Archives: Articles

By Nile Bowie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mideast Buying Lifts Stagnant Global Market

By AARON MEHTA and ZACHARY FRYER-BIGGS

12 November 2012

@ defensenews.com

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

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

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

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

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

More from our special report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missile Defense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Niall Green

12 November, 2012

@ WSWS.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Countercurrents.org

12 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The idea is likely to meet resistance from America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

By John Pilger

11 November, 2012

@ Johnpilger.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Franklin Lamb

11 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Damascus: Over the past twenty months, as the Syrian crisis continued beyond most early predictions, this observer learned something about the Syrian people that I had known for decades about Palestinians. And that is their great concern for their countrymen wherever they are found and whatever their current condition. When I am in Syria I am frequently asked “how are our people doing in Lebanon as refugees from this crisis?” In Lebanon, I am often asked “how are our (internal) refugees in Syria and what of our people in Jordan, Iraq or Turkey, how are they being treated and are they getting the basic necessities they need to live?”

And many Syrian refugees there are these bitter days. As of early November, 2012, close to 700,000 have fled their country with the UN now expecting close to one million by early next year if the fighting does not stop. Soon, it is likely that there will be close to 2 million displaced persons inside Syria according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). There are currently, according to the 10/12 UNHCR Syrian Refugee Report, 205,000 in Jordan, approximately 60,000 in Iraq (the first known refugees who have sought refuge in Iraq during the past quarter century) 110,649 in Turkey and 110,095 in Lebanon. The true figures are higher by an estimated 13% if one were to include the many Syrian refugees who are unable or do not want to register with local authorities or NGO’s for various reasons.

“Many more Syrians have recently been displaced within our borders and we are bracing for a long conflict.” Dr. Abdul Rahman Attar, Director of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent told this observer during a meeting in his Damascus office. Dr. Attar explained that “internally displaced persons” now exceed 1.5 million and close to 8.5% of the entire population have fled their homes during the last 19 months of conflict. Nearly 400,000 in Damascus alone. Panos Moumtzis, UNHCR’s regional co-coordinator for Syrian refugee’s advised that more than 3,000 refugees flee to neighboring countries every day, or approximately 90,000 per month. Both agree that due to the collapse of public services, and given that perhaps 1.2 million people need humanitarian aid inside the country, it brings the total number of Syrians requiring some form of relief to 2.7 million – or roughly 12 per cent of the total population.

Politicizing Humanitarian Aid

Whereas in Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq, official refugee camps are providing shelter at no cost to more than a quarter million Syrian refugees, the government in Lebanon has not yet permitted the construction of similar sites due to confessional fears that perhaps a political or other advantage might somehow accrue to a rival sect-once more exposing how deeply its current anarchist confessionalist arrangement paralyzes Lebanon. Unfortunately it is the same mentality and prejudices that so far has prevented Palestinian refugees in Lebanon from being granted the same elementary civil rights to work and to own a home that Syria and every other country granted the victims of the Zionist colonial enterprise usurpation of Palestine, six decades ago.

The number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon who fled the violence in their homeland have increased sectarian tensions with one result being Syrian workers and refugees being targeted by elements of the Lebanese government. This despite the enormous aid Syria gave Lebanese refugees during the 2006 war when hundreds of thousands of Lebanese sought safety next door in Syria. Nadim Houry, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa for Human Rights Watch, has documented growing political harassment of Syrian workers in Lebanon. He reports: “We’ve seen the army and the police detaining and roughing up a number of Syrian workers. Most recently, the Lebanese army beat up 72 workers; most of them were Syrian,” Houry reported. “The Lebanese army rounded up the migrant men in the neighborhood and decided to ‘teach them a lesson’ instead of doing police work.”

Against this dismal backdrop one can find across the border in Syria hope and even inspiration. It is coming from the Syrian people themselves and their mainly Arab friends. Between 10,000 and 11,000 volunteers, including Iraqi and Palestinian refugees, are manning across Syria more than 80 Syrian Arab Red Crescent Society (SARC) aid “sub-stations.” These include more than a dozen mobile clinics and pharmacies as well as 10 “on the spot readiness centers.” Depending on the level of localized conflict on any given day, SARC volunteers operate 24/7 anywhere from 6 and 30 ambulances, as they liaise with the Palestine Red Crescent Society volunteers, among others. Since mid-summer, SARC volunteers have been opening centers for psychological support services for children as well as adults. Recently a phone “hotline” has been set-up to help citizens find emergency help. International volunteers are most welcomed at any of SARC’s centers.

SARC’s volunteers have recently been praised by the UN World Food Program and many others for their work delivering humanitarian aid to internal refugees here in Syria. They distribute necessities of life during the chaos and killing to their fellow countrymen without regard to religion or political views. Foreign donor countries giving the most support currently include Germany, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy and Britain. Others help as well, including money and foodstuffs from Iran and cash from the American Red Cross, the latter channeled through the ICRC so as not to raise Congressional outcries about possible violations of heavy US sanctions being imposed on the Syrian people.

