Archives: Articles

In Canada, Holocaust Memorial Day has been established by Heritage Canada to be on April 11. It is a good opportunity to review what we learn from the Holocaust experience and how we apply these lessons to the troubled situation in the Middle East.

This year, students in more than 60 cities took part in educational meetings on conditions in Palestine as part of Israeli Apartheid Week, held March 1–7. It is a controversial event, not popular in Canadian government circles. It is criticized for supposedly dishonouring the victims of Hitler’s holocaust.

I am a survivor of the Jewish Holocaust, the Nazis’ mass murder of Europe’s Jews. The tragic experience of my family and community under Hitler makes me alert to the suffering of other peoples denied their human rights today – including the Palestinians.

True, Hitler’s Holocaust was unique. The Palestinians are victims of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Hitler started with that, but went on to extermination. In my family’s city in Poland, Piotrkow, 99% of the Jews perished.

Yet for me, the Israeli government’s actions toward the Palestinians awaken horrific memories of my family’s experiences under Hitlerism: the inhuman walls, the check points, the daily humiliations, killings, diseases, the systematic deprivation. There’s no escaping the fact that Israel has occupied the entire country of Palestine, and taken most of the land, while the Palestinians have been expelled, walled off, and deprived of human rights and human dignity.

Many levels of government have recently been attacking the movement against Israeli apartheid, saying that it is anti-Jewish in character. This is bizarre. When Nelson Mandela opposed South African apartheid, was this anti-White? No, Mandela proposed that all South Africans, Whites included, join on a basis of democracy and equality in freeing the country from racial oppression. And that is precisely the proposal that the movement against Israeli apartheid makes to all inhabitants of Israel/Palestine.

We are told that Israeli Jews will never accept such a democratic solution. Why? Is there something wrong with their genes or their culture? The very notion is absurd – in fact, its logic is anti-Jewish. Opposition to Israeli apartheid is based on hope – a hope founded on the common humanity of the region’s Jewish and Palestinian inhabitants.

But my mother and father then lived in Paris. They were active in the ‘Union des Juifs,’ a Jewish resistance organization closely linked to socialist parties and other anti-Nazi groups. When the Nazis started rounding up Jews in France, the Union des Juifs hid thousands of Jewish children among anti-Nazis across the country. My parents were killed. But a brave peasant family in Auvergne, at great risk, took me in and hid me. And that is why I am here today.

The Nazis were routed, and the resistance dealt blows to racism that are felt in France even to this day.

There is a lesson here for us today. Hitler seemed all-powerful at the time. But he could not crush the resistance, a broad people’s alliance embracing many religions and many political viewpoints.

We need that kind of alliance in resisting oppression today – including the oppression of the Palestinians.

The right of exiled Palestinians to return to their country.

An end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

The right of Palestinians within Israel to full equality.

On July 9, 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the institutions of Israeli apartheid. The BDS movement helped to end the crime of South African apartheid. Since 2005, the BDS movement against Israeli apartheid movement has won wide support around the world.

Nelson Mandela, the great leader of BDS against South African Apartheid, said, that justice for the Palestinians is “the greatest moral issue of the age.”

As for the 7,000 self-haters, they need to add a couple of zeros to that total. In my experience, support of Palestine is stronger in the Jewish population than in society as a whole. And Jewish people work alongside their Palestinian brothers and sisters as a strong component of the Palestine solidarity movement.

Holocaust Awareness Week is an appropriate time to review our proud history as Jewish universalists, welcoming and encompassing humanity. We, as Jewish supporters of the Palestinians, stand on the finest traditions of Judaism, its great contributions to human religion, philosophy, science, and solidarity through the ages. The rights we expect for the Jewish people, we demand for all humanity – above all, for the Palestinians that the Israeli government oppresses in our name.

By Suzanne Weiss

One of the world’s foremost educators on Peak Oil, Richard Heinberg, in an exclusive interview for MMNews: “We are currently seeing the end of economic growth as we have known it.” Further on, he talks about the financial / economic crisis, monetary changes vis-à-vis a shrinking energy supply, and the Century of Declines: “Peak Everything.”

American journalist and writer Richard Heinberg is one of the world’s foremost Peak Oil educators. He has taught at New College of California’s Campus for Sustainable living a program on “Culture, Ecology and Sustainable Community” until March 2008 and is a Senior Fellow in Residence of the Post Carbon Institute in Santa Rosa, California. He is the award-winning author of nine books including:

The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (2003),

Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World (2004),

The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse (2006),

Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines in Earth’s Resources(2007).

His monthly MuseLetter has been published since 1992 and his essays and articles have appeared widely in such journals as The American Prospect, Public Policy Research, Quarterly Review, Z Magazine, Yes!, Resurgence, The Futurist and European Business Review. Moreover, he was featured prominently in documentary films such as “The End of Suburbia” (2004) by Gregory Greene and Barrie Silverthorne (see for more information:www.endofsuburbia.com). With a wry, unflinching approach based on facts and realism, Mr. Heinberg exposes the tenuousness of our current way of life and offers a vision for a truly sustainable future. Since 2002, he has given over three hundred lectures on the subject matter of Peak Oil to a wide variety of audiences. He and his wife Janet Barocco live in Santa Rosa, California

Mr. Heinberg, your most successful book-title to this date is ”The Party’s Over.“ For those of our readers who have never heard of you and that book: What kind of party is it that you were writing about and why do you assume that this festivity and its special features are about to come to an end?

The “party” was humanity’s one-time-only opportunity to fuel economic growth and technological innovation with a bounty of cheap, abundant energy from fossil fuels. The harvesting of oil, coal, and natural gas has inevitably proceeded on a best-first or low-hanging fruit basis. While the Earth still possesses a wealth of unexploited energy resources, the cheapest and easiest-accessed of those resources have by now already been used. All of these fuels are in the process of becoming more expensive, and the various energy alternatives are limited in one way or another in their ability to replace hydrocarbons. That means we are currently seeing the end of economic growth as we have known it. The impacts for transportation, globalization, and world food supplies will be serious indeed.

As a rather critical observer of that party: Do you see significant hints that a growing number of participants realize that “The Last Waltz” is near? Or are you afraid that large parts will continue to dance no matter what?

After over a decade spent in trying to alert policy makers and the general public about this issue, I have concluded that only a small minority have any idea what is in store. The “dance” you speak of is indeed coming to an end, but it appears to most that the problem is purely a financial one, and that once the global economic crisis is sorted out, we will all be able to get back to business as usual. I do not believe that is an option. We have reached a fundamental turning point, foreseen in the “Limits to Growth” study of 1972. For a while, world leaders may be able to redistribute wealth in various ways—most likely from the poor to the rich—in order to make it appear that the global economy is continuing to grow. But I suspect that this will work only for a very few years at most. At some point soon, it will become clear that economies are contracting. And then most people will look for someone to blame. No doubt politicians will oblige by trotting out various scapegoats.

What about the hosts of the party, who pay the band – the so-called elites? They’re aware of the coming situation for a long time, right? What kind of plans do they have in store for themselves and the rest of us in your opinion? As part of the elites, the Central Intelligence Agency for example, which has always entertained close ties to the financial district in New York City,[1] had the Peak Oil problem on its radar screen at least since the late 1970’s.[2] Hence, we can be sure that some influential interests not only knew that this historical watershed event was coming, but also that they had enough time to prepare for it.

Strangely enough, I think most of the “elites” are victims of their own public relations efforts. They have promoted the careers of economists who told them what they wanted to hear—that economic growth is the normal and inevitable state of affairs, and that there are no real limits to growth. Yes, certainly there are analysts in the CIA and the military who understand where this is all heading, but—if the ex-analysts I’ve talked to are typical of their colleagues—they have learned that reports about resource constraints are not welcome, unless they are framed in terms of the contest for geopolitical leverage

At the end of last year, the World Energy Outlook 2009 received a very cautious reception – for example from your side.[3] Why was that and how was it linked to the ongoing discussion about oil reserves? May I also ask you to explain to our readers why the picture related to the latter seems very blur and since when?

