy.” She (and, presumably, her bosses) believed the article was “resonant of the longstanding anti-Semitic practice of blaming Jews (through the state of Israel by proxy) for all that is wrong in the world”. This was unacceptable, she stated, but did not explain why.

Actually, Falk’s remarks are quite OK with those who take an interest in the evil that’s going on around us. But we perfectly understand how his observations are inconvenient to the hooligan élite who are bent on more mayhem.

Falk is also under attack from the American Jewish Committee, an organization that aggressively promotes Israel’s interests. The AJC’s executive director, David Harris, on 23 April 2013, said about Falk: “His malicious propaganda regarding the US and Israel – and his glaring inability to see the stark truth about extremist violence and terrorism – has no place in any international body that takes itself and its mission seriously.”

The AJC’s stated vision embraces “democratic values, respect for human rights and peaceful conflict-resolution”, yet Harris and his buddies seem blind to the terror, violence, utter brutality and total disrespect for others’ rights that have become Israel’s trademark.

Whose national interest are they working for?

Earlier this month the AJC welcomed the appointment of Susan Rice as President Obama’s National Security Adviser. With gushing praise it announced:

With regard to the Middle East, Ambassador Rice has strenuously opposed Iran’s nuclear ambitions and human rights transgressions…. She has sought to mobilize international action in the face of the ever mounting death toll in Syria, and stood up for Israel whenever needed, which in the UN, regrettably, is all too often, whether in the Security Council, General Assembly or other UN organs…

Again and again, she has tried to block Palestinian efforts in the world body to do an end-run around direct negotiations with Israel… For all these reasons, AJC was very proud to present Ambassador Rice with our Distinguished Public Service Award…

It shows how desperate the Israel lobby is to keep the Palestinians locked in the going-nowhere vacuum of direct negotiations while the criminal Tel Aviv regime keeps robbing them of their lands and resources at gun-point. Rice has played her part and been rewarded.

The AJC has had it in for Falk for years. Back in March 2008 it was “outraged” over his election to the UN Human Rights Council as the new UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories. It claimed Falk had repeatedly accused the US of being responsible for many of the world’s ills and compared Israel with the Nazi regime. His election, it said, underlined the bias of the UN Human Rights Council and his mandate reflected an inherent and fundamental bias. “While charged with investigating the conduct of the Israeli government in the Palestinian areas, he has no authority from the Human Rights Council to investigate major abuses of human rights perpetrated in the same areas by the Palestinian Authority and by Palestinian terror organizations.”

Of course not. There’s a big difference but the AJC just din’t get it.

Meanwhile, Donahoe, Rice, Obama and all their fancy talk of “multilateral engagement to promote democracy and respect for universal human rights” have done nothing to end the decades of abuse of human rights in the Holy Land.

Richard Falk, let’s remind ourselves, is an emeritus professor of international law, author of over 20 books and editor of 20 more. He clearly knows his stuff. Isn’t it time someone gave him a medal – a big clunky one – for maintaining his integrity in this hissing vipers’ nest?

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation.

By Bill Van Auken

13 June, 2013

@ WSWS.org

At least 60 people, including women, children and the elderly, were killed in a massacre of Shia Muslims by US-backed “rebels” in eastern Syria Tuesday.

The sectarian slaughter in the village of Hatlah in the province of Deir Ezzor near the border with Iraq, was reported by both the Syrian government and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based group that supports the Western-backed militias trying to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

A video posted online showed Islamist gunmen bragging about killing Shias and burning and looting their homes. A spokesman for the group, a Kuwaiti, declared that they killed for their religion and calling on Sunnis in Kuwait and elsewhere to do the same. Another exposed a covered corpse saying, “Look Shi’ites, this is how you will end up, you dogs.”

The killings came on the same day that a pair of suicide bombers blew themselves up in the busy Marjeh Square in the heart of Damascus, Syria’s capital, killing 15 people and wounding another 31. The terrorist attack took place near a police station.

The Deir Ezzor massacre, in which an estimated 1,500 gunmen took part, underscored the increasingly open sectarian character of the US-backed war for regime change in Syria, under conditions in which the so-called rebels have suffered a series of serious military defeats.

Al Qaeda-affiliated gunmen of the Al Nusra front and other Sunni Islamist militias have become the predominant forces in what pseudo-left elements in the West insist on calling the “Syrian revolution,” with many thousands of Islamist fighters having entered the country from neighboring Arab states as well as from as far away as Chechnya, the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere in Europe.

Particularly in the wake of the Syrian army’s retaking of Qusair, the strategically important town in the central province of Homs that served as a conduit for arms and foreign fighters coming into Syria from Lebanon, the “rebels” and their supporters have fomented increasingly rabid sectarianism. The pretext for this has been the aid given to the Syrian government forces by members of the Lebanese Shi’ite Hezbollah movement, who crossed the border to help retake Qusair from Al Nusra and its allies.

In the aftermath of the battle, the media and leading Sunni clerics—particularly in Saudi Arabia and the monarchical Persian Gulf Sunni petrol states that have provided much of the money and arms for the “rebels”—have cast the Syrian conflict as a virtual holy war against Shi’ites.

Well-known Sunni cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar and enjoys the support of its monarchy, called for every able-bodied Sunni across the region to go and fight the Shias in Syria and declared that Iran was determined to “devour” the Sunnis.

Qaradawi’s sectarian fanaticism is a reflection of the increasing desperation of his patrons. Britain’s Channel 4 quoted Qatari Deputy Prime Minister Ahmas Bin Abdullah Bin Zaid al Mahmoud addressing the US-Islamic Word Forum in Doha this week as stating: “Should … the United States fail to offer prompt and decisive assistance to the Syrian people to aid them in fulfilling their aspirations, we fear that the crisis at hand might have even more serious repercussions on neighboring states, the Arab region, and world peace.”

Having laid out an estimated $3 billion to arm and pay mercenaries in Syria, Qatar’s royal house fears its efforts are going up in smoke and that defeat may undermine its own grip on power.

In the wake of the government’s regaining control over Qusair, the Syrian military has begun to push into areas of the central city of Homs held by the Western-backed “rebels.” It is preparing a major offensive to regain full control of Aleppo, Syria’s commercial center near the Turkish-Syrian border.

The fear that the forces that the West and its allies among the Gulf State monarchies have fielded and armed as their proxies in the war for Syrian regime change are losing was also expressed in statements by French officials this week.

“We need to re-balance things because over the past few weeks the troops of Bashar al-Assad and especially Hezbollah and the Iranians, along with Russian arms, have gained considerable ground,” said Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius.

