Just International

Koodankulam People’s Appeal To The Conscience Of The Nation

By The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy

04 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy

Idinthakarai 627 104

Tamil Nadu, India

koodankulam@yahoo.com

H.E. The President of India,

H. E. The Prime Minister of India,

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,

H.E. The Governor of Tamil Nadu,

Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, and

The Fellow Citizens of Tamil Nadu and India

Dear All:

Greetings! We have been struggling continuously against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) in peaceful and nonviolent manner for almost a quarter century and for almost 450 days in a more recent concerted campaign. We have been asking in vain for the basic information about the project such as the Site Evaluation Report (SER), Safety Analysis Report (SAR), Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP), the performance report of VVER-1000/412 reactor, and the India-Russia Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) on Liability and so forth.

Instead of getting the above information, we are getting dangerous cases (like sedition, waging war on the state etc.), malicious accusations (that we are foreign funded and instigated), imprisonment, curfew and prohibitory orders, intimidation campaigns, home searches, physical attacks on our persons and properties, police atrocities and other such high-handed behaviors of the State. A few of our honest and hard-working fishermen have just been charged under Goondas Act. All this for practicing our citizenship in the Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic of India!

The UPA government is embarking upon an ambitious plan of setting up scores of nuclear parks all along our coast and in many interiors locations with the help of Russia, France, the United States and many other countries. Our politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen are all pleased with the golden opportunities of making a killing out of this multi-billion dollar business through cuts, commissions, kickbacks, contracts and sub-contracts. Some sections of our scientific community talk about achieving energy security and even energy independence with hardly any original or creative scientific research or accomplishments. Much of our national media toe the government line and try to snatch their share of the pie.

There is no national debate whatsoever on the impact of all these nuclear plants/parks on our farmers’, fishermen’s and workers’ right to life and livelihood; our natural resources; our cattle, crops and seafood; food security; nutrition security; health of our people, and the wellbeing of our progeny.

Even a small mishap in a nuclear facility will destroy millions of people in our highly and densely populated country. We, as a nation, have failed to help our people in Bhopal even after 27 long years; our leaders, bureaucrats and scientists have not even managed to clean up the mess there yet. The dangerous waste still remains there open and exposed. A recent Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) Report on the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has concluded that this toothless regulatory agency has not even ensured nuclear and radiation safety in any of our atomic installations.

None of the above bothers our leaders, bureaucrats and scientists. Scores of developed and advanced countries around the world are shunning nuclear power and going for ‘New Energies’. But our national elites are going for nuclear power with no concrete plans to decommission the plants or to store and safeguard the nuclear waste.

Hundreds of thousands of Indians are demonstrating against nuclear power plants and Uranium mines all over the country. And we are doing just the same here at Koodankulam. But the Government of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu are reacting with such violence and vehemence.

We, as citizens of the largest democracy, are fighting for our right. We have upheld our tradition of secularism, democracy and nonviolence. If sedition charges, Goondas Act, home searches, incarceration and severe repression are the gifts that will be handed down to us, we gladly accept them. We are even prepared to die for the future of our children and grandchildren and our country, but under no circumstances are we prepared to hurt or harm or kill anyone.

As the very last and desperate attempt at securing our independence and freedom, thwarting another spell of colonialism and foreign domination, safeguarding India’s natural resources, changing our energy policy and ensuring the wellbeing of our fellow citizens, we would like to appeal to your and our nation’s collective conscience to listen to us, the ordinary people of India, and not to repress us. Those of us who fail in this historic duty will be judged harshly by the future generations.

With best regards and all peaceful wishes,

Yours truly,

S. P. Udayakumar M. Pushparayan M. P. Jesuraj Fr. F. Jayakumar R. S. Muhilan Peter Milton

Flooding Syria with Foreign Arms: A View from Damascus

By Franklin Lamb

04 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Damascus: Across Syria these days, one is able to examine massive evidence that this ancient civilization, the historic bastion of nationalist Arabism and since the 1948 Nabka, an essential pillar of the growing culture of Resistance to the Zionist occupation of Palestine , is becoming awash with foreign arms being funneled to “rebels” by countries advocating regime change.

This observer has been researching foreign arms transfers into certain Middle East countries since last summer in Libya , where to a lesser degree the identical foreign actors were involved in facilitating the transfer of arms and fighters to topple the then, “Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.”

During a recent stay in Syria , I was able to observe first hand, substantial demonstrative evidence supporting the thesis that American, Zionist and Gulf intelligence agencies as well as private arms dealers from these countries top the list of more than two dozen countries benefiting from the crisis in Syria by injecting arms. These countries gain politically and financially, via governmental and black market arms transfers.

Which countries are sending the most weapons into Syria to arm militia?

A list of the top 24  countries, among the more than three dozen that are currently involved in sending weapons to Syria to achieve regime change include: USA, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, UK, France, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Brazil, Portugal, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, and Argentina.

Nearly two-thirds of the above listed arms suppliers are members of NATO and constitute almost half of NATO’s 28 country membership.