Founded in 1942, as the French colonizers withdrew from this 7000 year old civilization which they occupied in 1917, as part of the English-French Sykes-Picot arrangement, the Syria Arab Red Crescent society became linked with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1946. SARC receives no government funding. This observer had the opportunity to meet SARC staff and volunteers of such singular commitment to helping their countrymen that more than a dozen have given their lives while trying to bring assistance to those stranded in Homs, Aleppo, Idlib, Deraa and elsewhere. One SARC team leader to me: “When one of our people is killed we bury the martyr and by the next morning we have 20 or more new volunteers who want to take their place and bring aid to those trapped in the most dangerous areas. I must tell you that this hell we are living through-we are confronting directly—it has made me very proud of my people and to be Syrian. Enshallah, we will overcome this chaos and killing and we will be stronger than before as a people.”

At the United Nations on 11/5/12, a top relief official said the UN aid effort in Syria, which means mainly SARC’s volunteers, “is very dangerous and very difficult.” The official, John Ging, director of operations of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, stated that the aid efforts in Syria (mainly being done by SARC volunteers) was supplying 1.5 million people in with food and that nearly half was being delivered into areas of conflict, but “there are areas beyond our reach, particularly areas under opposition control for quite a long time.”

Despite UNCHR’s role in studying the refugee problem and coordinating yet more studies and some registration of aid applicants during the current crisis, some familiar with its activities in Syria, including a few other NGO’s and some Syrian officials, have been critical of its performance to date. One highly respected governmental official told this observer recently, “I said to UNCHR’s local administration, “We have noticed the many fine vehicles that you flew into Syria, and we have met some of the well paid staff that you have brought to help us, but please can you show us that you have to date delivered even one loaf of bread to our desperate people?”

In fairness to UNCHR, after an admittedly slow start in Syria, it has recently picked up steam and its international staff is learning much from the local Syrian Arab Red Crescent volunteers.

Nor is SARC is without its critics.

Tawfik Chamaa, spokesman for the Union of Syrian Medical Relief Organizations (UOSSM) speaking from his comfortable Geneva office issued an ad holmium broadside on 11/6/12 against the Syrian Arab Red Crescent Society and its nearly 11,000 volunteers. He charged that cash or materials sent to SARC was being “confiscated by the regime. It will not reach the civilians who are bombed every day or besieged,” telling reporters in Geneva, “Ninety, even 95 percent of everything that is sent to Syrian Red Crescent headquarters in Damascus goes to support the Syrian regime, especially the soldiers.”

However, according to AFP, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN World Food Program (WFP), which both work closely with the Syrian Red Crescent Society, strongly denied their aid was being seized by the government or anyone else. This observer, during the late night of 11/7/12 contacted “Wassim”, a friend and a volunteer at the Damascus SARC HQ who last week arranged visits for me of SARC aid distribution centers and Wassim also flatly denied the UOSSM report. Wassim informed this observer on the evening of 11/7/12 that SARC will immediately prepare a response to the USOOM allegations.

UOSSM itself has been criticized, as have a few other NGO’s working in Syria, for becoming politicized, polarized and for being inordinately top heavy administratively with bloated salaries and ” humanitarian team leaders” sitting in offices in Paris or Geneva and elsewhere far from Syria. Mr. Chamaa, himself, is a high salaried founding member of the Western group of 14 aid organizations from countries including France, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States. According to SARC volunteers working in field aid distribution centers in Syria, Mr Chamaa could learn more were he to visit Syria and actually observe what’s happening on the ground before making unsupported claims. The UOSSM was set up at the beginning of the year mainly by Syrian doctors living in NATO countries. Some speculate that UOSSM hopes to be part of a possible future NATO affiliated “transition team” while others claim its political charges against SARC volunteers, without proof, are irresponsible and hurt those suffering most in Syria. The reason is because such alarmist press releases tend to damp down much needed donations of medical aid and necessities. This affects directly the 1.5 million people inside Syria who are in need of emergency humanitarian aid.

In response to Charmaa’s sensationalistic headline grabbing charges, UN World Food Program spokeswoman Elisabeth Byrs told the media on 11/7/12: ”I believe there is absolutely no confiscation. WFP food monitors are able to visit most areas to check that food is reaching the people who need it most. Even in some dangerous areas, they use WFP armored vehicles.” She insisted that the Red Crescent, “as the designated coordinator of humanitarian assistance in Syria, operates through branches in an independent manner”.

The ICRC said it was aware of Chamaa’s allegations. Its HQ stated on 11/7/12: “Whenever such facts are clearly established, which does not appear to be the case in Syria, we treat them very seriously and would address directly the management of (the Syrian Red Crescent) and Syrian authorities” ICRC spokeswoman Anastasia Isyuk stressed that the ICRC and the Syrian Red Crescent “strive to assist all populations in need without any discrimination, which is a challenging task given the deteriorating humanitarian situation and security conditions.” The ICRC and SARC volunteers recently managed to deliver medical and food aid to 1,200 people in the Old City of Homs, and since the beginning of the year they have provided food, water and other assistance to more than one million people across Syria, according to ICRC spokeswoman Anastasia Isyuk, and as reported by AFP.