Fabius indicated that this “re-balancing” was to take place through a major escalation of the Western intervention, including France together with Britain and the US directly arming the “rebels.” Ostensibly, Washington and its NATO allies have, until now, supplied only “non-lethal” assistance, but in reality, the CIA as well as British, French and German intelligence have provided direct aid, including the CIA’s coordination of the arms flow paid for by the Saudi and Qatari monarchies.

“We shouldn’t arm them for the sake of arming them, but there has to be a rebalancing,” Fabius continued. “Nobody is talking about sending troops on the ground, but the resistance fighters must be able to defend themselves.”

Fabius said that he had discussed the issue Tuesday with US Secretary of State John Kerry and claimed that Paris would wait until August 1 before sending weapons. This was the date agreed to by the European Union, after Britain and France succeeded in overturning an EU arms embargo on Syria.

Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary William Hague arrived in Washington Wednesday for discussions on Syria. White House officials have indicated that the members of the National Security Council are reviewing options for an escalation of the US intervention this week, including the direct arming of the anti-Assad militias and the imposition of a no-fly zone. That would entail a major US bombing campaign against Syria.

Other meetings on the crisis confronting Washington and its allies were scheduled elsewhere. The Turkish media reported that Tamir Pardo, the director of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, flew secretly into Turkey Wednesday to discuss the Syrian situation with his counterpart, Hakan Fidan, head of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT).

According to some reports, Pardo emphasized Iran’s role in the Syrian events and also apparently suggested Iranian involvement in the mass protests that have swept Turkey for the past two weeks. Turkey has been one of the main supporters of the so-called rebels, and Syria has repeatedly charged that Israel is giving them covert backing in a bid to overthrow Assad and undermine both Iran and Hezbollah.

British Prime Minister David Cameron also announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin would fly to London next week for talks on Syria.

By Ramzy Baroud

13 June, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

My friend Hanna is Syrian and also happens to be Christian. The latter fact was rarely of consequence, except whenever he wished to boast about the contributions of Arab Christians to Middle Eastern cultures. Of course, he is right. The modern Arab identity has been formulated through a fascinating mix of religions, sects and races. Christianity, as well as Islam, is deeply-rooted in many aspects of Arab life. Needless to say, the bond between Islam and Christianity is simply unbreakable.

“I am Christian, but, in terms of culture, I am equally a Muslim,” he told me by way of introduction to a daunting realization. “But now, I am very worried.”

Hanna’s list of worries is long. Lead amongst them is the fact that Christian Arabs in some Arab societies are increasingly viewed as ‘foreigners’ or ‘guests’ in their own countries. At times, as was the case in Iraq, they are punished by one extremist group or another for embracing the same religion that US-western zealots claim to represent. Churches were blown up in brutal retribution for a savage war that President George W. Bush and many of his ilk maintained to be between good and evil, using the most brazen religious references as they savaged Iraq, sparing neither Muslims nor Christians.

During the early years of the war, many Arab intellectuals seemed wary of the sinister divide that the US was erecting between religions, sects and communities. Many in Arab media referenced past historical experiences when other imperial powers – namely Britain and France – resorted to the ‘divide and conquer’ stratagem. Those attempts in the first half of the 20th century resulted in much bloodshed and lasting scars in many communities. Lebanon is the obvious example with Iraq prevailing.

In response to the colonial attempts at busying the Arabs with internal conflicts, Arab nationalists had then wrangled with a discourse that proved of immense value to modern Arab identity. To escape the pitfalls of religious and sectarian divides, and to unleash the untapped energies of Arab societies, there was an urgent need to articulate a new language expressing a unifying pan-Arab political discourse. In post-World War II, the rise of Arab nationalism was the force to be contended with, from Egypt, to Iraq and to Syria. It was a battle of wills involving imperialist powers, later joined by the United States. It was also local, tribal elites fighting for their own survival. The nationalists’ discourse was meant to inspire, from Gamal Abdel Nasser’s thundering speeches in Egypt, to Michel Aflaq’s eloquent thoughts in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. At least then, it seemed to matter little that Nasser was an Egyptian Sunni Muslim, and that Aflaq was a Greek Orthodox Christian.

Aflaq was profound, and his insistence on the vitality of the Muslim character to Arabs was a testament to a generation of nationalists that since then, has all but completely faded. He spoke of Arab unity, not as a distant dream, but a practical mechanism to snatch liberty from many sinister hands. “What liberty could be wider and greater than binding oneself to the renaissance of one’s nation and its revolution?” he said during a speech. “It is a new and strict liberty which stands against pressure and confusion. Dictatorship is a precarious, unsuitable and self-contradictory system which does not allow the consciousness of the people to grow.”

Many voices echoed that sentiment in Arab nations near and far. Poets recited the will of freedom fighters and artists rendered the language of philosophers. While Arab nationalist movements eventually fragmented, were weakened or defeated, an Arab identity survived. Long after Nasser died, and even Anwar Saddat signed the Camp David accords, thus breaking with Arab consensus, school children continued to sing “Arab homelands are my home, from the Levant to Baghdad, from Najd to Yemen and from Egypt to Morocco.”

The war over Arab identify however never ceased, as it continued to manifest itself in actual and figurative ways. Israel and western powers, vying for military dominance, regional influence and ultimately resources, did the best they could to shatter the few semblances that sustained a sense of unity among Arab nations that survived despite numerous and perhaps insurmountable odds.

The Lebanese civil war (1975-1990) left deep wounds that continue to fester. The Iraq war was particularly painful. While Lebanon civil strife involved well-demarcated sects, the alliances were in constant influx. But Iraq’s civil war, encouraged and sustained with direct American involvement to weaken Iraqi resistance to US-British occupation, was well-defined and brutal. Muslim Shia and Sunni engaged in a bitter struggle as US troops wreaked havoc in Baghdad. Members of all sects paid a heavy price for the fighting, which also damaged the national identity of Iraq and made a mockery of its flag and national anthem. The sociopolitical impact of that war was so severe, it resuscitated a reactionary discourse that forced many communities to see themselves as members of one group or another, each fighting for its own being.

Soon after the Egyptian revolution, I walked the streets of Cairo, reminiscing, with much giddiness – about the past and the encouraging future. A ‘new Egypt’ was being born, one with ample room for all of its children. An Egypt where the poor are giving their fair share, and where Muslims and Christians and the rest would march forward, hand in hand, as equals, compelled by the vision of a new generation and the hopes and dreams of many more. It was not a romantic idea, but thoughts inspired by millions of Egyptians, by bearded Muslim men protecting churches in Cairo against government plots to stir religious tensions, by Christian youth guarding the Tahrir square as Muslim youth prayed, before they all resumed their fight for freedom.