Russia is not included in the above list because it is the main supplier of arms to the Syrian government.  Yet, one finds older USSR era weapons and even some more recent vintage Russian arms in rebel hands, the latter from the decade (12/79-2/89) of Soviet, occupation of Afghanistan . Also offering Russian weapons are a growing number of black market arms dealers of whom there is no shortage along the Turkey-Syrian border and elsewhere.  This recent visitor to Syria was offered near the Old City, AK 47’s (Russian Kalashnikovs) or Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG) for $ 1,800 (in Lebanon today and before the Syrian crisis the price was around $800.  After some bargaining and starting to walk away a couple of times, the “special one-time only price for an American friend” dropped to $ 750 each. Russian made Dragunov sniper rifles are being offered at $ 6,500 but can be bought for around $ 5000.

 

Buying arms these days in Syria is a caveat emptor proposition. Fake weapons and military rejects/defects are also being offered by hustlers from nearby countries including Lebanon , Iraq and Turkey .

The involvement of numerous countries in the Syrian crisis as arms suppliers and political operatives was tangentially referenced by the recent UN Security Council Statement of 12/25/12 which admits the existence of foreign actors and implies their arms supplying activities by urging “all regional and international actors to use their influence on the parties concerned to facilitate the implementation of the (Eid al Adha) ceasefire and cessation of violence.”

Syria ‘s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Bashar al-Jaafari observed last week: “This part of the [Security Council] press statement, mentioned for the first time, proves Syria ‘s view repeated since the beginning of the crisis on the existence of Arab, regional and international parties influencing the armed groups negatively or positively. Therefore, those parties need to be addressed.”

One of the key challenges for  the UN and Arab League envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi whose aides told this observer at the Dama Rose hotel on 10/22/12 where we were staying, is:  “We  need to persuade key countries in the Middle East, but also internationally,  not to support the rebels with arms.

The failed initiative of envoy El Brahimi, was the third ceasefire attempt to date following the December 2011Arab League proposal and the April 2012 Kofi Annan initiative, both of which were endorsed by the Syrian government and most of the world community.  Some rebel militia, but not nearly enough, did endorse the Brahimi four day Eid al Adha ceasefire only to have it collapse this past weekend.  To his credit, Brahimi continues his work.

The same Brahimi sources suggested that the United States may also be supplying man-portable air-defense systems (Manpods) to rebels in Syria .   According to Russian Foregin Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich, speaking on 12/15/12 : “At the same time, it is also well-known that Washington is aware of supplies of various types of arms to illegal armed groups operating in Syria . Moreover, the United States , judging by admissions by American officials that have also been published in American media, is conducting coordination and providing logistical support for such supplies.” NBC News, based in New York reported in July that Syrian insurgents had obtained two dozen US MANPADS, delivered from Turkey .

A month after the October 2011 death of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.”  Congressional sources report that the Obama administration is fully aware that quantities of these arms are current in Syria and more in transit.

With respect to arms moving from Libya to Syria , on the night of Sept. 11 Libya time, in what was his last public meeting, US Ambassador Christopher Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and accompanied him to the consulate front gate just before the assault began. Although what was discussed has not yet been made public, Washington sources including the pro-Zionist Fox News speculate that Stevens may have been in Benghazi negotiating a weapons transfer, from Libya to Syria .

 

Earlier this year, Assistant Secretary of State for Political and Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro expressed concerns that the increasing flow of Libya arms was far from under control. Speaking to the Stimson Center in Washington D.C. on 2/10/12 Shapiro said: “This raises the question — how many weapons and missiles are still missing? The frank answer is we don’t know and probably never will.”

According to a 10/14/12 report by the Times of London, a vessel flying the Libyan flag named Al Entisar (Victory), loaded with more than 400 tons of cargo, docked in southern Turkey 35 miles from the Syrian northern border. While some of the undeclared cargo was likely humanitarian, staff accompanying UN envoy Brahimi during his recent Syrian trip report the Al Entisar also carried the largest consignment of foreign weapons to date, including surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and MANPADS destined for Syria .

Partly because of the jihadists and arms entering Syria from its northern border, southern Turkey is increasingly referred to here in Damascus as “New Afghanistan”, given its matrix of jihadists, salafists, wahabists, and battle-hardened panoply of arriving foreign would-be mujahedeen  and al Qaeda affiliates.

Remarkably, as was witnessed in 2007, during the conflict at the Nahr al Bared Palestinian refugee camp in north Lebanon, some of the arriving eager jihadists in “New Afghanistan”  actually believe that they are fighting against Zionist forces near occupied Palestine and not killing fellow Arabs in Syria.

Some, but not all of the  many types of small arms flowing into Syria in large numbers, and viewed by this observer include:

7.62mm Tabuk (Yugoslavia) rifles, Mass rifles (UK), 7.62 mm rifles (Poland), 12 mm rifles (Italy), 7.62 mm Kalashnikovs (several countries versions), 9 mm ‘fast gun’, (Austria), 7.62 mm Val (Belgium), G3 7.62 mm G3 rifles (Germany), 7.5mm model 36 rifles (France), M16 and a variety of sniper and other rifles (USA), 7.62 rifles (Bulgaria, 10.5 Uzi and other automatic machine guns, three types of hand grenades  (Israel), 9 mm guns (Canada), 7 mm guns (Czech Republic), 7 mm guns (Brazil).

Israeli weapons are among the most frequently found in Syria as was the case in Libya . Israeli arms dealers are claimed to have recently intensified links with Blackwater International and also are currently smuggling through the Golan Heights, the tri-border area of south Lebanon , occupied Palestine and Syria .

The observer also examined and was briefed on M72 LAW and AT-3 anti-tank missiles developed by the United States . But the extent of their use is difficult to verify. Most of the arms shown in accompanying photos are from the main urban centers and near the Turkish, Iraqi, Lebanese and Jordanian borders.