On 11/8/12 exhibiting exasperation, a sense of foreboding and just a whiff of defeatism, ICRC president Peter Maurer to a conference in Geneva that “We are in a situation where the humanitarian situation due to the conflict is getting worse. And we can’t cope with the worsening of the situation. We have a lot of blank spots, we know that no aid has been there and I can’t tell you what the situation is or what we can do.”

In a late breaking development Friday morning, 11/9/12, the UN human rights chief expressed concern after the ICRC said it was struggling to deliver aid in war-ravaged Syria. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told AFP during an interview at the Bali Democracy Forum in Indonesia: “The fact that they’ve now said they are unable to perform their core functions makes the humanitarian crisis in Syria extremely critical. Nearly hopeless.”

Don’t tell that to Zeinab Tamari, a thirties something Palestinian volunteer from the Yarmouk Palestinian Refugee Camp in Damascus who is traveling across Syria bringing aid and relief to her fellow Arabs.

And don’t tell either it to Syrian student Mahar Saad whose home was destroyed during fighting in Homs and who daily risks his life remaining in his neighborhood helping his neighbors despite losing family members in the fighting. Both are SARC volunteers appeared without being asked at one of the aid organizations outlets across Syria to help. They inspire hope for Syria and for all humanity, regardless of the outcome of the current crisis.

The staff and volunteers who perform the Syrian Arab Red Crescent Society’s humanitarian work undertaken in the main by Syrians for Syrians, with Syrians are a credit to their country and warrant the blessings and support all people of good will as they risk their lives to bring aid to their countrymen.

Franklin Lamb just returned to Beirut from Damascus and is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

By Kourosh Ziabari

11 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

It’s not my words, but I’ve learnt it from tens of foreign tourists, journalists and academicians who have traveled to Iran in the recent years, that Iran is the most misrepresented and misunderstood country in the world.

In a concerted and mischievous attempt, the world’s mainstream media have started to pull out all the stops in order to portray Iran a dangerous, abnormal, weird and horrible country which is seeking to develop nuclear weapons in order to annihilate Israel. Iranians are brazenly depicted as fanatics, terrorists and uncivilized people and the whole Iran is shown as an out-of-the-way desert in which no trace of civilization, urban life and modernity can be found.

Demonizing and isolating Iran can be seen as part of a comprehensive and multifaceted campaign of ostracizing and vilifying the Muslim world which has been intensified since the 9/11 attacks which were blamed on the Muslims and set in motion the Global War on Terror.

Before coming to Iran, every foreign tourist fears that he might be killed, or at least arrested as a spy. They perceive Iran in terms of the stereotypes and clichés which the mainstream media present to them, and many of them are even unaware of the fact that Iranians are the same Persians who lived in the Ancient Persia for more than 7,500 years.

There are some famous myths about Iran which many people across the world have come to believe, and I would like to rebuff them here as best as I can:

1- Iranians are terrorists

If we interpret and translate “terrorism” as an act of coercing, terrorizing or killing innocent people with the objective of spreading horror or showing off prowess and influence, Iran cannot be called a terrorist or even a state sponsor of terrorism as the ardent enemies of Iran maintain. The last time that Iran invaded and attacked a sovereign nation dates back to 1738, when the Afsharid king Nadir Shah invaded India. This means that for the past 274 years, Iran has been a pacifist country which has never harmed or harassed other countries, even its neighbors, despite the fact that many of its neighbors have been constantly provoking and intriguing it confrontationally.

Compare this fact with the ceaseless, bloody wars which the United States has been involved in. Since its independence in 1776, the United States has been engaged in more than 50 military expeditions. In his groundbreaking 2011 book “The Deaths of Others”, American public intellectual and Executive Director and a Principal Research Scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies John Tirman discusses in details the casualties caused by the U.S. wars throughout the past three centuries. Unlike many of us who don’t dare to question the inattentiveness of the U.S. public and mainstream media to the civilian casualties of the wars Uncle Sam wages, Tirman documents in detail “the fate of civilians in the America’s wars.” Tirman admits in his book that between six and seven million people were killed in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq wars alone, the majority of whom were innocent civilians. We don’t need to be a history expert to figure out how many unarmed civilians, including women and children, died in the military expeditions of the U.S. around the world. In an inclusive study carried out by James A. Lucas, published on Counter Currents in 2007, the civilian casualties of the U.S. wars were documented elaborately.

“The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan,” he writes.

Just imagine for a moment that it were Iran that had destroyed and claimed the lives of several millions of innocent citizens in tens of wars and attacks on other countries. What would have happened? So, who does really deserve the title of “state sponsor of terrorism?” Is it that being killed at the hands of an American soldier is an honor? Is it that the U.S. has the right to wipe out thousands of lives at will, without being held responsible?