Despite my insistence on optimism, I find the current political discourse hateful, polarizing and unprecedentedly defeatist. While Muslim political elites are sharply divided between Shia and Sunni, assigning layers of meaning to the fact that one is born this way or that, this wrangling has been weaved into a power play that has destroyed Syria, awakened past animosities in Lebanon and revitalized existing conflict in Iraq, further devastating the very Arab identity.

Iraq’s historical dilemma, exploited by the US for immediate gains, has now become a pan-Arab dilemma. Arab and Middle Eastern media is fomenting that conflict using terminology loaded with sectarianism and obsessed with erecting the kind of divides that will bring nothing but mistrust, misery and war.

Resurrecting Nasser’s and Aflaq’s Arab nationalism might no longer be possible, but there is a compelling need for an alternative discourse to the type of intellectual extremism that justifies with disturbing lucidity the butchering of the inhabitants of an entire village in Syria because of their sect or religion. My friend Hanna has every reason to worry, as all Arabs should.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is: My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ShareThisShareThis

 

 

 

Comments are moderated

 

By Nadezhda Kevorkova

10 June , 2013

@ Reuters

The outcome of the presidential election in Iran will have a resounding effect across the Middle East and the whole world. While the West dubs the poll unrepresentative, little is done to understand the nature of Political Islam which governs the nation.

The previous 2009 elections came amid a large-scale opposition campaign to review the voting results – but that was before the Arab Spring, while the future elections have dovetailed with a crisis of the revolution in Egypt, a war in Syria and a wave of unrest in Turkey.

In 2009, the Muslim world saw the US as its archenemy, and Iran – mostly as a friend: it persevered in its nuclear program, disagreed with Americans, advocated Palestine’s interests and backed both Hamas and Hezbollah. However, with the Syrian conflict now in full swing, the Muslim world has been virtually forced into a Sunni vs. Shia standoff.

This makes the upcoming vote a turning point for Iran, the Middle East and the whole world.

Now that the US has already panned the elections as fraudulent, will the opposition resort to the methods it used back in 2009? Will it lead to an upheaval in the country? Will the US offer a helping hand to the opposition? We shall find out very soon.

Few in the West have any idea at all of the Iranian political landscape.

To make matters clear, they have labeled the contenders ‘conservatives’ and ‘reformists’ – a deeply flawed classification.

The leading reformist, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was disqualified from the presidential race by the Guardian Council, and ex-president Mohammed Khatami, who reportedly decided not to run, are high-ranking Muslim clericals.

‘Conservatives’, on the contrary, hold strongly secular views. It is Khatami who once introduced the idea of the Dialogue of Civilizations as a response to Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. But when he met the Spanish Queen, he made a point by refusing to shake her hand.

Another reformist, Ayatollah Rafsanjani, leads an important clerical council in the country. His son is a pistachio tycoon, but the ayatollah still lives a modest lifestyle not far from Imam Khomeini’s house in an ex-slum called Jamaran.

An Iranian conservative, President Ahmadinejad in many ways owed his victory in the previous polls and his popularity to his unassuming attitude. When he was a city mayor, he wore a casual jacket and lived in a poor neighborhood. At the same time, a university professor, he could easily plunge into discussing philosophical matters, shocking the political elite into a stupor.

Conservatives in Iran are against the very symbol of what the West calls a conservative regime – putting clericals into high offices.

Now the outcome of the Iranian election is pretty unpredictable – for a number of reasons.

Political preferences of Tehran’s residents and the rest of the country are very divergent: while in the capital the politically active intellectuals would like to see a ‘consensus candidate’ at the helm, Iran on the whole is dominated by adherents of the Islamic Revolution – which stands for refusing to cooperate or enter into any agreements with the West. That’s why Tehran is by no means a thermometer of nationwide sentiments.

Iranians are a highly disciplined nation. And it’s not only about how millions instantly respond to political issues. It’s also about a high voter turnout and observers from all the candidates at the polls. I saw all of this with my own eyes in 2009.

Contrary to what the Western media say, an Iranian does not face a ballot of eight unfamiliar contenders.

Each candidate has a strong background and his own supporters.

A two-week debate offers all the runners an opportunity to answer questions on their vision of economy, politics and culture.

And while a Western viewer will say the debate would do better with a healthy amount of squabbling and wrangling, Iranians are happy with what they have. In Iran, they do not make a show of the elections. The debate enables a politically vocal majority to make their ultimate choice.

Nature of ‘political Islam’

But there is one more thing to remember. Most Iranians are constantly in touch with influential scholars, men and women alike, who know the sharia law and the Quran very well. In one family, husband and wife may well sign up to different schools of thought.

During the holy month of fasting and on holidays, Iranians invite these spiritual teachers to visit them and talk to their friends and family.

Such intellectual exchanges constitute a very important part of life in Iran – one that people abroad are unaware of. They’re not religious events or chatting over a cup of tea, or philosophy clubs – it’s just that people are constantly seeking intellectual discussion.

The scholars themselves have regular contacts with other scholars from their schools of thought and ayatollahs. It’s important to understand that in this respect there’s no uniformity in Iran – there are various schools of thought that don’t agree with either Imam Khomeini’s or Rahbar (The Supreme Leader of Iran) Khamenei’s ideas. (However, people who run for president have to more or less fall in line with Khamenei’s stance.)

There’s a consensus among the Iranian population on several key issues, such as the fact that the Islamic Revolution offered a new path for the people; that Iran has a right to its nuclear program and development; and that women’s rights are more respected in Islam than in Western law, which is inferior to Sharia law. The rest, like mullahs’ role in politics, the necessity of theocratic rule, the right to protest and dissent, and various cultural and behavioral phenomena, are considered to be topics open for debate. In Iranian people’s experience and tradition, it is necessary to regularly discuss such issues with scholars in order to comprehend them more fully.

A scholar is a central figure for seminars of this kind, but he or she is not a priest and definitely not a deity.

These ties between people – strong, but unseen by the outsiders – pervade Iranian society, strengthening it.

That’s what the Iranians mean by “political Islam”. It existed before the Islamic Revolution, secured its success, allowed dozens of millions of people to receive education and accounted for the country’s rapid progress in scientific and technological spheres.