Oil “reserves” consist of estimates of the amount of oil that geologists believe can be economically extracted from oilfields that have been discovered, drilled, and mapped. Unfortunately, reserves reporting is not a transparent affair in many countries that have state-controlled oil industries. There is strong evidence to suggest that OPEC nations have systematically and substantially over-estimated their reserves for over two decades.

In 2009, the International Energy Agency (IEA) took a first cautious step in the direction of realism when it published, in its annual World Energy Outlook, an assessment of rates of production decline from the world’s old, giant oilfields, which yield the bulk of the world’s crude oil. On average, there is a net production decline of 4.5 percent per year from existing fields, which means that the world has to develop a Saudi Arabia ’s worth of new production capacity every five years or so just to maintain existing total production volumes. That is an enormous feat, especially given the fact that oil discovery rates have been falling since the early 1960s. New oilfields are sill being found, of course, but typically they are very expensive to locate and exploit, when compared to the oilfields that were being discovered only a decade or two ago.

This debate, that we’ve just mentioned, is continuing right now again on a large scale.[4] Maybe there is, if one wants to, an end to it. During an interview with investigative journalist and book author Mike Ruppert, I’ve asked him a few things about the National Energy Policy Development Group, NEPDG, that was run by then-Vice President Richard Cheney in Spring of 2001. Mr. Ruppert stated:

“Essentially the NEPDG appears to have been set up, almost from the first day of the Bush administration, to find out how much oil was left, who had it, and how it could be obtained (bought or stolen) to support U.S. hegemony, U.S. consumption, and the monetary paradigm. … The fact that the NEPDG records have been kept secret from the American people who paid for it is one of the greatest crimes of all time. Seeing those records now would save a lot of duplicated effort in trying to inventory how much oil there is left. The figures on oil reserves quoted by producing nations and companies are as fraudulent and cooked as the books on mortgages, banking, and even Bernie Madoff. … It was Peak Oil that was driving Dick Cheney’s Task Force and nothing else.”[5]

Do you agree with Mr. Ruppert in general and in particular on the notion that the secret NEPDG-records could help us to find out “how much oil there is left”?

Since we don’t know what those records contain, we also don’t know if they would help us to know much more about future energy supply options. Certainly if an agency like the IEA were empowered to perform on-the-ground audits of oilfields in all oil exporting countries, we would know much more than we do now.

In another interview, I’ve asked economist James K. Galbraith, who thinks that the Peak Oil scenario “ needs to be taken seriously,” if he agrees that it would be time to make those secret files of the NEPDG public. He answered by saying:

“Yes. I do agree that files of this type should be made public. If there is an argument, which undoubtedly some people will make, for a national security reason not to make them public, then an appropriate procedure, which we have followed in this country in the past, is to appoint a panel of independent outsiders, not previously connected to the government, to review the documents and to make them public unless there is a compelling reason not to, with arguments about what is compelling and not-compelling ultimately resolved by the president himself. That’s a model that has been applied successfully in the past in the United States on a matter of this kind. I think it would be very useful to do it in this and other instances on the conduct of the Bush administration.”[6]

My question for you is: Wouldn’t it be a good goal for the Peak Oil movement in the U.S. and around the globe to come together for a concerted effort to make happen what Mr. Galbraith was talking about? Even if there was only a slim chance to accomplish this goal?

Yes, this would be a worthy goal from a certain standpoint. However, the peak oil “movement” is a highly non-political collection of individuals with little sense of group identity or any history of concerted political action. Even if the effort succeeded, I doubt if much truly new information would be revealed. Many “peak oil” analysts are already extremely well informed on world energy supply issues—much better informed than all but a very few officials at even the highest levels of government, and better informed than most of the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group. So the advantage would not be in finding out some information that is currently being kept secret, it would simply be in seeing public confirmation of certain key bits of information that are seldom discussed in the mainstream media.

Mr. Heinberg, you have stated publicly in 2004 that you have your doubts related to the official narration of the attacks of 9/11. May I ask you if those attacks are in your opinion connected to Peak Oil?

I have no idea. My assertion then and now is simply that the events of 9/11 were not properly investigated. It is certainly tantalizing to imagine what a proper investigation would uncover, but imagine we must—because at this point the likelihood of a re-opening of that case is extremely remote. It is a dead issue.

One facet of the “Global War on Terror” that resulted from those attacks, is the U.S. invasion of Iraq. What has this invasion to do with oil, or more specifically: with the competitive relationship between the US-dollar vs the Euro? Was there a threat looming for the so-called “Petrodollar System” that was established during the early 1970’s?

There was some speculation at the time of the invasion that part of the motive was to protect the U.S. dollar, which is the currency used in nearly all international oil sales. Saddam Hussein had been threatening to abandon the use of the dollar, and some saw this as a mortal threat to global dollar hegemony. In retrospect, I’m not sure that analysis holds up, though I agreed with it at the time. While the level of U.S. debt is such that one might expect other nations to be looking for some alternative to the dollar for international transactions, the reality is that there is no good candidate at the moment.

I suspect that there were complex motives for the invasion of Iraq. It is strange that even today, seven years later, we must speculate on this question. The public still has not been told the real reasons for one of the longest and most expensive wars in recent history.

What would happen to the US economy if the “Petrodollar System” would collapse? Do you see signs that this arrangement to the advantage of US-American consumerism could come to an end rather sooner than later?

At some point the dollar will indeed fail as a currency. Whether this failure comes about as a result of oil exporters dumping the dollar, or simply because of problems inherent to the U.S. economy remains to be seen. And it is impossible to know whether that moment is a few months or many years ahead of us. I suspect that we will see some serious problems with the dollar well before 2020. Certainly every effort will be made to keep the current world monetary system working as long as possible, but the problems just keep accumulating. The result may be a rather sudden re-adjustment in which enormous amounts of apparent wealth simply disappear, and global trade comes to a nearly complete halt, at least temporarily.

In the past, you have said that the worst thing that could happen is a financial / economic crisis at the exact same time when we’re about to enter the Peak Oil phase. Well, obviously this seems to be the case now. Why has this been a nightmarish outlook for you? And do you think that this financial / economic crisis, which remains mysterious and enigmatic to most people, will usher in on a global scale what Robert Kennedy once called “the mindless menace of violence”? If you agree on that, isn’t that the result not of this crisis alone, but also because people are not told the truth about its long-lasting character in an honest way?

The reason it’s bad for both an energy crisis and a financial crisis to occur together is that each makes the other harder to address. Without adequate credit and investment capital, how will we build renewable energy infrastructure to replace our current fossil-fuel-dependent transport and electricity systems? And without cheap energy, how can we dig ourselves out of a financial crisis?

As you point out, both are indeed happening now, and this should be no surprise given the inherent linkages between energy prices and the health of the economy. Will we see global violence as a result? Of course I hope the answer is “no,” but the likelihood of war would be substantially reduced if the general public had a better idea of why their standard of living is eroding. Since politicians don’t really understand what is happening, I suppose they can be somewhat excused for not telling their constituents. But that means, once again, that the most likely response will be a hunt for scapegoats.