In tightly built up urban areas such as Homs , Idlib and Aleppo , door to door fighting includes a battle among snipers. According to one Syrian military intelligence source in whose Damascus office this observer discussed the subject, the most frequently confiscated sniper rifles currently being found in the hands of “rebels” include:

 

·         the  U.S. Army & USMC M1903-A4 (also: USMC M1903-A1/Unertl), the U.S. Army & USMC M1C & M1D and U.S. Army M21;

·  the Israeli M89SR Technical Equipment International 7.62x51mm NATO Semi-automatic, Galil Sniper Rifle and the T.C.I. M89-SR,

·          the British  .243 Winchester , 7.62x51mm NATO/.308 Winchester ,.300 Winchester Magnum, and the 338 Lapua Magnum Bolt action sniper rifles.

A few Afghanistan era Russian Dragonov SVD and SV-98 sniper rifles have also been confiscated among an assortment of others.

Foreign jihadists have some access to Soviet-era DShK heavy machine guns or ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft cannons which are used for anti-aircraft and fire support. Both use fairly scarce high-explosive rounds and armor-piercing rounds, which are capable of penetrating the armor of the Syrian military’s BMP infantry fighting vehicles. The ZU-23-2 “Sergey”, also known as ZU-23, is a Soviet towed 23 mm anti-aircraft cannon. Vehicle mounted Zu-23-2’s are relatively easy to spot by government aircraft and artillery units are used to attack a target and quickly flee to avoid counter strikes.

On 10/25/12 Russia reiterated its claims that the US assists and coordinates arms deliveries to foreign-sponsored insurgents battling the Syrian government forces. Russia ‘s chief military officer said that Syrian armed groups have acquired US-made weapons, including Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. This observer saw many weapons from more than a dozen types of IED’s (improvised explosive device) to

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry issued statement of 10/25/12 , “ Washington is aware of the deliveries of various weapons to illegal armed groups active in Syria . Moreover, judging by the declarations of US officials published in US media, the US coordinates and provides logistical assistance in such deliveries.”

Some analysts in Damascus claim that Syria ‘s potential military strength has not been as effective as it could be in the current urban fights against rebels. The government appears very strong militarily if one studies the statistics regarding Syria ‘s large and disciplined army which continues its support and also given its sophisticated long range missiles, air defense systems that have deterred an airborne attack from Israel . One reason progress has at times appeared slow against the “rebels” according to some local analysts was a certain initial unpreparedness to confront highly motivated guerrilla militia in downtown densely populated areas. These kinds of battles, it is claimed, require a mobile infantry, armored flexibility and very effective use of light arms.  The Assad government’s “adapt, catch up and go on the offensive” paradigm is developing rapidly according to US Senate Armed Service Committee sources who assert that the Syria army has actually become battle hardened,  tougher, stronger and more disciplined over the past several months. But it has taken time and has incurred a significant cost.

Weapons examined by this observer in Syria during 10/12 include some of the more than 1,750 new American sniper rifles channeled from Iraq and NATO supply stores to rebel militia.

How foreign weapons are entering Syria

As widely speculated particularly in the regional media, foreign supplied weapons to “rebels” arrive by air, sea and mainly by land from Iraq , Turkey , Lebanon , Saudi Arabia , Qatar , Jordan and occupied Palestine .

Israel is reported, by some researchers in Damascus who have been covering the crisis for nearly 20 months, to be sending arms to Syria from Kurdistan , having had much experience in Africa , South America and Eastern Europe via Mossad and Israeli black market arms dealing. What Israel did in Libya in terms of a wide spread arms business it is also trying to do in Syria .  Israeli arms, according to Syrian and Lebanese sources are being transported into Syria from along the tri-border area of South Lebanon , near Shebaa Farms, close to Jabla al-Saddaneh, and Gadja. In addition, Israeli smugglers have increasingly, over the past five months, been seen by locals moving arms inside Syria via the Golan Heights . These violations of  Syrian and Lebanese sovereignty raise serious questions about the vigilance of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force Zone (UNDO) based in the Golan Heights as well as the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese Army as well as National Lebanese Resistance units near the ‘blue line’ to stop the illicit Israeli arms transfers.

The recent arrival in southern Turkey and along the northern Syrian border of Blackwater mercenaries is expected to increase the foreign arms flow.  Currently using the name Academi (previously known as Xena- Xe Services LLC, Blackwater USA and Blackwater Worldwide) Academi is currently, according to Jane’s Defense Weekly, the largest of the US governments “private security” contractors.  Details of its relationship with the US Defense Department and the CIA are classified.

Is there a coherent US policy toward the Syrian crisis?

Secretary of State Clinton has been announcing recently that the U.S. is increasing its “non-lethal support” (i.e. direct shipments as opposed to boots on the ground or ballistic weapons) according to her Congressional liaison office. She also confirmed that Washington is working with its friends and allies to promote more cohesion among the disparate Syrian opposition groups with the aim of producing a new leadership council following meetings scheduled for Doha in the coming weeks.

However, to the consternation of the State Department, General David Petraeus the former US commander of NATO forces in Iraq , now director of the CIA acknowledged, during his senate confirmation hearings. “Non-lethal aid to combatants, including communication equipment, is sometimes more lethal and important than explosive devices due to the logistical advantages they provides on the battlefield.”