2- Iranians are uncivilized

Many of those who think of Iran as an uncivilized and uncultured country are simply unaware of the realities of Iran’s impressive and ancient culture, civilization. Iran is the oldest country in the world in terms of formation date. The first urban settlements in Ancient Persia date back to 4,000 BC, and it’s widely believed that the first Persian Empire was established in 3,200 BC. The earliest archaeological artifacts in Iran were found in the Kashafrud and Ganj Par sites in the Lower Paleolithic age, that is, around 300,000 years ago.

The Middle East’s largest museum of Paleolithic Age artifacts is located in the Iranian city of Kermanshah. The world’s oldest artificial water reservoirs are located in Iran. Iran is the world’s number one producer and exporter of hand-made carpets, which is an inseparable constituent of Persian culture. The world’s largest collection of imperial jewels belongs to Iran. Iranian architecture is one of the hallmarks of Islamic architecture and tens of magnificent ancient mosques, caravanserais, churches, bridges and palaces which can be found all around Iran testify to the fact that Iranian architecture is an unparalleled legacy which doesn’t have any competitor in the world.

Iranians have historically made invaluable and priceless contributions to world culture, science, economy and lifestyle. It might be interesting for you to know that the first bricks to be used in architectural designs were made by Iranians. The earliest ziggurat was constructed in Iran in the Sialk historical site. Around 5,000 BC, Iranians were the first people to invent Tar (lute) which subsequently lead to the development of guitar. The world’s first declaration of human rights was compiled in Iran by Cyrus the Great from 576 to 529 BC in what is today known as the Cyrus Cylinder which is being kept in the British Museum. The world’s first Yakhchal (ancient refrigerator) was designed in Iran in around 400 BC. According to archaeological findings, Iranians invented the first batteries which they supposedly used for electroplating. Iranian scientist Rhazes was the first scholar in the world who introduced the systematic use of alcohol in Medicine in around 846 AD. The Canon of Medicine which is seen as one of the most fundamental and foundational manuals in the history of modern medicine was written by Iranian scientist Avicenna almost one thousand years ago.

But let’s forget about all of the cultural and scientific breakthroughs and achievements of Iranians throughout the course of history. What makes Iranian people different from the other nations and gives them a unique and matchless identity is their sense of civility, courtesy and modesty. You can never find in Iranian movies and films that kind of violence and aggressiveness which is rampant in the American movies. The daily conversations of Iranians with each other are resplendent with proverbs, poetry and literary connotations. Compliment to the women, the elderly and children, is part of Iranian lifestyle and culture. Modesty and humility is a virtue among Iranians, while in many Western countries, the more assertive and forceful you are, the more acceptable you will be. These are things which many people don’t know about Iran.

3- Iranian government represses the women

The dogma that Iran is not a safe place for women and that the Iranian government represses and suppresses the women is believed by many people around the world, and the reason is the malicious machinations of the mainstream media. There’s no shred of evidence to verify this claim, while there’s a plethora of evidence confirming the opposite.

While the women in Saudi Arabia, a stalwart ally of the United States, don’t have the right to vote in elections or drive cars, Iranian women run the universities, scientific institutes and even governmental positions. Iran’s health minister, Dr. Marzieh Vahid Dastjerdi, is a woman. Iran’s vice president in charge of science and research affairs is a woman. For many years, the head of Iran’s department of environment was a woman, namely Dr. Masoumeh Ebtekar. According to Iran’s Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, 60% of the newly enrolled students of Iranian universities in 2012 were female. I don’t know what criteria do the opponents of Iranian government need to base their judgment of the state of Iranian women on. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iranian Parliament (Majlis) has had several female MPs each term. If the number of female MPs has not equaled that of the male MPs, it is not because the government has imposed a certain restriction. It’s simply because the people have not voted for them! I think in some cases, the government has been even more lenient to the women than to the men. It’s an unwritten international custom that women, like the men, will be recruited to attend military service, but in Iran, the women are exempted from conscription, because the government thinks it might be harmful to them. So, can anybody tell me please, in what ways does the Iranian government repress the women?

4- Iran is developing nuclear weapons

Yes; there has been a huge controversy over Iran’s nuclear program, but I think those who have created such a hullabaloo have hardly forgotten the fact that Iran’s nuclear program was initiated by the U.S. government in 1950s in the framework of the Atoms for Peace program by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. At that time, Iran was still a U.S. ally, and thus entitled to develop nuclear energy. Now that Iran is not the staunch ally of the United States, it should not be granted the right to have nuclear energy, even for peaceful purposes. Just think about the depth of the hypocrisy!

Those who pretend that Iran intends to create nuclear weapons don’t have any evidence to validate their claim. It’s again the black propaganda of the mainstream media that induces the people to think this way. Despite the fact that Iran is under four rounds of sanctions by the United Nations Security Council and different types of sanctions by the United States and its allies, no report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could provide credible evidence and document that Iran’s nuclear program has a military dimension. Even the 2010 National Intelligence Estimate report affirmed that Iran does not have an intention to build nuclear weapons. So, I can’t really understand why do the United States and its European allies are so much adamantly insisting that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and should be stopped.