Now that we’ve already touched the subject “money”: What has the financial crisis and the ongoing recession to do with the monetary system and debt-based growth? Is there a tricky part involved – just as Mike Ruppert characterized it this way during the above mentioned interview:

a)The current global economic paradigm — governed by fractional reserve banking, fiat currency, and compound interest (debt-based growth) — is inherently and by definition a pyramid scheme. Money is useless without energy. One cannot eat a dollar bill or crumble it up and throw it in his gas tank. Each of the trillions of dollars created out of thin air since the fall of 2008 is a commitment to expend energy that cannot and will not ever be there.

b) There can be no “recovery”, no return to growth (which is what the economic paradigm demands), without energy.[8]

Yes, I agree with Mike Ruppert on this. If the world is to return to stability, an entirely new economic system, based on a new and different form of money, will be required. The world still has willing workers and consumers, and enormous productive capacity in the forms of factories, soils, and recyclable materials. But without a functioning monetary system, there will be no means of connecting production with consumption. Our current money system requires constant growth so as to enable repayment of the interest on the debts that created the money to begin with, so it cannot function well in the context of general resource scarcity and economic contraction.

How does a new monetary system need to look like vis-à-vis Peak Oil?

There are many possibilities for alternatives, including tradable energy vouchers.

Is it this monetary change that has to take place that constitutes the “Heart of Darkness” so to speak when it comes to the problem that the elites and the mainstream media are “too fearful to publicise peak oil reality”?[9]

I don’t think reality is that conspiratorial. Certainly there are some deep, dark conspiracies out there, but with regard to peak oil my belief is that, for the most part, the elites genuinely do not understand the situation or its implications.

Of interest with regard to the recession is of course the oil price spike of 2008. Global Portfolio Strategist Marshall Auerback stated in an interview with me that even though “recessionary pressures were already ‘baked in the cake’ well before the oil price spike”, that this was “the straw that broke the came ‘s back, or the ‘icing on the cake.’”[10] That given, I would like to get your reading of that oil price spike. Do you agree with James Hamilton’s analysis given in “Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08”?[11]

Yes, I discussed Hamilton’s analysis at some length in my essay “Temporary Recession or the End of Growth?” http://heinberg.wordpress.com/ There’s no point trying to paraphrase that article here; if readers are interested, they can read it. I think it’s a pretty good summary of the situation.

Critique on the Peak Oil scenario comes from all kinds of sides. Among them are the advocates of the abiogenic petroleum origins. What is your response to those critiques – for example related to the doubts that the common theory of fossil fuels was never scientifically proven?

I have also published an essay on this subject, titled “The Abiotic Oil Controversy” http://energybulletin.net/node/2423. To summarize: there may indeed be some interesting points for further research regarding the origins of some of Earth’s hydrocarbons. But that research is unlikely to have immediate practical implications for the supply of oil or natural gas. These fuels are found only in sedimentary basins, and those basins have already been identified by geologists using every tool from pick and compass to seismic surveys to satellite imaging. Moreover, oil and gas wells are observed to deplete, and are not observed to replenish themselves in an economically significant way over humanly observable time scales. The very few exceptions to these general statements have been studied by geologists and explained in terms of local anomalies.

Another thing one can hear quite often is that Peak Oil authors / educators like you are spokesmen for big oil interests. Does this make sense to you? Why should the oil and automobile industry be interested in propagating a “Peak Oil myth”?

If I’m secretly on the payroll of an oil company, then somebody forgot to let me in on the secret. A few of the oil companies are delicately admitting some of the main elements of the peak oil thesis. Other oil companies heatedly deny any possibility of supply problems and call people like me very nasty names. Some of the auto companies, such as Toyota, understand peak oil and speak of it openly. But I don’t see any public relations advantage whatsoever in some supposed cynical plot to promulgate a “peak oil myth.” I’ve been studying this subject for over a decade and have interviewed dozens of people inside and outside of these industries, including scientists, managers, economists, and public relations officers, and have seen no evidence whatsoever of such a plot. Instead I see general ignorance and denial. Those within the industry who do understand peak oil tend to be scientists, though there are exceptions. Scientists often do rather poorly at following instructions with regard to fabricating myths. They have an annoying habit of seeking out data, analyzing it, and thinking for themselves.

Mr. Heinberg, we seem to face huge problems with Climate Change, Overpopulation and the depletion of natural resources in general, not only hydro carbons. Climate Change is discussed worldwide – so let the both of us concentrate on the other two points. Where the whole problem of Peak Oil is getting real ugly is the whole issue of Overpopulation. Without oil there would never have been the possibility to let the world population rise to 6.5 billion human beings. Therefore, the outlook of Peak Oil is that now that we have all those humans on Planet Earth, the oil that supports them declines. Two questions: how do you cope with the knowledge you have about that day in, day out? And don’t you fear that mankind is about to lose the last rest of dignity that was leftover after the barbaric events of the 20th Century?

How do I cope with the knowledge? Well, it’s distressing, but one learns to cope. As we age, we are forced to cope with the knowledge of our own mortality. Our relatives and friends start dying. It’s depressing, but we go on. What would be really depressing would be to have knowledge about imminent global crises but to have no way of influencing the situation. In fact, there is a great deal that still can be done to lessen impacts on humanity and the natural world, and as we engage in that kind of activity it tends to help us psychologically.

Another major problem that we face is the depletion of natural resources in general – you sum it up best by giving your book on this subject the title: “Peak Everything.”[12]In that book you mention that:

Can you tell us how we humans can survive this especially seen under the focus of Liebig’s Law (or the Law of the Minimum)?

As I say in the book, we must reduce the scale of the human project—our population and our consumption rates (the latter especially in the industrialized nations). That means redesigning our economic and food systems, re-localizing and down-sizing them, until they can be maintained with renewable resources harvested at sustainable rates.

Do you fear that some people in powerful positions become increasingly “trigger happy” – that is to say, that they will try to get us involved in a major war as a Last Exit Strategy?

I don’t see major war as an “exit strategy”; if it happens, it will likely be simply a failure of politics—an expression of the inability of leaders to solve the worsening problems that are confronting them.

To sum our interview up, Mr. Heinberg: We’re about to enter extremely interesting, stormy times. They have a lot of danger in store for us. On the other hand, isn’t it true that the coming 20 – 30 years will be a great opportunity to totally re-evaluate who we are and what is really important to us?

Absolutely. Every crisis is an opportunity, and we will be presented with the greatest array of opportunities in history. Survival will require us to evolve quickly, and to change our thinking, our habits, and our expectations. If we do these things, it is just possible that the society that emerges in the process will be far more stable, interesting, and beautiful than the one we see around us today.

Thank you very much for taking your time, Mr. Heinberg!

My pleasure, thank you!

 By Lars Schall

Josh Stieber, a former U.S. Army Specialist, is speaking out. A member of the Bravo Company 2-16 whose acts of brutality made headlines this week with the Wikileaks release of the video “Collateral Murder,” Stieber says such acts were not isolated incidents, but were commonplace during his tour of duty. “After watching the video, I would definitely say that that is, nine times out of ten, the way things ended up,” says Stieber. “Killing was following military protocol. It was going along with the rules as they are.”

“Collateral Murder” provides footage from an American Apache helicopter involved in a July 2007 shooting incident outside of Baghdad that left over a dozen people dead, including two Reuters employees. Stieber was not present at the scene, but knows those who were and is familiar with the environment. “A lot of my friends are in that video,” he says. “If it shocks and revolts you, it shows the reality of what war is like. If you don’t like what you see in it, it means we should be working harder towards alternatives to war.”

Josh Stieber Bio

Stieber is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War working to promote peace and seek alternatives to combat. He currently resides in Washington, D.C

Recently in a poetic recital on T.V. in Saudi Arabia a Muslim poetess Hissas Hilal burst out against the strict control regime for women in her country. It was voice of protest and very bold protest at that, perhaps unthinkable in her regimented society. It was of course in verses of her poem. She said through veiled face about Islamic preachers, “who sit in the position of power”, but are “frightening” people with their fatwas and “preying like a wolf “ on those seeking peace.

This may not be the condition in all Islamic countries but traditional Muslim societies impose several restrictions and still are not ready to relax. the kind of hijab many Muslim women wear covering their faces and looking at the world only through two eye holes remains controversial among Muslim scholars, theologians and modern intellectuals. Question is what is to be done.