In tandem with the US , the UK and several European governments are supplying “non-lethal” aid to the Syrian opposition, including satellite communications equipment according to Syria security sources.

There is also plenty of anecdotal and demonstrative and probative evidence in Syria of human weapons patterned on the “Zarqawi model” which refers to the bloody al Qaeda in Mesopotamia campaign named for its leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi after U.S. troops occupied Iraq .

In a speech this week in Zagreb , Croatia , this week, Secretary of State Clinton insisted that any group seeking to oust President Bashar al-Assad must reject attempts by extremists to “hijack” a legitimate revolution.  She added, “There are disturbing reports of heavily armed foreign extremists going into Syria and attempting to take over.” Clinton used her strongest words to date concerning risks that the uprising in Syria could be overtaken by militants who do not seek a democratic replacement or the reforms that the current government claims it is trying to implement. She told her conferees:  “We made it clear that the SNC can no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition. They can be part of a larger opposition, but that opposition must include people from inside Syria and others who have a legitimate voice. We also need an opposition that will be on record strongly resisting the efforts by extremists to hijack the Syrian revolution. There are disturbing reports of heavily armed extremists going into Syria and attempting to take over.” Clinton advised her colleagues that the US has become convinced that the SNC does not represent the interests of all ethnic and religious groups in Syria and that it has little legitimacy among on-the-ground activists and fighters, and has done little to stem the infiltration of Islamist extremists into the opposition forces.

Clinton’s language is being interpreted by some as evidence that a post-election Obama Whitehouse, she he win on November,  may move toward the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian position and away from, what one Congressional source  derisively  labeled,  “ the view from the Gulf gas stations”  i.e. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and some other despotic monarchies.

The intervention in Syria by more than three dozen countries supplying weapons must be stopped. Both sides of the Syrian crisis need to manifest by actions, not just words, a serious commitment to meaningful dialogue. The above noted arms supplying countries, and others off stage, have a solemn obligation to their citizens and to the world community to immediately halt the shipment of arms.

They should, and their people should demand that they do without further delay, honor the words of Isaiah 2:3-5….”and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”

Granted, perhaps a cliché and certainly far easier said than done.

Yet, as Oregon ‘s late great US Senator Wayne Morse used tell audiences around America during the Vietnam War, quoting General George Marshall, “ The only way we human beings can win a war is to prevent it.”

It’s time for the international community to end the Syrian crisis diplomatically, stop funneling arms and cash fueling hoped for regime change elements. Instead, they must demand that all the involved parties immediately engage in serious dialogue and settle their differences.

Franklin P. Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Wash.DC-Beirut and Board Member, The Sabra Shatila Foundation and the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Beirut-Washington DC . He is now in Syria. Email: fplamb@gmail.com

Comment on “The China- Japan Dispute over Diaoyu: Let the Truth Prevail!”

By Dr. Motoko Shuto

4 November 2012

The following is my comment on “THE CHINA JAPAN DISPUTE OVER DIAOYU: LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL!” by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar in JUST Commentary, October 2012. 

I thank Dr. Chandra Muzaffar for giving me this opportunity to send my brief comments below pertaining to his article.

First, though it says that “There are books, reports and maps from the 15th century, during the period of the Ming Dynasty, that establish in no uncertain terms that Diaoyu is Chinese territory”, this is simply untrue. In reality, in the old Chinese documents during the Ming dynasty, the Senkakus, which had been uninhabited, were mentioned as they were visible from the sea during voyages to the Ryukyu Kingdom. Nothing more, nothing less. No documents have been found to prove that the islands were under  Chinese administration during any periods.

On the contrary, the official maps during the Ming Dynasty clearly mentioned that the “Diaoyu” was outside the Ming‘s Defense Line. For instance, if you access the map of the East China Sea which was made in 1562 found at  http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/576443_103570713134979_1739804879_n.jpg, you will find that the “Diaoyu” was outside the Defense Line far from Fujian Province. (In the map The red line is the defense line, 190 Ri, approximately 100 km, from the coast-line. The red-line in the map was drawn by a scholar.  The Senkakus are 330 km away from the coast-line, far beyond the defense line.)  The “defense line” was recognized, but the “boundary” was not recognized during this era.   It is primarily because under the traditional Chinese world order there was no such concept as  “boundary”. It was a hierarchical world order spreading endlessly, and there were no concepts such as “internal” or “external” affairs.  The latter was an extension of the former boundlessly.  Thus, there was no such concept as “boundary” which was originated from the European modern state system.The Chinese Government simply hides this fact and they are telling lies to the nation and to the international community, claiming that the Senkakus are “historically Chinese territory”.

Second, the annexation took almost 10 years and it was based on the doctrine of terra nullius, not “through military force”.  The Government of Japan in the early Meiji era examined the past history related to the Senkakus since 1885 upon a request of Mr. Koga, a private business person. He was from Fukuoka in Kyushu and had opened a marine product-processing business on Ishigaki Island. After having explored the Senkakus with his friends, he requested permission from the government to open a marine product- processing factory on the Senkakus in 1884. This was 10 years before the Sino-Japan War broke out. Ten years after the request, the government concluded that the islands had never been governed by any states earlier and based on the terra nullius doctrine of international law incorporated the Senkakus into Okinawa prefecture on 14 January 1895. This was two months before the peace treaty started on March 20 in Shimonoseki.  Under the Shimonoseki Treaty, Taiwan and the Penghu islands, located  west of Taiwan, were ceded to Japan by the Qing dynasty. But the Senkakus were not part of this treaty.