The sanctions which the United States and EU have imposed on Iran are taking a heavy toll on the ordinary Iranian citizens. The citizens are denied access to medicine, foodstuff, humanitarian goods and other basic commodities as a result of the sanctions. The value of Iranian currency (rial) has depreciated incredibly and the businessmen are facing serious problems importing goods from other countries. Foreign travelling has become unbelievably difficult due to the skyrocketing hike in the air travel expenses and also since the foreign embassies in Iran have created serious obstacles in issuing visas for Iranian citizens.

This is an unspeakable collective punishment of Iranians for a crime they have never committed.

There are many other myths about Iran and daily life in Iran which need to be exposed to the people around the world; however, I discussed some of the most egregious ones here. Those who have realized the realities of Iran will laugh at and ridicule the falsehood and misinformation which the propaganda machinery of the West fabricates about Iran. Maybe the best example of the dedication and commitment of an American citizen to the “real” Iran is incarnated in Prof. Richard Nelson Frye, the American Iranologist of the Harvard University who asked the Iranian president a few years ago to be allowed to be buried near the ancient Iranian city of Isfahan after his death.

Let’s put out of your mind the propaganda and media hype about Iran. You can know this misunderstood country only when you throw away the preconceptions and dedicate a few weeks to travel to the world’s oldest civilization and see with your own eyes what you cannot ever see or find on Fox News, CNN, BBC, Washington Post and New York Times.

Kourosh Ziabari is an award-winning Iranian journalist and media correspondent. In 2010, he received the national medal of Superior Iranian Youth from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his media activities. He writes for Global Research, Counter Currents, Tehran Times, Iran Review and other publications across the world. His articles and interviews have been translated in 10 languages.

By Glenn Greenwald

09 November 12

@Guardian UK

    Its Pentagon reporter parrots significant, inflammatory government claims without an iota of skepticism or balance

Barbara Starr, CNN’s Pentagon reporter (more accurately known as: the Pentagon’s reporter at CNN), has an exciting exclusive today. Exclusively relying upon “three senior officials” in the Obama administration (all anonymous, needless to say), she claims that “two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed US Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf last week,” while “the drone was in international airspace east of Kuwait . . . engaged in routine maritime surveillance.” The drone was not hit, but, says CNN, “the incident raises fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.”

First things first: let us pause for a moment to extend our thoughts and prayers to this US drone. Although it was not physically injured, being shot at by the Iranians – while it was doing nothing other than peacefully minding its own business – must have been a very traumatic experience. I think I speak on behalf of everyone, regardless of political views, when I say that we all wish this brave hero a speedy recovery and hope it is back in full health soon, protecting our freedom.

The CNN report on this incident is revealing indeed. Every paragraph – literally – contains nothing but mindless summaries of the claims of US government officials. There is not an iota of skepticism about any of the assertions, including how this incident happened, what the drone was doing at the time, or where it took place. It is pure US government press release – literally; I defy anyone to identify any differences if the US government had issued its own press release directly rather than issuing it masquerading as a leaked CNN report.

Most notably, CNN does not even bother with the pretense of trying to include the claims of the Iranian government about what happened. There is no indication that the self-described news outlet even made an effort to contact Tehran to obtain their rendition of these events or even confirmation that it occurred. It simply regurgitates the accusations of anonymous US officials that Iran, with no provocation, out of the blue decided to shoot at a US drone in international airspace. (Although CNN does not mention it, last December Iran shot down a US drone which, it claims (and the US does not deny) was in Iranian air space).

That CNN’s prime mission is to serve the US government is hardly news. But given the magnitude of these kinds of accusations – their obvious ability, if not intent, to bolster animosity on the part of the US public toward Iran and heighten tensions between the two nations – shouldn’t CNN at least pretend to be a bit more skeptical and even-handed about how it is reporting these claims? Anonymous Bush officials claim Saddam is reconstituting his nuclear program; anonymous Obama officials claim Iran illegally shot at a US drone for no reason.

But nothing can top this sentence from CNN, intended to explain the significance of this alleged event: “Iran has, at times, been confrontational in the region.” Yes, indeed they have – in stark contrast to the peaceful United States, which never is. Or, as Jeremy Scahill put it today, anticipating how Starr might present her report on-air on CNN later today: “Iran, which has launched airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and [holding earpiece] — wait, what’s that, Wolf? Oh, right. The US, which has…” Scahill was being a bit generous to Wolf Blitzer there, who would be far more likely to add; “yes, that’s right, Barbara: and we should also remind our viewers how Iran, just a few short years ago, attacked its neighbor Iraq, destroyed the country, and then occupied it for almost a decade, showing how aggressive the mullahs are willing to be in this region.”

In case any of you thought the US media would change its future behavior in light of the debacle during the run-up to the Iraq War – and, really, were any of you thinking they would? – this is your answer. The pre-Iraq-War behavior wasn’t an abandonment of their purpose but the supreme affirmation of it: to drape the claims of the US government with independent credibility, dutifully serve its interests, and contrive an appearance of a free press. This is our adversarial, watchdog media in action.