It’s impossible to tell which school of thought a person adheres to simply by the way they look. For example, public servants of any kind all wear strict hijabs or ordinary suits, but that doesn’t mean they all follow the same school of thought. It doesn’t even mean they are religious or indicate which party they support.

Foreigners assume that Iranian women that wear make-up and have their hair done are somehow protesting against the regime, and find themselves at a loss when they see these same women in mosques. And they are completely stupefied when they see women in strict hijabs taking part in demonstrations. Iran is, indeed, a mystery.

Illegitimate and unrepresentative or..?

So who will be elected the country’s 7th president in the 11th presidential elections heavily depends on this complex mechanism – political Islam. The US State Department has already declared the election illegitimate, claiming that the candidates “do not represent the people”.

Let’s try to determine if that is the case. It should be mentioned that Iranian politics is an exotic and unusual thing for Western people. In order to make sense of it, it is important to know about a politician’s origins, his occupation before and after the Iranian Revolution, his status, which is far more challenging than distinguishing between the Western bipartisan systems, where the differences between the parties boil down to their stances on taxes, abortion and gay rights.

 

The so called “conservatives” include five candidates: Saeed Jalili, Ali Akbar Velayati, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, and Mohsen Rezaee.

Saeed Jalili

Experts say Saeed Jalili is most likely to win. But predictions don’t always work in Iran. In 2005, analysts didn’t even notice Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the first round, but in the second round he beat Rafsanjani himself.

Saeed Jalili is 47 years old, making him the youngest of the eight candidates. He was born in Mashhad, a home of many Shia holy places. Many revolution minded students came out of this city. He is the main negotiator for the nuclear program, so Iranians hear his name all the time, since the media in Iran and all over the world follow this topic closely.

In 2007, he became secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, making him the chief negotiator for Iran’s nuclear program. With the country’s nuclear policy a topic of intense interest at home and abroad, he is a household name in Iran.

Jalili holds a Ph.D in political science and philosophy from Imam Sadeq University in Tehran.

During the war, he served as a member of the Basij volunteers of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, which certainly wins him some points with the people. He was senior director of policy planning in the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader, and also served as Deputy Foreign Minister.

He didn’t announce his candidacy until very recently. Despite being a member of the Front of Islamic Revolution Stability, he will run as an independent candidate.

Experts say that even though he never was a policy maker per se, he has a strong political will and knows what tough confrontation is like. But this won’t win him people’s votes. However, the fact that a number of registered candidates withdrew in favor of Jalili, shows that he has a serious chance to win.

In the first round of debates, Jalili promised to stand strong against “the arrogant Western countries”. The Iranian people can identify with this, they understand his stance and promise to avoid the policy of compromise. While the West sees it as “entrenched conservatism”, for the Iranians this represents the continuity of Iran’s resistance policy, which most of the people support.

Jalili also commented on a very important issue: “We registered 850 thousand new marriages in the last year, so we need to come up with a housing program in order to accommodate the needs of these new families.” So basically he is going to focus on making sure that young couples can afford to buy or rent a place. In Iran, this is considered a high priority issue.

He also mentioned renovation of old buildings. Few people outside Iran know that Iranians blame the shah for destroying Tehran’s historic streets. Apparently only the Mahdi is allowed to “make streets straight”, so basically the shah played the Mahdi.

Ali Akbar Velayati

Some experts had declared Ali Akbar Velayati as the most likely winner.

Velayati is 67 years old. He was born in a small village outside Tehran. He studied pediatrics in Tehran and Johns Hopkins University in the US. He was arrested when he was 17 – this was during the rule of Mohammad Reza Shah.

In the last two years he initiated a number of summits for Arab Spring leaders, which Iranians call “Islamic Awakening”. He was able to bring together representatives of many different groups – from Taliban to Salafi groups, HAMAS and Hezbollah. Politicians, charismatic leaders, journalists from all over the world, female activists, and even revolutionary poets have come to his summits. Thanks to Velayati’s efforts, Iran has stayed the leader of the Arab revolution.

He used to be a Minister of Foreign Affairs, and today he is the foreign affairs advisor to the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Velayati is part of the “2+1” coalition (Velayati, Ghalibaf, and Haddad-Adel). There is still a possibility that they will withdraw in favor of Jalili. Velayati has already endorsed him.

Bagher Ghalibaf

One of the most vibrant and hard-boiled contenders is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

Ghalibaf, 51, was also born in Mashhad to a Kurdish father. In Iran, contrary to what Western propaganda is saying, the national/ethnic issue is a minor one, so all the attempts to use it to spur turmoil have failed. Khamenei, for instance, is Azerbaijani.

Previously, Ghalibaf used to stand at the helm of the Iranian police. After that, he headed the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and was the Iranian Army Commander. Since 2005, he has enjoyed skyrocketing approval ratings as the Mayor of Tehran.

After he announced he’d be running as an independent candidate, a video went viral on the Internet showing Ghalibaf order troops to open fire on student protesters at Tehran University in 2003. Another similar video soon followed.

Ghalibaf has gone hard on his political rival Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who won the 2005 elections. In an interview to Iranian news agency Tasnim he said, ‘Since when has the Holocaust become a leading issue of our foreign policy? Iran has never been against Judaism.’

That was his response to Ahmadinejad repeatedly raising this topic in public.

The truth of the matter is that Ahmadinejad has never spoken against Judaism or Jews and welcomed numerous rabbi delegations. Iran rejects Zionism as a fundamental ideology for the state of Israel, believing that it runs counter to Judaism.

Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel

Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel is unlikely to oppose the coalition.

Adel, 68, comes from Tehran. His daughter is married to the son of the Supreme Leader of Iran. In 2004-2008, he was the first secular Speaker in Parliament. He is a member of the Expediency Discernment Council (resolves differences between the Parliament and the Council of Guardians, headed by Rafsanjani) and the High Council of Cultural Revolution. Odds are that he will withdraw from the race to back the 2+1 coalition candidate.

With his degree in Physics (the most respected profession in Iran), he also holds a PhD in Philosophy from the Tehran University and is a prolific author. He served in various posts like Vice Minister of Culture and Vice Minister of Education.

(Editore’s note: Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel was a candidate at the time of the report’s publication, but he withdrew from Iran’s presidential race on Monday, semi-official Mehr news agency reported.

“With my withdrawal I ask the dear people to strictly observe the criteria of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] when they vote for candidates,” Haddad-Adel said in a statement.)

Mohsen Rezaee

Mohsen Rezaee’s chances to win remain slim, in spite of his revolutionary past.