It was in the late 2000s that I first heard a Chinese General mention at a symposium in Singapore that Japan has not returned what she had obtained by the Shimonoseki Treaty. Shortly after that, China began to disseminate this misleading interpretation through the state media and recently international media. They have been aggressively expanding lobbying campaigns through a firm called Patton Boggs, paying USD35,000 per month, and have been utilizing diplomatic channels all over the world. This is Chinese propaganda, however.

In reality, since it was annexed to Okinawa prefecture, there used to be a village with a peak population of 90 Japanese households on the Senkaku islands, They lived there until the late 1930s when it became difficult to get oil for their fishing boats.  During and after WW II, the Senkakus were not mentioned as the areas that Japan should agree to abandon in neither the Cairo or Potsdam Declarations nor the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Though the article says that “Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration acknowledged this (that Diaoyu was Chinese territory)”, it is untrue because in the two declarations it was Taiwan and the Penghu islands that were articulated.

Actually, the People’s Daily of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used to recognize that the Senkaku Islands were part of Okinawa prefecture throughout the 1950s and 1960s. For instance, an article in the People’s Daily dated January 8, 1953 said that “the Senkaku Islands were part of the Ryukyu Islands”. Also the official maps published by the Chinese government in 1953, 1958,1960 and 1967 articulated that the “Senkaku Islands”, using this name, were part of the Okinawa islands. Maps and school text books published in the Republic of China (Taiwan) as well used to note that the Senkakus were part of Okinawa during the 1950s and 1960s. Some maps and newspapers are available on the Internet.

It was since 1971 that the PRC and Taiwan suddenly changed their attitude and began to claim that the islands were traditionally Chinese territory. It was after the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) announced in its survey report that there was potential oil/LNG resources in the East China Sea. First Taiwan claimed territorial rights and the Senkakus were put within their boundary in the textbooks since 1971 in Taiwan. Soon afterwards, the PRC began to claim territorial rights, perhaps by the logic that the Senkakus are part of Taiwan, and since Taiwan is part of China, thus the Senkakus are Chinese territory.

It was Prime Minister Chou En-lai who said in 1972  that “Because of oil it has become an issue. If there’s no oil, Taiwan and the United States would not make it an issue either”, when Prime Minister Tanaka asked him about his opinion on the Senkakus when he visited Beijing to negotiate diplomatic normalization with the PRC. They did not discuss it any further at the meeting according to the diplomatic record. In later negotiations, it is widely said that they tacitly agreed that they would leave the solution of the Senkakus to the wisdom of a future generation and keep the current status quo. Actually it is not clear whether this was really a point of agreement or part of the media’s interpretation, because as far as the diplomatic documents are concerned it is not recorded.

Third, after the diplomatic normalization between China and Japan, in 1992 China unilaterally enacted the Law on Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in which the South China Sea and the East China Sea are all included as Chinese territorial seas. At the same time, in order to avoid the path of the Communist Party of the USSR, the CCP switched its legitimizing strategy from ideology to patriotism since the early 1990s to stress that it was the CCP that had fought against Japanese fascism to save the nation. In this context they have taught that the “Diaoyu is Chinese territory” through public education and the media at large in China. Those young generations have enormously increased in number and they are pushing the government to take much tougher action against “Fascist Little Japan”. In response to such gross public mood which is, in itself, a product of state policy through “patriotic education”, China seems to have crossed the rubicon over the Senkaku issue. What is the true purpose? Are the Senkakus the ultimate goal or a step towards  the goal of their strategy?

Now, China claims the islands are “part of Chinese territory historically”, but there are two points:  First, which claim is more convincing, “a discovery” mentioned in the old documents with no history of administration or annexation based on the doctrine of terra nullis which was immediately followed by the local administration of Okinawa prefecture for decades?  Second, based on what criteria can the state claim its “historical rights of territory”?   If it were based on the widest geographical stretch of old empires, China could insist on the widest stretch of its sphere of influence under the Ming or Qing dynasties, although Tibet was not yet part of their territory during the medieval times.  If so, then, other former empires during medieval times could be qualified, too, to claim  its widest territorial rights as “its own historical property”.  In this sense, it is a conceptual clash of “state boundary” between the Western sovereign state system and the old Chinese world order system that we are witnessing now in the South China Sea and the East China Sea.

However, in the case of the East China Sea, there is a point well beyond that. Clearly by the same logic, their territorial claims do not stop at the Senkakus but the next target is Okinawa. China is already active in expanding campaigns that Okinawa should not be part of Japan. The purpose of their strategy is first, to gain oil and other marine resources in the East China Sea, and second, to materialize the First Island Chain under the Chinese control by her navy and air forces. This strategy inevitably confronts US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

Although on 10 September 2012 with regard to the purchase of  the islands by the Japanese government the Chinese government announced that “This constitutes a gross violation of China’s sovereignty”, obviously they had realized that there existed a person (family) who had property rights over the Senkakus and tried to purchase the islands from him.  Because of this, the land-owner consulted with former Tokyo Governor Ishihara, their old friend, to consider the purchase by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Governor Ishihara responded positively and started to collect funds to purchase the islands, which eventually reached more than JPY1.4 billion. The government of Japan was worried about possible provocative actions if such purchase was actualized. Thus, in a hurry, the government decided to put the Senkakus under the perfect control of the government to keep the status quo. They had consulted with Beijing in advance, needless to say, and got tacit approval from the CPP with three conditions at least up to early August, it is said.