No one can deny the fast pace of change in the globalised world and it is becoming increasingly challenging to retain present controls exercised on women in traditional societies. This controversy has been going on ever since modernity asserted itself since 19th century. Many reforms took place in Muslim countries and women could win a degree of liberation.

However, later part of twentieth and beginning of twenty-first century saw re-emergence of traditional Islam, particularly salafi Islam. No society registers linear progress and progressive measures, in turn bring more challenges. Reasons, not to be discussed here are both economic and political, apart from social and cultural. This complex nature of tension between tradition and modernity is both challenge and opportunity.

What is important in this debate, which is often ignored in these debates, is that what we practice in the name of Islam is more cultural than religious or scriptural and also that we depend too much on tradition while defending or opposing the restrictions applied on women. A good example of this is a recent book published from Pakistan on “Chehre ka parda wajib ya ghair wajib” (Face Veil – Compulsory or Not) compiled by Prof. Khurshid Alam. It is a very scholarly debate between two learned scholar one defending and the other opposing face veil.

However, the book depends entirely on contradictory traditions of the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions cited by various medieval scholars. You find in abundance both kinds of traditions (hadith) insisting on face veil or thinking it unnecessary and both the scholars use these traditions to strengthen their position. This approach only reinforces traditional cultural Islam.

We should not ignore the fact that the most of the traditions (except those on moral, ethical or pertaining to ibadat (matters of worship) reflect Arab culture on one hand, and medieval west Asian or central Asian culture, on the other. The jurists have also maintained that Arab Adat (customs and traditions) could become part of Shari’ah law and many Shari’ah laws incorporate the Arab ‘adat.

In the book I am referring to, there is very little direct approach to the Qur’an or fresh reflections on the relevant Qur’anic verses. Let Muslim jurists and scholars realize that Arab ‘adat are far from divine and should not necessarily form the basic structure of the Shari’ah law. Today we must change this cultural base through direct reflections and fresh understanding of the Qur’anic verses relevant to women. This attempt would establish individual dignity and freedom of choice for women. Freedom of conscience is an important doctrine of the Qur’an and so is the individual dignity. Qur’an is far more in harmony with human dignity and freedom that the traditional medieval cultural practices.

This approach will. In no way, injure the divine nature of Shari’ah law and also would liberate it from its traditional cultural basis incorporating patriarchal values of Arab culture rather than the divine spirit of the Qur’an. This would liberate Muslim women and give them sense of dignity and freedom reducing tension between tradition and modernity. This opportunity should not be lost causing more agony to women and creating dilemma of choice for them. Most of the Muslim women want to follow their religion and also enjoy certain benefits of modernity. The Muslim scholars and jurists should end this agony.

Asghar Ali Engineer

If we were to study carefully the evolution of events that took place over the past 6,000 years of recorded history, we will discover that most of the world’s problems stemmed out from politics of one kind or another. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language describes “politics” as “the science of government; that part of ethics which relates to the regulation for the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity.”

Meaning of Politics

Also, politics is derived from the Greek word “polis” meaning city, which consists of citizens that make up the state or the nation. Those who become involved in the government of a nation are normally viewed as politicians. Needless to say, politicians are human beings that may be good or bad, beneficial or detrimental, and generous or egoistic. The people of a nation always tend to benefit when their politicians are highly concerned with their human needs.

At the same time, people in general always tend to suffer in many ways when their politicians carry agendas that are beneficial to a selected few but detrimental to many others. These kinds of politicians are viewed as abusive and the greatest problem people are faced with in this regard lies in how to get rid of them fast and smooth, peacefully and effectively. Since politicians differ from each other enormously it is somewhat difficult and confusing to have them classified by political or religious affiliation or other devised categories.

The Romans had a proverb, aliud est theoria aliud est practica – one thing is theory and other thing is practice. On the whole, people all over the world seem to share at least one thing in common about politicians. This was pointed out by well-known writer George Orwell who said: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.” This statement cannot be taken lightly because it has been verified to be true century after century to this very same day.

Let us examine carefully George Orwell’s words. Suppose we come to know that the food we are about to share with many of our friends is poisonous, what would we do? Shall we proceed to consume it knowing that all of us afterwards will be sick, if not dead? Or shall we have it discarded and seek for a remedy to this problem? If we were to tell the people that this food is very good and tasty and they believe us, they will surely proceed to eat it only to face the tragic consequences that will follow.

Deceitful Politics in Operation

Is it possible that in the world of politics we manage to reach a point as to find it necessary to reduce the sacred lives of many to merely a piece of furniture?! Moreover, to turn an insult into an injury, the US later insisted that the Iraqis were better off now, following the American invasion, than they were before under Saddam Hussein. Quite a few humanitarian and non-governmental organizations visited Iraq to see for themselves what was going on there. They asked little children between the ages of nine and twelve the following question: “What would like to do when you grow up?

We were told that some 80% of the Iraqi children said without hesitation: “Killing Americans!” Those that raised the question in the first place were very much surprised with this reply. So they proceeded to ask: “Why do you want to do that?” Each of these children gave more or less the same answer: “Because Americans killed my father, they killed my mother and they killed or maimed my brothers, sisters and friends.”

Others added saying: “Americans destroyed our homes and schools and all of our belongings and now we are all homeless.” When the Iraqi adults were asked: “Don’t you feel better that the US troops removed Saddam Hussein from office?” They all said unanimously: “We were much better before the invasion of Americans because then we still had our houses and schools, our spouses were alive and well and all of us enjoyed seeing our children playing and growing up. Now a number of them are gone and others are maimed and ruined for life.”

Ironically, the United States views itself as a nation of democracy that is “ruled by the people who elect their representatives to serve them as senators and congressmen.” Well, the vast majority of the American people proved to be against the US invasion of Iraq. Moreover, after such an invasion the American people, as a whole, continued to say loud and clear that the US government should pull out all US troops from Iraq without further delay. We had even US presidential candidates, one of whom was Dennis Kucinich, who vowed to pull out all American troops out of Iraq without further delay, if elected.

Orwell’s Saying at Work

Unfortunately, like George Orwell well pointed out, the US government succeeded to make the tremendous amount of civilian killings in Iraq look respectable, “a necessity to safeguard the freedom, democracy and security of the United States” as some leading politicians said over and over again in the US news-media. By the way, in the last US presidential elections Barack Obama was elected as the next US President primarily because he promised to end the war in Iraq and bring all US troops back home, even though as of now his promise has not yet been fulfilled.

Also, the American people elected Barack Obama as their US President because he promised that he would resort to solve political problems through healthy dialogues and strong diplomacy and not through struggles and wars. This peaceful approach in the sphere of world politics that he promised enabled him to win the Nobel Peace Prize as well. Of course, this new US President has still time to prove his sincere promises in replacing struggles and wars with harmony and peace everywhere. However, when he escalated the war in Afghanistan many Americans felt highly disappointed.

Besides, due to the fact that the United States is deeply immersed in a culture of war mentality, the unjust struggle in the Middle East is still on. The way to bring politics under control is for the people in the world to see to it that those that represent them in the government give top priority on people’s health care and education rather than on continued struggles and wars which lead to nowhere except to the eventual bankruptcy of the national economy. The time has arrived when the people should bring politics under their full control.

Anything that politicians say which is not conducive to the welfare of all people without exception should be viewed as dangerous and should never get our support. Anything that politicians say which is beneficial to welfare of people from every walk of life and procession should receive our wholehearted support. To this end, we must keep good politicians and get rid of the bad ones.

There is not one single group in the world that could claim to be perfect, an ideal source of inspiration. In other words, it is not wise for us to make it a habit to elect politicians because of their affiliation with a specific political party or with a religion of one kind or another. It would reveal a great lack of wisdom on our part if we were to view blindly things the way politicians would want us to see them in order to control us.