Rezaee is 58 and comes from Khuzestan. He was born into a semi-nomadic family of Lurs – a Persian ethnic group living in the Southwestern Zagros Mountains.

Shortly after the war with Iraq began, at the age of 27 he became the youngest commander to lead the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, when his predecessor was killed in a terrorist attack. A hero of the war, he resigned from his post in 1981. For several years, he worked as Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council.

Before the Revolution, he studied engineering at the Iran University of Science and Technology. In 2001, he earned a PhD in Economics.

In 2006, Argentina issued an arrest warrant for Rezaee and six more Iranians in connection with a  1994 suicide bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos-Aires. Rezaee’s son, Ahmad, defected to the United States and reportedly told officials that his father was behind the attack. Argentina has never asked Iran to extradite Rezaee.

This invalidates his presidential bid: in spite of his enormous popularity, a future president cannot be blacklisted by the Interpol or face a risk of arrest abroad.

Hassan Rouhani

The reformists have promised to unite behind one presidential nominee by June 8. As Aytollah Rafsandjani is no longer running for office, there are three possible candidates left.

Hassan Rouhani is considered to be the conservatives’ main rival, but he is a cleric and as such will not be able to provide serious competition.

 

Hassan Rouhani is 64. He was born in Sorkheh. He used to be a member of the Assembly of Experts, as well as the Expediency Council and the Supreme National Security Council.  He has been the head of the Center for Strategic Research since 1992.  He also took part in negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

He is an independent candidate, but the reformist leaders, former president Mohammad Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani, have supported his bid.

During the debates on the economic situation he raised the unemployment issue, saying there are 3 million unemployed people in Iran, 800,000 of whom hold college degrees.

Last week, during Rouhani’s campaign rally in Jamaran Mosque, several of his supporters were arrested. Saeedollah Badashti, the head of the youth branch of Rouhani’s followers, and others were arrested for chanting slogans in support of Mirhossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi – the opposition candidates who led demonstrations after 2009 presidential election. Both of them are currently under house arrest.

“With your support, we will open all the locks which have been fastened upon people’s lives during the past eight years. You, dear students and heroic youth, are the ones who support economic recovery and improving living standards. We will restore our country’s dignity,” Rouhani said.

Mohammad Reza Aref

Mohammad Reza Aref is 61. He was born in Yazd. He was Vice-President under Khatami, from 2001 to 2005. He is an electrical engineer and a professor at the University of Tehran and Sharif University of technology.  Currently Mohammad Reza Aref is a member of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution and the Expediency Discernment Council.

The polls show that Aref could become a successful candidate, but since the key reformist politicians have supported Rouhani he is likely to withdraw from the race.

During the debates Aref blamed Ahmadinejad for the country’s economic and political problems. He is in favor of privatization, which, in his view, is the only way to ensure economic growth. He hasn’t stop at criticizing Ahmadinejad, however, and proceeded to say that all of Iran’s problems are the conservatives’ fault. Nevertheless, he promised that as president, he would not tolerate criticism towards his predecessors, i.e. Ahmadinejad, Khatami, Mousavi and Rafsanjani.

The least known candidate is Mohammad Gharazi, who is also likely to withdraw from the race.

During a press conference before the debates Gharazi said, “I have no money or campaign managers, but I have an anti-inflation strategy”.

Gharazi is in Rafsanjani’s circle – he was Minister of Communication under Rafsanjani and Minister of Petroleum under Mousavi. He hadn’t been very politically active, so his bid for presidency was quite unexpected, and quite unexpectedly approved.

Out of 75 million Iranians, just over 50 million have a right to vote in the upcoming presidential election that will be held on Friday, June 14. Polling stations have been set up in schools, mosques and colleges. All the candidates will have their observers at every polling station.

Nadezhda Kevorkova is a war correspondent who has covered the events of the Arab Spring, military and religious conflicts around the world, and the anti-globalization movement.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

A 2012 World Health Organization study on congenital birth defects in Iraq has still not been released to the public.

By Mozhgan Savabieasfahani

06 June, 2013

@ Al-Jazeera

Sterility, repeated miscarriages, stillbirths and severe birth defects have increased in parts of Iraq [EPA]

Iraq is poisoned. Thirty-five million Iraqis wake up every morning to a living nightmare of childhood cancers, adult cancers and birth defects. Familial cancers, cluster cancers and multiple cancers in the same individual have become frequent in Iraq.

Sterility, repeated miscarriages, stillbirths and severe birth defects – some never described in any medical books – are all around, in increasing numbers. Trapped in this hellish nightmare, millions of Iraqis struggle to survive, and they call for help.

 

At long last, public pressure and media attention to this public health catastrophe prompted a joint study by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Iraqi Ministry of Health to determine the prevalence of birth defects in Iraq. This study began in May-June 2012 and was completed in early October 2012.

The WHO website says that this large-scale study was conducted in Baghdad (Karkh and Rasafa), Diyala, Anbar, Sulaymaniyah, Babel, Basrah, Mosul and Thi-Qar, with 10,800 households from 18 districts and a sample size of 600 households per district.

The Independent (UK) reported that this study was due to be released in November 2012. But the report has not yet come out.

Report kept secret

In March 2013, a high-ranking official at the Iraqi Ministry of Health in Baghdad discussed the issue with the BBC and said that “all studies done by the Ministry of Health prove with damning evidence that there has been a rise in birth defects and cancers” in Iraq.

During the same BBC documentary, called “Born under a bad sign”, two other Ministry of Health researchers discussed the unpublished study. They confirmed that that cancers and birth defects constitute a major crisis for the next generation of Iraqi children. They specifically confirmed simultaneous increases in cancers and congenital anomalies in three governorates – Nineveh, Anbar and Najaf – linking those increases to munitions used during the war.

Why should such an important report be kept secret?

In a serious health emergency, as we see in Iraq, such an extensive survey of public health must be widely publicised to attract international support and expertise. Medical experts, epidemiologists, environmental toxicologists, remediation staff and environmental cleanup specialists must be summoned to address this crisis and save lives.

A delay of six months in the release of such a critical report has left many of us anxious and fearful that it may be suppressed.

In response to this costly delay in releasing the WHO report, 58 scientists, health professionals and human rights advocates recently wrote to the WHO and the Iraqi Health Ministry, asking for the immediate release of their report. We requested that this globally significant report be released at once. We received no response to this letter.

The letter was signed by Iraqi, Iranian, Lebanese, Japanese, European, Australian and North American academics and public figures. They included Noam Chomsky, Ken Loach, John Tirman, Human Rights Now (Japan), Health Alliance International and a board member of BlackCommentator.com.