Immediately after the purchase announcement, however, massively devastating demonstrations continued for weeks against Japan as well as Japanese shops and factories in China, as we have seen, having caused major damage. What is worse is that China grossly curtailed major trade relations, began to exclude Japan from trade meetings and exhibitions in China, cancelled cultural exchange visits, and even ordered the removal of all Japanese books from bookstores. At Beijing customs, all Japanese newspapers that have arrived at the airport were confiscated.

How gravely and unjustly China has injured Japanese factories and shops in China  by mobilizing such massive numbers of people to attend the demonstrations. It was nothing but de facto state-organized terror against Japan. It is China that is intimidating Japan’s sovereignty by constantly sending the government’s vessels near the Senkakus and trying to change the status quo by force, refusing diplomatic talks. It is China that has taken unilateral actions in breach of its obligations under the UN Charter, the WTO and other international agreements. China is not an enemy of Japan, having established heavily interdependent relations at the bilateral and regional levels. However, China is a threat in the sense that any unpredictable incidents can happen only if the CCP top leaders wish at any cost and by any means at the national and international levels.

 

Dr. Mokoto Shuto is a professor at the University of Tsukuba, Japan, she is also a JUST member.

 

Protests, Prosecution And Punishment In Saudi Arabia

By Countercurrents.org

03 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Saudi Arabia is experiencing protests, prosecution and punishments. The following reports reveal a few facts:

An international rights group urged Saudi Arabia on October 28, 2012 to stop prosecuting and punishing people for peaceful protests, after the kingdom charged 19 men for staging a sit-down demonstration outside a prison in September.

Security forces arrested dozens of men after the Sept. 23 protest near Tarfiya prison in central Saudi Arabia to press for the release of detained relatives. Demonstrators and a rights activist said police had kept the protesters, including women and children, without food or water for nearly a day.

In a separate demonstration on the same day, dozens of protesters gathered in front of the government-linked Saudi Human Rights Commission also calling for the release of jailed relatives.

Human Rights Watch said the Saudi Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution charged the 19 men on Oct. 17 with ‘instigating chaos and sedition’ and ‘gathering illegally’.

The following day, 15 of them were sentenced to between three and 15 days in jail. The court also handed the men suspended sentences of between 50 and 90 lashes and suspended jail terms of between two and five months.

The rest are scheduled to be tried on Nov. 4.

“Instead of addressing the protesters’ concerns, the Saudi government has used the judicial system to punish them,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

“The sentences handed to these men are part of a wider effort to target and harass activists across the country.”

Saudi officials were not immediately available to comment on the report.

Saudi Arabia, a key Gulf ally of the United States and the world’s top oil exporter, banned protests in March 2011, after demonstrations began sweeping the Arab world in what became known as the Arab Spring.

In a statement on Oct. 12, the Interior Ministry warned Saudis to “refrain from staging rallies or taking part in any gathering or procession in violation of the law” and that those detained for doing so would be dealt with harshly.

Human Rights Watch said that Saudi authorities had not accused the protesters of violence during the sit-down protest.

Saudi Arabia, which has been a target for al Qaeda attacks, say the protesters’ relatives were all being held on security grounds. But activists say some are also held for purely political activity and have never been charged.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said those accused of “terrorism-related” crimes were being dealt with in a fair judicial process.

Human Rights Watch said Saudi authorities had cracked down on activists for organizing peaceful demonstrations in various parts of the country, including the capital Riyadh.

In April, a court in Riyadh sentenced campaigner Mohammed al-Bajadi to four years in prison after he was accused of forming a human rights association, tarnishing Saudi Arabia’s reputation, questioning the independence of the judiciary, and owning illegal books, activists said.

He had been held for a year without charge after voicing support for prisoners’ families.

Earlier Asma Alsharif reported [2] from Jeddah:

Security forces detained on September 24, 2012 dozens of men who had staged a protest near a prison in central Saudi Arabia to press for the release of relatives, demonstrators and a rights activist said. The arrests were made after police had confined the protesters, who included women and small children, to a desert area outside the prison where they were kept without food or water for nearly a day, protesters and activists said.

It was a rare demonstration in the world’s biggest oil exporter, where protests are banned.

Activists said police with shields and batons persuaded the protesters at the prison to go home, telling them their message had been heard and their demands would be looked into.

“When we left the ‘Emergency Forces’ followed our cars. They chased us and stopped us to detain the men,” said Reema al-Juraish, a protester whose husband is in the prison.

“I saw them grab five and when I tried to intervene they pushed me and hit me with a baton.”

She said up to 60 men where arrested and taken to an unknown location.

More than 100 people, including women and children, had staged a one-day protest in the desert around Tarfiya prison in the Qassim province but were surrounded by police. They said they had been kept without food or water for almost a full day.

Police set up checkpoints on the two roads leading to the area and deployed patrols in the desert around it.

The kingdom avoided the kind of unrest that toppled leaders across the Arab world last year after it introduced generous social spending packages and issued a religious edict banning public demonstrations.

Last year the Interior Ministry said it had put on trial 5,080 of nearly 5,700 people detained on security grounds.