Iranian Evil

This all reminds me of a debate I did a couple years ago on MSNBC with Arianna Huffington and the Washington Post’s Jonathan Caephart over Iran and whether it should be viewed as an aggressor and enemy of the US. For most of the debate, MSNBC kept showing scary video footage of a test of a mid-range missile which Iran had just conducted, and then Capehart picked up on that to tell me, in essence: how can you say Iran isn’t aggressive when they’re testing these missiles? Yes, because, clearly, countries of peace (such as the US and Israel) would never do something as belligerent as testing missiles, much like no real Country of Peace would ever want to acquire a nuclear weapon.

UPDATE

The Washington Post’s report describes the incident as having taken place “near Iranian airspace”, and then posts a map to illustrate just how close. Like CNN, though, the Post bases all of its “reporting” on what the US government claims, and does not indicate that it even attempted to obtain comment from the Iranians, simply noting instead that “Iranian media had not reported on the Nov. 1 incident as of Thursday afternoon.”

Moreover, if it turns out that the claim of the US government is accurate and the drone was just outside of Iran’s airspace: does anyone have any thoughts on what the fate would be of an Iranian drone that was found just outside the airspace of the US on the Eastern seaboard, or right near Israeli airspace? I suspect that a lot more than an Iranian drone would be shot at. I’m also quite certain that, in reporting on such an incident, CNN and the Washington Post would be certain to include the views of the US or Israeli governments.

UPDATE II [Fri.]

The Christian Science Monitor this morning reports that an Iranian general on Thursday did not deny the incident but “appeared to hint that the US drone was in fact over Iranian waters – less than 12 nautical miles from the coastline – and that Iran would take on any intruder.” CSM quotes Brig. Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, deputy chairman of the Iran Chiefs of Staff, as saying this about the incident, as reported by Iran’s media: “If any aircraft seeks to enter our country’s airspace, our armed forces will confront it.”

Moreover, CSM acted like a real journalistic outlet by prominently noting: “There was no way to independently confirm the Pentagon’s account, and correct facts have not always been initially forthcoming in past US-Iran incidents in the Persian Gulf.” It then detailed several historical events when the US government’s claims about Iran were proven to be false, including: “the US Navy was found to have covered up critical details of the 1988 shooting down by the USS Vincennes of an Iranian commercial jet over the Persian Gulf, which killed all 290 on board.” That is what skepticism in journalism is.

Meanwhile, the Iranian defense minister today confirmed that Iran shot at a US drone, which he said had “entered the space over the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf area”. It will likely never be known for certain whether the US drone was within Iran’s airspace or just outside of it (though even the Post, citing a US spokesman, notes: “An Iranian Su-25 fighter jet pursued the U.S. drone as it retreated from Iranian airspace”). But recall that last month, Israel shot down a surveillance drone in its airspace launched by Hezbollah. The difference in reaction to that incident and this one is stark and telling indeed. It is incidents like this one when the imperial mentality of the US government, its media and some of its citizenry becomes manifest: it is completely different when we do it than when it is done to us.

Finally, note that the CNN article has been changed substantially since it was first posted, and now includes a reference to the December 2011 incident where Iran shot down a US drone. These multiple changes did not, however, improve on any of the fundamental flaws in its reporting on this incident. Read the CSM account to see how responsible adversarial journalism is done.

By Rolly Montpellier

09 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Climate Change and its Effects on Food Production

In a recent post I wrote about Overpopulation: Food Crisis and future Hunger Wars. The article focused on the impact of the population explosion on food supplies – will there be enough food for a population of 9 billion in 2050? There are many interrelated and complex factors affecting worldwide food production. Climate change is singularly the most critical factor.

The “Final” Wake-up Call

There have been many so-called wake-up calls about the environmental slippery slope humanity finds itself on. The summer of 2012 – raging wildfires, drought, extreme heat, (more than 3000 high-temperature records broken) “affecting 87 per cent of the land dedicated to growing corn, 63 per cent of the land for hay and 72 per cent of the land used for cattle” and now hurricane Sandy. Americans collectively have reached the “wow” moment. Even prior to hurricane Sandy, 70% of Americans believed that climate change is not a hoax. See previous blog – Common Sense Revolution.

The U.S. drought is having global effects as the world’s biggest grain exporter struggles with shortfalls. Drought conditions affected over more than 60 percent of the lower 48 states, the government said. The same is happening elsewhere around the globe.

A Centre for Strategic & International Studies report by (Johanna Nesseth Tuttle & Anna Applefield) stresses that corn prices have risen 45 per cent since mid-June as a result of the drought. Global food prices are at an all-time high. Since the United States is the world’s top exporter of both of these crops, significant disruptions in domestic production can impact global food prices. In fact, 40 percent of the wheat and soya beans traded on the global market last year were grown in the United States.

Climate change is now widely believed to be the cause of the intensification of weather patterns that disrupt food production around the globe. Human-induced climate change will intensify the geographic extent, duration and severity of storms – winds, flooding, drought, extreme heat and snowfalls.