We are still waiting for an answer from the WHO. Why is this important report being held up?

One possible answer was suggested on May 26 by the Guardian. It reported the recent comments of Hans von Sponeck, the former assistant secretary general of the United Nations: “The US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying ares in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers.”

It would be deeply distressing if this WHO report is delayed for any such reason. After so many years of sanctions and war, the public health of 35 million Iraqis must not be held hostage. Instead, we must strive to save lives today and prevent any further contamination of the earth with war pollutants.

Deadly UN sanctions on Iraq

Recall the deadly UN sanctions on Iraq. By 1995, those sanctions had devastated the Iraqi public health infrastructure and may have killed as many as 576,000 children, according to UN Food and Agriculture Organization scientists.

In that vulnerable state, Iraq was invaded. MSNBC reported: “Between 2002 and 2005, US forces shot off 6 billion bullets in Iraq (something like 300,000 for every person killed). They also dropped 2,000 to 4,000 tonnes of bombs on Iraqi cities, leaving behind a witch’s brew of contaminants and toxic metals, including the neurotoxins lead and mercury.”

Since 2003, mother-and-child health has further deteriorated in Iraq, and the country’s health indicators are now among the poorest in the world. The current state of mother-and-child health in Iraq will be further damaged if the WHO report on congenital birth defects continues to be inaccessible to the public.

The WHO report will clarify the magnitude and trend of congenital birth defects in several Iraqi governorates, identify possible risk factors for these birth defects, and assess the public burden of these conditions on the Iraqi nation. The information contained in this report is essential to inform and prioritise public health policy in Iraq and in the region at large.

Immediate release of this report will be the first step towards mobilising global efforts to protect public health from further degradation in Iraq and in the entire region. Once released, the report will enable researchers to collaborate, ask the most relevant questions and spearhead research to remedy this health emergency.

Dr Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, a native of Iran, is an environmental toxicologist based in Michigan. She is the author of over two dozen peer reviewed articles and the book, Pollution and Reproductive Damage (DVM 2009).

By Noam Chomsky

June 6, 2013

@ AlterNet

On Mother’s Day, May 12, The Boston Globe featured a photo of a young woman with her toddler son sleeping in her arms.

The woman, of Mayan Indian heritage, had crossed the U.S. border seven times while pregnant, only to be caught and shipped back across the border on six of those attempts. She braved many miles, enduring blisteringly hot days and freezing nights, with no water or shelter, amid roaming gunmen. The last time she crossed, seven months pregnant, she was rescued by immigration solidarity activists who helped her to find her way to Boston.

Most of the border crossers are from Central America. Many say they would rather be home, if the possibility of decent survival hadn’t been destroyed. Mayans such as this young mother are still fleeing from the wreckage of the genocidal assault on the indigenous population of the Guatemalan highlands 30 years ago.

The main perpetrator, Gen. Efrain Rios Montt, the former dictator who ruled Guatemala during two of the bloodiest years of the country’s decades-long civil war, was convicted in a Guatemalan court of genocide and crimes against humanity, on May 10.

Then, 10 days later, the case was overturned under suspicious circumstances. It is unclear whether the trial will continue.

Rios Montt’s forces killed tens of thousands of Guatemalans, mostly Mayans, in the year 1982 alone.

As that bloody year ended, President Reagan assured the nation that the killer was “a man of great personal integrity and commitment,” who was getting a “bum rap” from human-rights organizations and who “wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice.” Therefore, the president continued, “My administration will do all it can to support his progressive efforts.”

Ample evidence of Rios Montt’s “progressive efforts” was available to Washington, not only from rights organizations, but also from U.S. intelligence.

But truth was unwelcome. It interfered with the objectives set by Reagan’s national security team in 1981. As reported by the journalist Robert Parry, working from a document he discovered in the Reagan Library, the team’s goal was to supply military aid to the right-wing regime in Guatemala in order to exterminate not only “Marxist guerrillas” but also their “civilian support mechanisms” – which means, effectively, genocide.

The task was carried out with dedication. Reagan sent “nonlethal” equipment to the killers, including Bell helicopters that were immediately armed and sent on their missions of death and destruction.

But the most effective method was to enlist a network of client states to take over the task, including Taiwan and South Korea, still under U.S.-backed dictatorships, as well as apartheid South Africa and the Argentine and Chilean dictatorships.

At the forefront was Israel, which became the major arms supplier to Guatemala. It provided instructors for the killers and participated in counterinsurgency operations.

The background bears restating. In 1954, a CIA-run military coup ended a 10-year democratic interlude in Guatemala – “the years of spring,” as they are known there – and restored a savage elite to power.

In the 1990s, international organizations conducting inquiries into the fighting reported that since 1954 some 200,000 people had been killed in Guatemala, 80 percent of whom were indigenous. The killers were mostly from the Guatemalan security forces and closely linked paramilitaries.

The atrocities were carried out with vigorous U.S. support and participation. Among the standard Cold War pretexts was that Guatemala was a Russian “beachhead” in Latin America.

The real reasons, amply documented, were also standard: concern for the interests of U.S. investors and fear that a democratic experiment empowering the harshly repressed peasant majority “might be a virus” that would “spread contagion,” in Henry Kissinger’s thoughtful phrase, referring to Salvador Allende’s democratic socialist Chile.

Reagan’s murderous assault on Central America was not limited to Guatemala, of course. In most of the region the agencies of terror were government security forces that had been armed and trained by Washington.

One country was different: Nicaragua. It had an army to defend its population. Reagan therefore had to organize right-wing guerilla forces to wage the fight.

In 1986, the World Court, in Nicaragua v. United States, condemned the U.S. for “unlawful use of force” in Nicaragua and ordered the payment of reparations. The United States’ response to the court’s decree was to escalate the proxy war.

The U.S. Southern Command ordered the guerillas to attack virtually defenseless civilian targets, not to “duke it out” with the Nicaraguan army, according to Southcom’s Gen. John Gavin testimony to Congress in 1987.

Rights organizations (the same ones that were giving a bad rap to genocidaire Rios Montt) had condemned the war in Nicaragua all along but vehemently protested Southcom’s “soft-target” tactics.

The American commentator Michael Kinsley reprimanded the rights organizations for departing from good form. He explained that a “sensible policy” must “meet the test of cost-benefit analysis,” evaluating “the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end.”

Naturally, we Americans have the right to conduct the analysis – thanks, presumably, to our inherent nobility and stellar record ever since the days when the continent was cleared of the native scourge.