In another report [3] from Riyadh, Angus McDowall informed:

Dozens of Saudis staged a rare protest on September 10, 2012 against the detention of relatives held without trial for security offenses.

Up to 50 people, including eight women, stood quietly outside a prosecutor’s office by the side of a Riyadh road watched by uniformed policemen sitting in three police cars.

The U.S. ally and world’s biggest oil exporter has played a critical role in helping Western intelligence agencies foil plots by al Qaeda. But rights groups have faulted it for a near total lack of democracy and intolerance of dissent.

Human rights groups have also accused the government of using its campaign against Islamist militants to imprison political dissidents.

Saudi Arabia says it has no political prisoners and last year said it had put on trial 5,080 of nearly 5,700 people it had detained on security charges since a series of attacks against foreign and government targets in 2003.

The Saudi embassy in London in December responded to an Amnesty International report that the authorities justified cracking down on dissent by citing security concerns by saying it was based on inaccurate information.

The protesters included adolescents and elderly people. They stood in a tight group without waving placards or shouting slogans. One woman, holding a walking stick, sat on a chair.

“My brother told me he was taken to court last year but it was a secret trial and they didn’t let him choose his own lawyer. It’s been over a year and we still don’t have the result of the trial. In my opinion this trial is nothing but a show,” said a protester, who did not want to be named for fear of arrest.

He said his brother had been arrested 11 years ago after returning from Afghanistan where he had gone to fight and that he complained of being beaten in detention.

A spokesman for the Saudi Interior Ministry was not immediately available to comment but the government has repeatedly denied using torture.

The women protesters wore traditional face-covering veils and many of the men, who also wore traditional dress, also covered their faces with their red-and-white checked Arab scarves, seemingly to hide their identities.

It is unusual for women to join protests in the conservative Islamic kingdom, where gender segregation is strictly enforced.

Despite persistent demonstrations from members of its Shiite Muslim minority that have continued into 2012 and a facebook campaign last spring calling for a “day of rage” the country’s Sunni majority mostly stayed off the streets.

However, there have been some small protests outside Shiite areas since the start of last year over specific issues.

In January 2011 unemployed teachers protested in Riyadh and in Jeddah residents of an area hit by floods also demonstrated. Detainees’ relatives protested in February and June last year.

In March this year thousands of students at an all-female university in Abha, in southern Saudi Arabia, boycotted lectures after police broke up a protest by some of their classmates over poor campus services

Source:

[1] The Daily Star, Lebanon, Sami Aboudi, “Saudi Arabia should stop prosecuting peaceful protesters-HRW”, Oct. 28, 2012, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Oct-28/192997-saudi-arabia-should-stop-prosecuting-peaceful-protesters-hrw.ashx#axzz2AczJi1H2

[2] The Daily Star, Lebanon, Sept. 25, 2012 “Dozens arrested after prison protest in Saudi Arabia”, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Sep-25/189088-dozens-arrested-after-prison-protest-in-saudi-arabia.ashx#axzz2AczJi1H2

[3] “Saudis stage rare protest over security detentions without trial”, Sept. 10, 2012, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Sep-10/187403-saudis-stage-rare-protest-over-security-detentions-without-trial.ashx#axzz2AczJi1H2

For Whom Should The Left Vote?

By Jack A. Smith

03 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

There are important differences, of course, between Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican contender Mitt Romney, but the long conservative trend in American politics will continue regardless of who wins the presidential election Nov. 6. Either candidate will move it right along.

From a left point of view, Obama is superior to Romney in the sense that the Democratic center right is politically preferable to the Republican right/far right. The Democrats will cause less social damage — though not less war damage or the pain of gross inequality or the harm done civil liberties — than their conservative cousins.

Indeed, both candidates are conservative. Obama is moderately so, judging by his first term in the White House, though “liberal” in his current campaign rhetoric and on two social issues — abortion and gay marriage. Romney is definitely so, though he shifts opportunistically from the extreme right to the right and back again. In the last weeks of the campaign, sensing his impending defeat, the former Massachusetts governor momentarily leaned to the center right.

The Republican Party has gravitated ever further to the right during the last few decades and is now securely in the hands of extremist politicians, symbolized by the ascendancy of the Tea Party and the many House and Senate members who follow its far right agenda. Jim Hightower, the well known liberal Texas columnist, wrote an article in AlterNet Oct. 8 that briefly described key programs in the GOP platform:

* Medicare must be replaced with a privatized “VoucherCare” (or, more accurately, “WeDon’tCare”) medical system;

• All poverty programs must be slashed or eliminated to “free” poor people from a crippling and shameful dependency on public aid;

• The government framework that sustains a middle class (from student loans to Social Security) must be turned over to Wall Street so individuals are free to “manage” their own fates through marketplace choice;

• Such worker protections as collective bargaining, minimum wage, and unemployment payments must be stripped away to remove artificial impediments to the “natural rationality” of free market forces;

• The corporate and moneyed elites (forgive a bit of redundancy there) must be freed from tax and regulatory burdens that impede their entrepreneurial creativity;

• The First Amendment must be interpreted to mean that unlimited political spending of corporate cash equals free speech; and

• Etcetera, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

The one thing Hightower left out is that if the Republicans insist on identifying corporate bosses as “Job Creators,” why then aren’t they creating jobs? Romney blames China, as do the Democrats, but that’s election politics. China is a rising capitalist economy that only started to really take off about 15 years ago, and it is doing what all such rising economies do — adopting some measures to grow and protect their developing industries and trade. The U.S. did it too as a growing economy for many decades. That’s capitalism. It goes where it can make the most profit. Washington supports this. Nothing prevents the U.S. government from investing in the creation of millions of jobs in America except conservative ideology.