Political Meaning of “Pro-Life”

Let us illustrate this by some practical example. In the United States people are notably influenced by the name the political party carries: Republican versus Democrat, or the politician’s religious affiliation. In this latter one, Americans feel often trapped in a political dilemma, especially when they are faced by self-proclaimed “pro-life” politicians versus self-proclaimed “pro-choice” politicians. These divisions or classifications are nothing but meaningless and deceitful frames people choose to put in their mind.

It will help us understand better where we stand in politics if we were to illustrate what has just been stated with some evidences that bring into proper focus the contradictions found in politics. Republicans claim to be “pro-life.” This certainly pleases many clergymen especially when Republicans stress that “the sacredness of life starts from the moment of conception.” Like George Orwell well stated, this political statement is “designated to make lies sound truthful.” In fact, we need here to raise one serious question.

If the sacredness of life starts from the first moment of conception then does this sacredness of life end with the moment of birth? This is a very relevant question since Republicans always tend to solve virtually all political problems at the global level with all sorts of struggles and wars. This is revealed in their putting more money in the manufacture and sales of weapons, in the building of hundreds of US military bases around the world and in their instigation of more struggles and wars where millions of innocent people are killed, including pregnant women!

We all know that actions speak louder than words. Since struggles and wars could only be waged by people, is it possible that Republicans and those who claim to be “pro-life” may have ulterior motives? Are they “pro-life” as to make sure more humans are born to be used later as instruments to massacre millions of innocent people? Republicans, with other politicians that support US belligerent foreign policies, succeed to make “murder appear to be respectable,” as George Orwell remarked. Many US politicians state that “wars cannot be avoided when the freedom, democracy and security of the USA is involved!”

If that is the case, then we need to define well the meaning of freedom democracy and security, otherwise we will continue to misuse such words to the detriment of the American nation and, as a matter of fact, of every other single nation in the world. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines these three stated terms as follows.

Freedom, Democracy and Security

Freedom is described as “the state of being free; exemption from slavery, confinement, or constraint; liberty; independence; openness; outspokenness.” Each time the United States invades other countries, and interferes with their internal affairs does it make sense to say that this was to preserve American freedom?! What about if Russia and China were to invade the USA under the guise of preserving Russian and Chinese freedom?

Democracy is described as “that form of government in which the supreme power rests with the people, ruling themselves either directly or through representatives. It’s a government, as Abraham Lincoln put it that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The United States has no right whatsoever to impose its form of government on other nations by military force, under the guise of “preserving” its so called democracy.

Security is described as “the state of being secure; freedom from apprehension; freedom from danger or risk; something that secures against pecuniary loss.” How does the manufacture and sales of weapons to anyone that gives the right price, the eventual US military invasion of a nation along with the forming of so called military alliances bring security to the American nation that takes the initiative to attack other nations?

We are all familiar with the saying that “what goes around comes around,” and with the Master Teacher’s firm warning to “put the sword away for he who kills by the sword will die by the sword.” In view of what has been stated, it is quite obvious that many politicians in quite a number of countries have eventually emerged to be very dangerous to their respective nation’s people. People everywhere need to become fully aware of this tangible reality and do something about it, the sooner the better.

Let us all face our greatest challenge courageously keeping in mind that “when there is a will there is a way.” In the social sphere, the people exist to control politics and not the other way round. Politicians who resort to dialogues and diplomacy rather than struggles and wars, should receive our full support since they prove to be very beneficial to all people without exception.

by Charles Mercieca, Ph.D. 

“They will not criminalize us, rob us of our true identity, steal our individualism, depoliticize us, churn us out as systemized, institutionalized, decent law-abiding robots. We refuse to lie here in dishonor!”

– Bobby Sands, Provisional Irish Republican Army

Deir Yassin, Palestine, Live from Palestine, 9 April 2010 : It’s as if the very moment I passed by Bab al-Amud or Damascus Gate in Jerusalem’s Old City, I was transported back in time to a forbidden place, a place I was forced to feel as though I was illegally trespassing through just by gazing at it, a place now belonging to others. “This place you talk about no longer exists. It’s been long gone.” That’s what they continue to say with such impunity and disregard, but those sentiments of deterrence wouldn’t stop me. They never had before, and they wouldn’t stand a chance now. I was determined to go back, to see it all again with my own eyes, to capture every sight so the memories would be engraved in my head forever, despite any and all pretentious constructions that would be made without our permission. Despite all the renovations and reconstructions to make it “their own,” it would always be Deir Yassin to me.

“Deir Yassin,” she says with a sadness, a sense of loss in her eyes each time she speaks of the atrocious day she lost her home. “Deir Yassin,” she says with a childlike innocence in her voice as she recalls sweet memories before her entire world was completely denatured by evil. “Deir Yassin,” the imperishable words of my grandmother continue to resonate with me each day for she made me promise to never forget, and that’s a promise I intend to keep to her.

I followed the imperiously-placed road signs leading to Givat Shaul until the memories began flooding back, one by one. With no place to park, I took the chance of leaving the yellow-plated car on the side of the road, near the abandoned blue fence so I would be able to step back in time on foot. In the cool breeze of that afternoon, standing on the ledge overlooking the Har HaMenuchot cemetery in scenic view of the Jewish Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, I inhaled deeply and digested the view of what was now known as Givat Shaul. As I stood there taking in the surreal surroundings of Mount Herzl and Yad Vashem, I was overcome by emotions as the tales of my grandmother soon came to life right before my very eyes.

“See right there,” she pointed behind me, “that was my father’s stone quarry, and there’s the grain mill.” For as long as I live, I’ll never forget the look on her face, the way her lips quivered, the way she tapped her tired fingers on her chest with such pride, and the high pitch in her voice as she spoke with such nostalgia. As a little girl, she played house with her friends at the nearby monastery surrounded by fig, almond and apple trees, just as any child would do, oblivious to the tragedy that awaited them. At eight years old though, her childhood was no longer one free of trauma and injustice. In less than a day, she was forced to leave everything she had ever known behind, taking nothing with her but the clothes on her back. Sixty-two years ago, she had once called this place home. This was home, and without her knowledge, her permission, or her right, it was all taken away. Someone else callously decided it was no longer hers to claim. The thought of that still makes me feel as though I’ve been kicked repeatedly in the stomach.

It’s difficult to return to Deir Yassin without suddenly becoming transfixed by the blatant ethnic cleansing and hypocrisy lying on the very ground once belonging to the native Palestinians who called this very ground home less than seven decades ago. Chilling tales and memories have allowed Deir Yassin to live on in the hearts and minds of countless worldwide, allowing it to be deemed as so much more than just a name associated with death, destruction and pillaging. Deir Yassin will continue to resonate as a lesson of resilience and determination to never forget.

Before walking back to the car and bidding my farewell to Deir Yassin once again, I stood on the ledge overlooking Mount Herzl with the hope of trying to absorb and digest all that I had seen that day. Standing there captivated by all that I had taken notice of this time, I couldn’t help but feel as though my blood began to boil. Looking onto the grand, monumental view of Yad Vashem erected to honor those who so unjustly lost their lives in the Holocaust, I stood on the land where my own family too lost their livelihoods and lives so unjustly without so much as a marker to honor them. A mile away from Deir Yassin sits a memorial to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, to remind the world of the inhumanity that took place with such impunity. Today, it continues to remind the world of the atrocities that took place with a timeless, ubiquitous message of “never to forget man’s inhumanity to man.”