The nature of the “democracy that will emerge” was hardly obscure. It is accurately described by the leading scholar of “democracy promotion,” Thomas Carothers, who worked on such projects in the Reagan State Department.

Carothers concludes, regretfully, that U.S. influence was inversely proportional to democratic progress in Latin America, because Washington would only tolerate “limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied (in) quite undemocratic societies.”

There has been no change since.

In 1999, President Clinton apologized for American crimes in Guatemala but no action was taken.

There are countries that rise to a higher level than idle apology without action. Guatemala, despite its continuing travails, has carried out the unprecedented act of bringing a former head of state to trial for his crimes, something we might remember on the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Also perhaps unprecedented is an article in The New York Times by Elisabeth Malkin, headlined “Trial on Guatemalan Civil War Carnage Leaves Out U.S. Role.” Even acknowledgment of one’s own crimes is very rare.

Rare to nonexistent are actions that could alleviate some of the crimes’ horrendous consequences – for example, for the United States to pay the reparations to Nicaragua ordered by the World Court. The absence of such actions provides one measure of the chasm that separates us from where a civilized society ought to be.

(Noam Chomsky’s most recent book is “Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire. Conversations with David Barsamian.” Chomsky is emeritus professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.)

By Nadeen Shaker

5 June 2013

@ Ahram Online

Turkish author and activist Ozan Tekin is editor at Marksist.org – a Turkish leftist news site. Ozan describes to Ahram Online the dynamics of the ongoing anti-government protests in Turkey and similarities and differences between the Turkish process and the Arab Spring

Ahram Online (AO): Can you give us a picture of how protests were transformed from a four-people stand against park destruction to an outpouring of nation-wide anti-governmental protests?

Ozan Tekin (OT): A few dozen activists rushed into Gezi Park when the bulldozers arrived on Tuesday night last week to start cutting trees. The bulldozers retreated later that day and a few thousand people occupied the park. The police started attacking the park in the early hours of the morning to let the bulldozers in again. On third day, this sparked an explosion of protest, and tens of thousands joined the struggle in Taksim Square to keep the park safe and protest against police violence.

AO: What are the reasons behind the discontent with Erdogan’s policies?

OT: The government’s plans to restructure Taksim Square are a part of a broader neo-liberal program. They want to turn Taksim, the centre of the city, into a place for the upper classes and push ordinary people out. This is a conservative, neo-liberal government and people were increasingly fed up not only with the plans for Taksim Square, imposed with no consultation at all with citizens, but also with the whole spate of neo-liberal policies, the unchecked proliferation of shopping centers, last months’s legislation to ban the sale of alcohol after 10pm, and the frequent heavy-handed use of the police against perfectly democratic protests. Prime minister Erdogan’s arrogance and heavy-handed attitude also stoked the discontent.

AO: How large is the scope of the protests? Who is taking part in them?

OT: Those who started the resistance at the park were leftists, environmentalist, independent activists, etc. The police’s violence against them triggered a reaction in much wider sections of society. Thousands of independent young activists – many taking part in political activity for the first time – came out onto the streets in anger. All the parties of the left were there. Some trade unions – though perhaps not on a massive scale – joined in as well. The main opposition party (CHP) and other right-wing nationalist/pro-army groups also joined the protests. But their influence was very limited on Friday and Saturday.

AO: What is the so-called ‘Turkish Spring’? What are its broader implications in the region?

OT: Erdogan claims to support the revolutionary movements in the Middle East . But facing a wave of riots on a much smaller scale, his government managed to use brutal police violence for hours against the protesters. This is his hypocrisy – it shows that the Turkish government can in no way be a “model” for the demands of the Egyptian or Syrian masses.

But 50 percent of Turkish society votes for AKP [Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party] because they think it is slowly doing what the movements from below in the Middle East are achieving. Turkey has a long tradition of the army intervening in politics by bloody military takeovers. The generals also plotted to overthrow the AKP government, claiming that it was turning Turkey into “ Iran ” by imposing sharia law.

Many sections in the AKP’s electoral base want change and support Erdogan because they believe he will deliver that – the army’s exclusion from politics, a peaceful solution to the Kurdish question, improvements in social justice. This puts the AKP in a contradictory position – a neo-liberal right-wing agenda on one hand, and many millions voting for a “hope” of freedom on the other. Even at the peak of the protests, Taksim Square was nowhere near Tahrir in terms of numbers, and its political content was much more like “Tahrir against Morsi” than “Tahrir against Mubarak”.

AO: How is Erdogan’s response to the situation impacting the course of the protests? Are more strikes reflecting other grievances being planned?

OT: An AKP spokesman admitted that they had “only achieved to bring together many disparate groups in the streets.” Erdogan’s arrogance and insistence on never stepping back helped the protests to grow bigger. This was the real cause of his first serious defeat in 11 years – the police retreated from Taksim and tens of thousands of people occupied the park to turn it into a festival area. Now the movement’s main aim is to save the park from being destroyed and to oppose the government’s plans to restructure Taksim as a whole.

AO: What about the kind of police brutality used and the fresh demand for the removal of the interior minister?

OT: The interior minister has said that 1,730 people were arrested during the protests. Hundreds were injured by police attacks which were truly brutal, not only in Istanbul but across the country. So the resignation of the interior minister, the governor of Istanbul and the chief of police are important demands.

AO: What about your own experience of the protests? Did you really call Taksim Square Tahrir?

OT: Mass protests on the streets were really very inspiring for two days – Friday and Saturday. The soul of the movement was like that of Tahrir. Many activists were explicitly referring to Tahrir Square . Tens of thousands resisted the police with no fear.

When Gezi Park was won, many ordinary people celebrated and then went back to their homes and work. Then came the growing influence of pro-army nationalists, mostly CHP voters, trying to turn the protest into something that pushes the military to take action against the government. These people are hostile to Kurds and Armenians, oppose the peace negotiations with the Kurds (which is a historic turning point for democracy in Turkey ) and call the prime minister “a national traitor”.

In 1997, mass protests led by the left against the “deep state” were used by the military to force the Islamist government of the time to resign. There are some groups who are trying to do that now – their presence is a growing threat for the mass movement. It splits and weakens us. But they have not so far succeeded in hijacking the movement.

This is a serious ideological struggle we need to win. We are against this government not because it is Islamic, but because it is conservative and neo-liberal. It is a legitimate, elected government and therefore we do not want it to be overthrown by unelected armed forces. We want it to be overthrown by the mass movement of the people.