“Perhaps the biggest single question about climate change is whether people will have enough to eat in coming decades”, says Justin Gillis in the NYT Environment/Green Blog:

Rising temperatures during the growing season in many large producing countries are cutting yields below their potential, the research suggests. On top of that background factor, extreme events like droughts or torrential rains can destroy crops altogether. Extremes have always been part of the agricultural picture, of course, but they are expected to increase on a warming planet.

Extreme weather will intensify and aggravate future food crises. An article appearing in Arctic News recently highlights that:

Storms and floods do damage to crops and cause erosion of fertile topsoil, in turn causing further crop loss. Similarly, heatwaves, storms and wildfires do damage to crops and cause topsoil to be blown away, thus also causing erosion and further crop loss. Furthermore, they cause soot, dust and volatile organic compounds to settle on snow and ice, causing albedo loss and further decline of snow and ice cover.

Arctic News also features the Diagram of Doom which pictures three kinds of warming and 10 catastrophic feedbacks.

Changing extreme events

An IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (November 2011) highlights the following findings:

• Observations since 1950 show changes in some extreme events, particularly daily temperature extremes, and heat waves

• It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation will increase in the 21st century over many regions

• It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur…very likely—90 per cent to 100 per cent probability—that heat waves will increase in length, frequency, and/or intensity over most land areas.

• It is likely that the average maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones (also known as typhoons or hurricanes) will increase throughout the coming century

• There is evidence… that droughts will intensify over the coming century in southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa.

• It is very likely that average sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme sea levels in extreme coastal high water levels.

Impacts of Climate Change on Yield

The following excerpts are from a UNEP study about the impact of environmental changes on world food production – The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises:

Global climate change may impact food production across a range of pathways… 1) by changing… general rainfall distribution, temperature regime and carbon; 2) by inducing more extreme weather such as floods, drought and storms; and 3) by increasing extent, type and frequency of infestations

The estimated impacts of changes in the general climate regime vary with the different models in the short to mid-term (2030–2050), but after 2050 an increasing number of models agree on rising negative impacts

Furthermore, projected changes in the frequency and severity of extreme climate events are predicted to have more serious consequences for food

…by 2080, assuming a 4.4° C increase in temperature and a 2.9% increase in precipitation, global agricultural output potential is likely to decrease by about 6%, or 16% without carbon fertilization…as climate change increases, projections have been made that by 2080 agricultural output potential may be reduced by up to 60% for several African countries, on average 16–27%… these effects are in addition to general water scarcity as a result of melting glaciers, change in rainfall patterns, or overuse.

Impacts of Water Scarcity

Water is essential not only to human survival but in food production. The UNEP study reports that:

Agriculture accounts for nearly 70% of the water consumption, with some estimates as high as 85% (Hanasaki et al., 2008a,b). Water scarcity will affect over 1.8 billion people by 2025 (WHO, 2007).

Projections suggest that water demand is likely to double by 2050…one major factor beyond agricultural, industrial and urban consumption of water is the destruction of watersheds and natural water towers, such as forests in watersheds and wetlands, which also serve as flood buffers.

It is evident that in regions where snow and glacial mass are the primary sources of water for irrigation, such as in Central Asia, parts of the Himalayas Hindu Kush, China, India, Pakistan and parts of the Andes, melting will eventually lead to dramatic declines in the water available for irrigation, and hence, food production…of great importance, therefore, is the effect of climate change on the extent of snow and glacial mass and on the subsequent supply of water for irrigation. Climate change could seriously endanger the current food production potential, such as in the Greater Himalayas Hindu Kush region and in Central Asia. Currently, nearly 35% of the crop production in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan is based on irrigation, sustaining over 2.5 billion people. Here, water demand is projected to increase by at least 70–90% by 2050.

The wars of the future will be ‘Hunger Wars’ fought over the resources that are left.

Short Bio

I’m a blogger, writer and activist. My burning desire to do something about the plight of our world has resulted in the creation of a Blog that allows me to express my beliefs about our times. It is my vehicle to dialogue, to share my opinions and to scream for more social justice, true democracy, political correctness, a more mindful society, taking responsibility and ensuring a better future for my children and grandchildren. I owe them that much. That will be my legacy.