I can’t help but feel as though the overwhelming irony is shamelessly mocking me as I stand there on the other side of Yad Vashem in Deir Yassin, where a massacre took place 62 years ago. I stood there honoring those whose names don’t appear in a museum, whose voices are rarely, if ever, heard in the media, and whose legacies are insolently ignored and omitted from textbooks and classrooms, rendering them invisible to so many in the world. Standing there, I wonder if those who visit the museum look over to the other side and even know what occurred there some 60 years ago, whether or not they question what happened, and whether or not they feel any sympathy like they do for their own. Deir Yassin carries with it such magnitude, for it is not just the story of a massacre, but the story of two peoples — the victims and the victims of those victims — whose fates allowed them to be conjoined on stolen land.

Wiped off the post-1948 maps of Israel, Deir Yassin can never and will never be wiped out of the minds of Palestinians worldwide, those under occupation and those in the diaspora. No matter how the maps and signs are altered, I will always find a way back to Deir Yassin, because it is my moral responsibility to return and keep its legacy alive. This is where I come from. This is where my family, who are still alive and well to remember, suffered. This is where injustice took place, and I will never forget. After all, it was Simon Wiesenthal who said that “hope lives when people remember,” when observing the suffering of the Jews at the hands of injustice. Likewise, the suffering of the Palestinians deserves to be dignified as well. As any people who have been subjugated and oppressed, Palestinians too will hold on to their relentless refusal to concede and forget.

Despite all the agony, anguish and traumatizing memories that have echoed with her throughout her life, my grandmother’s eyes still light up just at the sound of hearing Deir Yassin. Today, this place that’s been associated with such pain and suffering to so many continues to instill such pride and joy in her. I’ve never known such strength and resilience, but I hope to learn from it every single day.

So, today, I commemorate the 62nd anniversary of the Deir Yassin Massacre. Commemorating Deir Yassin is not to create a sadistic exploitation of the suffering of a people. It is a reminder to us all that injustice did take place there, and that it is our responsibility to remember that the atrocities and intolerance we see and hear about today had their inception with Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin, which catapulted the Nakba, our catastrophe, is an undeniable marker of unabashed injustice, and it will continue to deter any prevarication and the notion that “ignorance is bliss.” Deir Yassin signifies that Palestinians existed and still exist, and we will never give up without a fight.

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was mistaken when he arrogantly asserted that “the old will die and the young will forget,” for he underestimated the indomitable will of the Palestinian people. Despite heartache, pain and suffering, we will never relinquish a dream so imbedded in our hearts and minds. Yes, the old may die, but the young will never able to forget, and to paraphrase Bobby Sands, “our revenge will be the laughter of our children,” those who will carry on this dream and fight for justice. This dream will live on in the hearts of generation after generation; it is an inextinguishable fire burning inside our hearts, and what we say today will be our lifelong commitment to it.

By Dina Elmuti

Dina Elmuti is a graduate student in the Masters in Social Work program at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

A novelist and former prisoner of Saddam Hussein’s regime gives her reaction to the Wikileaks Iraq video

I know the area where this massacre was committed. It is a crowded working-class area, a place where it is safe for children to play outdoors. It is near where my two aunts and their extended families lived, where I played as a child with my cousins Ali, Khalid, Ferial and Mohammed. Their offspring still live there.

The Reuters photographer we see being killed so casually in the film, Namir Noor-Eldeen, did not live there, but went to cover a story, risking his life at a time when most western journalists were imbedded with the military. Noor-Eldeen was 22 (he must have felt extremely proud to be working for Reuters) and single. His driver Saeed Chmagh, who is also seen being killed, was 40 and married. He left behind a widow and four children, adding to the millions of Iraqi widows and orphans.

Witnesses to the slaughter reported the harrowing details in 2007, but they had to wait for a western whistleblower to hand over a video before anyone listened. Watching the video, my first impression was, I have no impression. But the total numbness gradually grows into a now familiar anger. I listen to the excited voices of death coming from the sky, enjoying the chase and killing. I whisper: do they think they are God?

“Light ’em all up!” one shooter says.

“Ah, yeah, look at those dead bastards. Nice,” says another.

“Well, it’s their fault bringing their kids into the battle,” one says when ground troops discover two children among the wounded.

In their Apache helicopter, with their sophisticated killing machinery, US soldiers seem superhuman. The Iraqis, on the ground, appear only as nameless bastards, Hajjis, sandniggers. They seem subhuman – and stripping them of their humanity makes killing them easy.

As I watch, I feel the anger calcify in my heart alongside the rage I still feel over other Anglo-American massacres: Haditha (which has been compared to the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war); Ishaqi (where 11 Iraqi civilians were killed in June 2006); Falluja; the rape and killing of A’beer al-Janaby and her family; the British Camp Breadbasket scandal.

We often hear of the traumas US soldiers suffer when they lose one of their ranks, and their eagerness to even the score. We seldom hear from people like the Iraqi widow whose husband was shot, who looked me in the eye last summer, and said: “But we didn’t invade their country.” Unlike this video, the injustice she feels will not fade with time. It is engraved in the collective memory of people, and will be until justice is done.

By Haifa Zangana

10 April, 2010

Guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

April 10, 2010 — We are deeply concerned over the current situation in Thailand where military-backed Prime Minister Ahbisit Vejjajiva has declared a state of emergency and started a bloody crackdown amidst escalating protests calling for a fresh election.

 The situation is worrying as the Thai government has closed down all opposition media and given sweeping new powers to the security forces to prepare for a violent crackdown on the Red Shirt protesters. Thai troops are using excessive force including tanks and live ammunition, against pro-democracy demonstrators in Bangkok.

 The United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), or better known as the “Red Shirts”, has relaunched massive protests against the military-installed, unelected Ahbisit government since last March. This pro-democracy movement is comprised of rural and urban poor, who are standing up against the military-backed, oligarchic rule.

 The current crisis unfolded in September 2006, when the military staged a coup against the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, scrapped the 1997 popular constitution and replaced it with a military-sanctioned constitution. The royalist Yellow Shirts started to organise fascistic demonstrations when the pro-Thaksin party won in the 2007 election. The current Ahbisit government was installed by the military after the fascistic mobilisations by the Yellow Shirts and a coup by the court.

 The government, the army and the Yellow Shirts are afraid to face real democratic elections, as they know that they would lose since the majority of the poor support the Red Shirts. Ahbisit and the ruling elite are refusing the call for elections and are trying to buy time and even preparing for a violent crackdown. It is becoming clear that Ahbisit and the old elite are bringing the country towards a fascist dictatorship.

 Thailand has entered a new phase of class war. The old ruling elite with the backing of the military are using all means to scrap democracy in Thailand. The pro-democracy Red Shirts comprised of the majority of the working class, peasantry and poor, have shown their real popularity and mobilising strength which has definitely shaken the royalists and the military. With the broadening of the masses’ support for the Red Shirts, it could be a new and important step in the struggle of the ordinary people in Thailand for the restoration of democracy and social justice.

 *We call for:*

 the immediate resignation of the military-installed Ahbisit government and the holding of fresh democratic elections;

 * a halt to all forms of violent crackdown against Red Shirt

protesters. Respect the right of the people to organise, to

protest and to strike;

 * a halt to the suppression of democratic rights and clampdown on

the media;

 * the Thai government to not resort to any military coup.

 The current crisis in Thailand only can be resolved through genuine democracy and people’s power. We extend our support and solidarity to all workers, peasants and poor in Thailand who are struggling against the anti-democratic government and for the restoration of real democracy.

By *Socialist Party of Malaysia* (PSM), *Working People’s Association*

(PRP) of Indonesia, *People’s Democratic Party* (PRD) of Indonesia, *Turn Left Thailand*, *Socialist Alliance* of Australia

If we were to study carefully the evolution of events that took place  over the past 6,000 years of recorded history, we will discover that most  of  the  world’s  problems  stemmed  out from politics of one kind or another.  The  New  Webster  Dictionary  of  the English Language describes “politics” as “the science of government; that part of ethics which relates to   the  regulation  for  the  preservation  of  its  safety,  peace,  and prosperity.”