By Nile Bowie

June 04, 2013

Fresh allegations of hacking and cyber-theft between China and the United States as well as resources channeled into cyber-warfare and digital troops by both superpowers show uncertain diplomatic terrain ahead.

As the Obama administration imposes gouging cuts on fundamental social spending, the White House is allocating $13 billion for the US Cyber Command, tasked with waging ‘offensive cyber strikes’ to defend the homeland. In ‘Pentagonese’ that translates to building malicious computer viruses designed to subvert disable, and destroy targets and their computer-controlled infrastructure.

Gen. Keith Alexander, who leads both the Cyber Command and the NSA, even claimed that 13 of the 40 existing cyber battalions are tasked specifically with waging pre-emptive attacks against other countries.

In keeping with the logic of American exceptionalism, which supposes that the US maintain unrivalled supremacy in every tactical or military field, the Pentagon is now working in earnest to extend its dominance to cyberspace.

It’s no secret that China has made the modernization of its armed forces a top priority. As Beijing develops new types of hardware, including aircraft carriers, strategic missile submarines and advanced aircraft, white papers issued by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) highlight the desire to digitalize the nation’s military by utilizing modern information technology.

Washington is no stranger to scare tactics, and as establishment figures routinely warn of America’s power grids and financial systems being overtaken by e-terrorists, the US is positioning itself to enact that same scenario onto others under the guise of national defense.

While the US gives itself the space to pre-emptively cyber-strike others with impunity, the Pentagon says that any computer-based attacks and hacking from foreign countries can be considered acts of war, which could merit a ’use of force’ retaliation.

The US Cyber Command is part of a worldwide offensive cyber warfare system that includes all branches of the US military, in addition to our friends in NATO – its chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, even went as far as saying that he wants to “extend the definition of attacks which trigger activation of the alliance to include cyber attacks.” While the US devises ways to warmonger through programming code, President Obama provocatively phoned Chinese President Xi Jinping immediately after his inauguration in March to demand that Beijing stop hacking, a charge China vehemently denies. Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas Donilon, also called out China by name during a speech, lamenting how “the international community cannot tolerate such activity from any country.” (Except the United States, obviously.)

Crying foul over China

The Obama administration accuses Chinese hackers of waging cyber-attacks on a number of US entities, including billion-dollar corporations and governmental departments, and Beijing has recently been charged with stealing blueprints for combat aircraft as such the F/A-18 fighter jet and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, in addition to specs on naval vessels and missile defense systems.

The Chinese Defense Ministry dismissed the accusations as ridiculous, saying that the US underestimates the intelligence of the Chinese people and their capacity to develop tactically competitive military technology.

US security experts also previously claimed that a 12-story office building on the outskirts of Shanghai was the headquarters of an elusive squadron of the PLA operating under the name Unit 61398, tasked with attacking international computer networks and engaging in espionage.

Beijing claims that findings lack technical proof, because the report relied solely on suspicious IP addresses that originate in China, which the Defense Ministry suggests can be easily usurped by hackers outside of China. In truth, there is a glaring absence of any cyber-smoking gun that definitively corroborates US claims. However, it remains highly plausible that Beijing would have an interest in obtaining the intimate tech-specs of Washington’s military hardware to reverse engineer it and build more reliable defensive mechanisms for itself. After all, China is being encircled by a pivoting military power that has waged aggressive wars outside of international law – any Beijing-backed espionage seen through this perspective becomes understandable. Ironically enough, the Chinese embassy in Washington claims it is a victim of computer hacking that originates in the United States.

Let’s ask the Iranians

Its common knowledge that Israel and the United States engineered the Stuxnet virus that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear facility in Natanz, it was even claimed by people close to the matter that it was President Obama’s personal directive. Stuxnet remains the most sophisticated malware discovered thus far, the virus targets industrial systems such as nuclear power plants and electrical grids from a Microsoft Windows-based PC. The virus exploits security gaps referred to as zero-day vulnerabilities to attack specific targets; the Pentagon reportedly pays top dollar to get its hands on such programming vulnerabilities, which are the essential ingredient in any cyber-weapon.

An aerial view of the Pentagon building in Washington (Reuters / Jason Reed JIR / CN)

Upon delivery of the Stuxnet payload via USB, the malicious malware manipulated the operating speed of centrifuges spinning nuclear fuel to create distortions that deliberately damaged the machines, while disabling emergency controls. Stuxnet took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges spinning uranium at the facility, while numerous Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated.

Even after acts of overt hostility and open sabotage, Iran’s response has been completely muted. If the shoe was on the other foot, could the United States ever exercise the same restraint? By the Pentagon’s definition, it would have the legal right to retaliate with force if ever found itself on the receiving end of a Stuxnet-type virus.

When asked about the Stuxnet worm in a press conference, former White House WMD Coordinator Gary Samore boasted, “I’m glad to hear they are having troubles with their centrifuge machines, and the US and its allies are doing everything we can to make it more complicated.” Never in any of the detailed exposés published in the New York Times and elsewhere on the Stuxnet episode, is there any moral or legal questioning of Washington and Tel Aviv’s blatantly illegal tactics; mainstream reports on the subject read more like White House press statements than anything that resembles journalism.

Who’s hacking who?

Congress claims that poor internet security has surpassed terrorism to become the single greatest threat to the homeland, and ironically, US tax dollars are flowing to skilled hackers affiliated with criminal groups who supply government agencies with vulnerabilities in existing software programs. Because these vulnerabilities are the main components of cyber-weapons, security holes in widely used software remain unrepaired. Reuters has even suggested that Washington is “encouraging hacking and failing to disclose to software companies and customers the vulnerabilities exploited by the purchased hacks.” 

Despite the posturing and scare tactics, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was only a “remote chance” of a serious cyber-attack on the US. Clapper also spoke about how cyber-theft directly threatened “America’s economic competitiveness and innovation edge,” suggesting that the US Cyber Command serves a dual economic purpose.

Washington’s Cyber Command takes a two-prong approach: it’s tasked with churning out malicious cyber-weapons like Stuxnet while stringently guarding the intellectual property and data of major US corporations. Claims of China being involved in hacking and cyber-theft should not be dismissed off the bat, but if Beijing is indeed stealing military secrets from the US, it is likely motivated by genuine defensive concerns and its own IT sovereignty. Just as Washington partners itself with questionable figures and organizations to execute its foreign policy objectives, the Pentagon’s warm embrace of hackers is bound to create some form of e-blowback in due time. This much is clear – Cyber-Imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism – somebody pass Lenin the memo.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Nile Bowie is a political analyst and photographer currently residing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.