Website – BoomerWarrior.org

By Nile Bowie

After months of rhetoric and political campaigning, the smoke has finally cleared on the media frenzy that is the US Presidential Election. Once the winner of the race was announced, supporters at the Obama Campaign headquarters in Chicago jubilantly celebrated. The haze of American flags, pop music, and confetti worked wonders to mask the absence of any real political substance throughout the election process. Cheering supporters shouted “four more years” as President Obama took to the stage to deliver his victory speech – complete with highly emotional grandiloquence, two mentions of the US military being the strongest in the world, and of course – a joke about the family dog. After an exorbitant $6 billion spent by campaigns and outside groups in the primary, congressional and presidential races, Americans have reelected a president better suited for Hollywood than Washington. A 2010 ruling by the US Supreme Court that swept away limits on corporate contributions to political campaigns has paved the way for the most expensive election in American history, in the midst of an economic crisis nonetheless. [1]

In the nation that gave birth to the marketing concept of branding, it is to be assumed that politicians would eventually adopt the same techniques used to promote consumer products – enter Obama. After eight years under the Bush administration, America desperately needed change. Instead of any meaningful structural reform, America ushered in a global super star whose charm and charisma not only resuscitated American prestige, but also masked the continued dominance of deregulators, financiers, and war-profiteers. Obama’s most valuable asset is his brand, and his ability to channel the nostalgia of transformative social movements of the past, while serving as a tabula rasa of sorts to his supporters – an icon of hope who is capable of inspiring the masses and coaxing them into action – despite the Obama administration expanding the disturbing militaristic and domestic surveillance policies so characteristic of the Bush years, and channeling never before seen authority to the executive branch.

The American public at large is captivated by Barack’s contrived media personality and the grandeur of his political poetry and performance, and is therefore reluctant to acknowledge his enthusiastic continuation of the deeply unethical policies of his predecessor. Obama is indeed a leader suited for a new age, one of post-intellectualism and televised spectacle – a time when huge demographics of voters are more influenced by Jay-Z and Katy Perry’s endorsement of Obama over anything of political substance he preaches. [2]

While the US has historically exported “democracy promotion” through institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy (trends that have accelerated under the Obama administration), so few see the American electoral process for what it is – unacceptably expensive, filled with contrived debates, and subject to the kind of meticulous controls that America’s foreign adversaries are accused of presiding over.

A leaked ‘Memorandum of Understanding,’ signed by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, provides unique insight into the nature of the three televised debates, and the extent to which organizers went to prevent the occurrence of any form of unplanned spontaneity. [3] The document outlines how no members of the audience would be allowed to ask follow-up questions to the candidates, how microphones will be cut off right after questions were asked, and how any opportunities for follow-up questions from the crowd would be disregarded. In what was billed as a series of town-hall style debates where members of the community can come together and ask questions that reflect their concerns – in actuality, the two candidates dished out pre-planned responses to pre-approved questions, asked by pre-selected individuals. The political domination of the Republican and Democratic parties over the debates is nowhere more apparent than in the arrest of Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate, Cheri Honkala, as the two attempted to enter the site of the second presidential debate. [4]

Despite the obscurity and almost non-existent media presence of third party candidates, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party received 1% of the popular vote in the general election, amounting to over 1.1 million votes, the best in the history of the Libertarian Party. [5] In contrast to the choreographed exchanges offered by the televised debates between Obama and Romney, Moscow’s state-funded Russia Today news service offered third-party candidates an opportunity to voice their political programs in two debates aired on the channel. [6] Throughout these debates, third-party candidates spoke of repealing Obama’s authorization of indefinite detention through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the need for coherent environmental legislation, the gross misdirection of American foreign policy, the necessity of deep economic restructuring, and the illogicality of marijuana prohibition. In her closing statement at the debate, Green Party candidate Jill Stein brought up a significant point:

“They’re 90 million voters who are not coming out to vote in this election, that’s one out of every two voters – that’s twice as many as those who will come out for Barack Obama, and twice the number that will come out for Mitt Romney. Those are voters who are saying ‘No’ to politics as usual, and ‘No’ to the Democratic and Republican parties. Imagine if we got out word to those 90 millions voters, that they actually have a variety of choices and voices in this election.”

American presidential politics are not devoid of progressive voices, but in reality, America doesn’t need a third-party – it needs a second party. The overwhelming lack of choice offered by this election can only be attributable to the political duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties. As President Obama begins his second term and final term, some feel that this could be a chance for the White House to pursue more progressive ends – an opportunity for Obama to act on his own campaign rhetoric and roll back militarism and the influence of Wall St. financers. While such optimism may prevail in the minds of many, the fact that President Obama issued a drone strike that killed three people in Yemen just hours after being reelected is a telling sign of things to come from the Obama administration. [7] As the United States continues to project itself around the world as the definitive model of “freedom and democracy,” it is apparent that the central bankers, corporate financiers, and crony capitalists who control America’s electoral system did indeed learn a thing or two from communism:

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Notes

[1] US presidential election: Obama vs the Super PACs – How the incumbent prevailed, The Economic Times, November 8, 2012

[2] Katy Perry, Beyonce and Jay-Z lead stars voting for Barack Obama, Metro, November 6, 2012

[3] Obama and Romney agree to cowardly debates, Russia Today, October 16, 2012

[4] Police arrest US presidential candidate Jill Stein at debate site, Russia Today, October 17, 2012

[5] Gary Johnson Pulls One Million Votes, One Percent, Reason Foundation, November 7, 2012

[6] RT presents third-party presidential debate, Russia Today, October 19, 2012

[7] Yemen drone strike kills ‘al-Qaeda members’, Al-Jazeera, November 09, 2012

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