 Meaning of Politics

 Also,  politics  is derived from the Greek word “polis” meaning city,  which  consists  of  citizens  that make up the state or the nation. Those who become involved in the government of a nation are normally viewed as  politicians.  Needless to say, politicians are human beings that may be good  or  bad,  beneficial  or  detrimental,  and generous or egoistic. The people of a nation always tend to benefit when their politicians are highly concerned with their human needs.

 At  the  same  time, people in general always tend to suffer in many  ways  when  their  politicians carry agendas that are beneficial to a selected few but detrimental to many others. These kinds of politicians are viewed  as  abusive  and the greatest problem people are faced with in this regard  lies  in  how  to  get  rid of them fast and smooth, peacefully and effectively.  Since  politicians  differ  from  each other enormously it is somewhat  difficult  and  confusing to have them classified by political or religious affiliation or other devised categories.

 The  Romans had a proverb, aliud est theoria aliud est practica – one thing is theory and other thing is practice. On the whole, people all over  the  world  seem  to  share  at  least  one  thing  in  common  about politicians.  This  was  pointed out by well-known writer George Orwell who said:  “Political  language  is  designed  to  make lies sound truthful and murder  respectable,  and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.” This  statement  cannot be taken lightly because it has been verified to be true century after century to this very same day.

 Let us examine carefully George Orwell’s words. Suppose we come to  know  that  the  food we are about to share with many of our friends is poisonous,  what  would  we do? Shall we proceed to consume it knowing that all  of  us  afterwards  will  be  sick,  if  not dead? Or shall we have it discarded  and  seek  for  a remedy to this problem? If we were to tell the people that this food is very good and tasty and they believe us, they will surely  proceed  to  eat  it only to face the tragic consequences that will follow.

 Deceitful Politics in Operation

Contrary  to  the  admonition  of the United Nations, Pope John Paul  II,  Nelson  Mandela and Desmond Tutu of South Africa, Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and many outstanding world figures, the United States proceeded to invade Iraq. The political language designed by the US government consisted of lies that were  made  to  sound truthful. Not only that, but as George Orwell pointed out,  the  US government and its European allies made the murder of tens of thousands  of  innocent  Iraqi  people viewed as respectable. This needless massacre  was  referred  to  by  some  US military officials as “collateral damage!”

 Is it possible that in the world of politics we manage to reach a  point  as  to  find  it  necessary to reduce the sacred lives of many to merely  a  piece of furniture?! Moreover, to turn an insult into an injury, the  US  later  insisted that the Iraqis were better off now, following the American  invasion, than they were before under Saddam Hussein. Quite a few humanitarian  and  non-governmental  organizations  visited Iraq to see for themselves  what was going on there. They asked little children between the ages of nine and twelve the following question: “What would like to do when you grow up?

 We were told that some 80% of the Iraqi children said without hesitation:  “Killing  Americans!”  Those that raised the question in the first place were very much surprised with this reply. So they proceeded to ask: “Why do you want to do that?” Each of these children gave more or less the same answer: “Because Americans killed my father, they killed my mother and they killed or maimed my brothers, sisters and friends.”

 Others  added saying: “Americans destroyed our homes and schools and all of our  belongings  and  now  we are all homeless.” When the Iraqi adults were asked:  “Don’t  you  feel  better that the US troops removed Saddam Hussein from  office?”  They  all said unanimously: “We were much better before the invasion of Americans because then we still had our houses and schools, our spouses  were  alive  and  well  and  all of us enjoyed seeing our children playing and growing up. Now a number of them are gone and others are maimed and ruined for life.”

 Ironically, the United States views itself as a nation of democracy that is “ruled  by  the  people  who  elect  their representatives to serve them as senators  and  congressmen.” Well, the vast majority of the American people proved  to  be  against  the  US  invasion of Iraq. Moreover, after such an invasion  the  American people, as a whole, continued to say loud and clear that  the  US  government  should  pull out all US troops from Iraq without further  delay.  We  had  even  US presidential candidates, one of whom was Dennis  Kucinich,  who  vowed  to  pull out all American troops out of Iraq without further delay, if elected.

 Orwell’s Saying at Work

 Unfortunately,  like  George  Orwell  well  pointed out, the US government  succeeded to make the tremendous amount of civilian killings in Iraq look respectable, “a necessity to safeguard the freedom, democracy and security  of  the  United States” as some leading politicians said over and over  again  in  the US news-media. By the way, in the last US presidential elections  Barack  Obama  was  elected  as  the next US President primarily because  he  promised  to  end the war in Iraq and bring all US troops back home, even though as of now his promise has not yet been fulfilled.

 Also,  the  American  people  elected  Barack Obama as their US President  because  he  promised  that  he  would resort to solve political problems  through  healthy  dialogues  and strong diplomacy and not through struggles  and wars. This peaceful approach in the sphere of world politics that  he  promised  enabled  him  to  win the Nobel Peace Prize as well. Of course,  this new US President has still time to prove his sincere promises in replacing struggles and wars with harmony and peace everywhere. However, when  he  escalated  the  war  in  Afghanistan  many  Americans felt highly disappointed.

 Besides,  due  to  the  fact  that  the United States is deeply immersed  in  a culture of war mentality, the unjust struggle in the Middle East is still on. The way to bring politics under control is for the people in  the world to see to it that those that represent them in the government give  top  priority  on  people’s  health care and education rather than on continued  struggles  and wars which lead to nowhere except to the eventual bankruptcy  of  the  national economy. The time has arrived when the people should bring politics under their full control.

 Anything  that  politicians  say  which is not conducive to the welfare  of  all people without exception should be viewed as dangerous and should  never  get  our  support.  Anything  that  politicians say which is beneficial  to  welfare  of  people  from every walk of life and procession should  receive  our  wholehearted  support. To this end, we must keep good politicians and get rid of the bad ones.

 There  is not one single group in the world that could claim to be  perfect, an ideal source of inspiration. In other words, it is not wise for us to make it a habit to elect politicians because of their affiliation with  a specific political party or with a religion of one kind or another. It  would  reveal  a  great  lack  of wisdom on our part if we were to view blindly  things  the  way politicians would want us to see them in order to control us.

 Political Meaning of “Pro-Life”

 Let us illustrate this by some practical example. In the United States  people  are  notably  influenced  by  the  name the political party carries:   Republican   versus  Democrat,  or  the  politician’s  religious affiliation.  In  this  latter  one,  Americans  feel  often  trapped  in a political  dilemma,  especially  when  they  are  faced  by self-proclaimed “pro-life”  politicians  versus  self-proclaimed  “pro-choice” politicians. These   divisions  or  classifications  are  nothing  but  meaningless  and deceitful frames people choose to put in their mind.

 It will help us understand better where we stand in politics if we  were  to  illustrate what has just been stated with some evidences that bring  into  proper focus the contradictions found in politics. Republicans claim  to  be  “pro-life.” This certainly pleases many clergymen especially when Republicans stress that “the sacredness of life starts from the moment of conception.” Like George Orwell well stated, this political statement is “designated  to  make  lies sound truthful.” In fact, we need here to raise one serious question.

 If  the  sacredness  of  life  starts  from the first moment of conception  then does this sacredness of life end with the moment of birth? This  is  a  very  relevant question since Republicans always tend to solve virtually  all  political  problems  at  the global level with all sorts of struggles  and  wars.  This  is revealed in their putting more money in the manufacture  and  sales  of  weapons,  in  the  building  of hundreds of US military  bases around the world and in their instigation of more struggles and  wars  where millions of innocent people are killed, including pregnant women!

 We  all know that actions speak louder than words. Since struggles and wars could  only  be  waged by people, is it possible that Republicans and those who  claim  to be “pro-life” may have ulterior motives? Are they “pro-life” as  to  make  sure  more humans are born to be used later as instruments to massacre  millions  of innocent people? Republicans, with other politicians that  support  US  belligerent  foreign  policies,  succeed to make “murder appear  to  be respectable,” as George Orwell remarked. Many US politicians state that “wars cannot be avoided when the freedom, democracy and security of the USA is involved!”

 If  that  is  the  case, then we need to define well the meaning of freedom democracy  and security, otherwise we will continue to misuse such words to the  detriment  of  the  American nation and, as a matter of fact, of every other single nation in the world. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines these three stated terms as follows.

 Freedom, Democracy and Security

 Freedom  is  described  as  “the state of being free; exemption from  slavery, confinement, or constraint; liberty; independence; openness; outspokenness.”  Each  time  the United States invades other countries, and interferes  with their internal affairs does it make sense to say that this was  to  preserve American freedom?! What about if Russia and China were to invade the USA under the guise of preserving Russian and Chinese freedom?

 Democracy is described as “that form of government in which the supreme  power  rests with the people, ruling themselves either directly or through  representatives. It’s a government, as Abraham Lincoln put it that is  “of  the  people, by the people, and for the people.” The United States has  no  right whatsoever to impose its form of government on other nations by military force, under the guise of “preserving” its so called democracy.

 Security  is  described  as “the state of being secure; freedom from  apprehension;  freedom  from  danger  or risk; something that secures against  pecuniary  loss.” How does the manufacture and sales of weapons to anyone  that  gives the right price, the eventual US military invasion of a nation  along  with  the  forming  of  so  called  military alliances bring security  to  the American nation that takes the initiative to attack other nations?

 We  are  all  familiar  with  the saying that “what goes around comes around,” and with the Master Teacher’s firm warning to “put the sword away  for he who kills by the sword will die by the sword.” In view of what has  been  stated,  it  is  quite  obvious that many politicians in quite a number  of  countries have eventually emerged to be very dangerous to their respective nation’s people. People everywhere need to become fully aware of this tangible reality and do something about it, the sooner the better.

 Let  us all face our greatest challenge courageously keeping in mind  that “when there is a will there is a way.” In the social sphere, the people  exist  to control politics and not the other way round. Politicians who  resort  to  dialogues  and  diplomacy  rather than struggles and wars, should  receive  our full support since they prove to be very beneficial to all people without exception.

4-8-10

Charles Mercieca, Ph.D.

President, International Association of Educators for World Peace

Dedicated to United Nations Goals of Peace Education,

Environmental Protection, Human Rights & Disarmament

Professor Emeritus, Alabama A&M University

The Global Article 9 Campaign is celebrating its fifth anniversary this year! During that time, the Campaign has been successfully promoting peace constitutions and advocating for the abolition of war in Japan and around the world. To commemorate this fifth anniversary, throughout this year we will be looking back on the start of the Global Article 9 Campaign and how it has changed since 2005.

 Below is the excerpt of an interview on the Campaign’s beginnings and evolution with Kawasaki Akira, Executive Committee Member of Peace Boat and Secretary General of the Japan Organizing Committee of Global Article 9 Conference to Abolish War held in May 2008.

 Question: How did the idea of the campaign emerge?

 Kawasaki: The campaign began in 2005, I remember, at the occasion of the global conference of the NGO network the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict. It is an international NGO network starting from 2002 and focusing on how to prevent armed conflict and how to shape the focus in the security debate from reaction of the conflict to prevention of the conflict. In that, global NGOs and Northeast Asian NGOs gathered and discussed ways to prevent armed conflicts, and in that discussion, many groups that participated from outside of Japan recognized the value of the Japanese Article 9 in that character of non-militarism, non-violence, and the action agenda adopted by the network formally recognized the value of Article 9 as the foundation of Asia/Pacific peace. I was part of that process, and we Japanese members were so inspired in the discussion, because usually we thought that Article 9 was a domestic, legal, political issue. But it was a fresh experience for us to hear very positive remarks about our Article 9 from the international and global scope. So, inspired by that, we discussed with colleagues, especially in Northeast Asia, neighboring countries, and NGO groups and launched that campaign.

 Question: Initially, what were the core mission, issues and goals of the Campaign?

 Kawasaki: Very simply: globalizing Article 9. The concept of Article 9 was the core mission. To make Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution known to the people of the world, literally known to the people in the world, was one mission. Also, to share its spirit, for example, peaceful settlement of disputes and peaceful prevention of disputes. And also shifting resource allocation from military to human needs and highlighting the rights to live in peace. And, lastly, creating international peace mechanisms made from non-military ways. Those concepts and spirits we shared and implemented by countries in the world. That’s the core mission.

 Question: How has the Campaign evolved and changed since its inception?

 Kawasaki: I think at the starting point it was a very Asia/Pacific focused initiative. But as time goes by and as it progresses, especially in the process of having the Article 9 conference in 2008, where nearly 200 participants from more than 40 countries gathered, it has become truly global and not limited to an Asia/Pacific focus. In the Asia/Pacific focus, the discussion tends to become how to curb Japanese militarization. It is one very important point. But by having, let’s say Latin American participation or European participation or even African participation, the scope became really diverse and deep and really global.

 Question: Why do you think it is important to focus on peace constitutions?

 Kawasaki: Because it’s getting more and more relevant in the contemporary world. Because we see increasing failures by traditional militaristic approaches to solutions to the world. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. All of those, or the War on Terror. Nearly a decade has passed since the US start of the War on Terror, but we see increases of the terrorism, increases of the violence. So, the people are realizing that this approach is not the best solution and more and more military spending is questionable, especially in light of this serious economic recession. So, as an alternative to this political and economic trend in the first decade of the 21st century, having a peace constitution is important not from a legal perspective but rather for presenting an alternative to the political and economic system of the world.

 Question: When you talk about peace constitutions, what do you mean?

 Kawasaki: It’s a very broad concept, but any constitution that refers to peace can be said to be a peace constitution. Some people in Japan say that the Japanese peace constitution is the peace constitution because, it’s true that the Japanese peace constitution is very strict because it does not allow use of force in general. For example, when we look at the Ecuadorian constitution, it is talking about the ban of foreign military bases, but not its own military base. Its own military base is allowed. Or for example, if we talk about the Italian constitution, Article 11 refers to the non-aggression, and Korean constitution also refers to non-aggression, so it is similar to (Japan’s) Article 9.1, which refers to non-aggression. But we have section 2 of renouncing armed forces. So, some people criticize Italian or Korean’s (as) really limited, but I would say that all of those should be included as peace constitutions and should be diverse versions and all united as, you can say, peace constitutions.

 Question: With that said, do you have an ideal type of peace constitution, and if you do, what is it?

 Kawasaki: My sense is that I don’t want to have such kind of legal approach, because I think the peace constitution process is important. I think each constitution should have some shortages. Maybe the Japanese is very good in the text, but the biggest shortage in the Japanese constitution is the gap with the reality, as you know. So, it’s very easy to criticize the Japanese constitution from that perspective. Even pointing out that gap, I still see the value in the Japanese constitution. How to broaden that class style or compilation of fragmented constitutions where each of them has shortages. Broadening them as an international movement to increase and deepen the peace constitution is very important, so I don’t want to take such an approach to identify or define the best peace constitution.

 Question: Ok, so what should be the minimum traits or characteristics of a peace constitution?

 Kawasaki: The minimum characteristics should be to deny or to seriously doubt militaristic approach(es) to the problems of the country or the problems of the world. That’s the minimum part.

 This interview is part of a series of interviews with leaders, supporters, and conference participants of the Global Article 9 Campaign conducted by former Peace Boat and Global Article 9 Campaign intern Jay Gilliam.

Jay Gilliam is currently carrying out research on the Global Article 9 Campaign and peace constitutions around the world. He is enrolled in a Master’s Program in Peace Studies & Conflict Resolution at International Christian University in Tokyo, Japan.