Despite the seeming distance between the two parties on economic issues — emphasized by Republican proposals cribbed from the pages of “Atlas Shrugged”— economist Jared Bernstein, a Democrat, wrote on his blog Sept. 6 that he was going beyond “good Democrats and bad Republicans” to perceive “the ascendancy of a largely bipartisan vision that promotes individualist market-based solutions over solutions that recognize there are big problems that markets cannot effectively solve.” He’s on to something.

Bernstein, until this year Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economic adviser, then wrote: “We cannot, for example, constantly cut the federal government’s revenue stream without undermining its ability to meet pressing social needs. We know that more resources will be needed to meet the challenges of prospering in a global economy, keeping up with technological changes, funding health care and pension systems, helping individuals balance work and family life, improving the skills of our workforce, and reducing social and economic inequality. Yet discussion of this reality is off the table.”

There are a number of major policy areas of virtual agreement between the parties. Their most flagrant coupling is in the key area of foreign/military policy.

The Democrats — humiliated for years by right wing charges of being “soft on defense” — have become the war party led by a Commander-in-Chief who relishes his job to the extent of keeping his own individual kill list. What neoconservative would dare fault him for this? Imagine the liberal outcry had Bush been discovered with a kill list! This time the liberals didn’t kick up much fuss.

During the third presidential debate Romney had little choice but to align himself with Obama’s war policies in Afghanistan, the attacks on western Pakistan, the regime change undeclared war against Libya, the regime change war in Syria, the aggressive anti-China “pivot” to Asia and drone assaults against Yemen and Somalia with many more to come.

Virtually all liberals, progressives, some leftists and organized labor will vote for Obama. Many will do so with trepidation, given their disappointment about his performance in office, particularly his tilt toward the right, willingness to compromise more than half way with the Republicans, and his reluctance to wage a sharp struggle on behalf of supposed Democratic Party goals.

Many of these forces now view Obama as the “lesser evil,” but worry he will sell them out once again. According to the Washington publication The Hill on Oct. 24:

“Major labor unions and dozens of liberal groups working to elect President Obama are worried he could ‘betray’ them in the lame-duck session by agreeing to a deal to cut safety-net programs. While Obama is relying on labor unions and other organizations on the left to turn out Democratic voters in battleground states, some of his allies have lingering concerns about whether he will stand by them if elected….

“The AFL-CIO has planned a series of coordinated events around the country on Nov. 8, two days after Election Day, to pressure lawmakers not to sign onto any deficit-reduction deal that cuts Medicare and Social Security benefits by raising the Medicare eligibility age or changing the formula used for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments. ‘There’s going to be a major effort by lots of groups to make sure the people we vote for don’t sell us down the river,’ said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. “People, groups, organizations and networks are working very hard to get Obama and the Democrats elected, and yet we are worried that it is possible that we could be betrayed almost immediately,’ he said.”

One specific issue behind this distrust is the awareness that, if reelected, Obama has said he will seek a “grand bargain” with the Republicans intended to slash the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. During deficit talks with House leader John Boehner over a year ago Obama voluntarily declared that cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were “on the table” for negotiation— the first time any Democratic President ever offered to compromise on what amounts to the crowning legislative achievements of the New Deal and Great Society administrations.

At the time Obama envisioned reducing Medicare by $1 trillion and Medicaid by $360 billion over two decades. The exact amount from Social Security was not disclosed. During the campaign Obama promised to “protect” these three “entitlements.”

While denouncing Romney’s “plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program and increase health care costs for seniors,” AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka disclosed Oct. 23 that “a bipartisan group of senators who are not up for reelection is working behind closed doors in Washington to reach a so-called grand bargain that completely bypasses this debate and ignores the views of voters. What is the grand bargain? It boils down to lower tax rates for rich people — paid for by benefit cuts for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”

Another reason for a certain suspicion about what Obama will achieve in a second term is based on his unfulfilled promises from the 2008 election. Here are some of them from an Oct. 27 article titled “The Progressive Case Against Obama” by Matt Stoller:

“ A higher minimum wage, a ban on the replacement of striking workers, seven days of paid sick leave, a more diverse media ownership structure, renegotiation of NAFTA, letting bankruptcy judges write down mortgage debt, a ban on illegal wiretaps, an end to national security letters, stopping the war on whistle-blowers, passing the Employee Free Choice Act, restoring habeas corpus, and labor protections in the FAA bill.

“Each of these pledges would have tilted bargaining leverage to debtors, to labor, or to political dissidents. So Obama promised them to distinguish himself from Bush, and then went back on his word because these promises didn’t fit with the larger policy arc of shifting American society toward his vision.”

Many liberals and progressives seem convinced that the two-party system is the only viable battleground within which to contest for peace and social progress, even if the two ruling parties are right of center. This is one reason they shun progressive or left third parties.

This national electoral battleground, however, as has become evident to many Americans in recent years, is owned and operated by the wealthy ruling elite which has, through its control of the two-party system, stifled any social progress in the United States for 40 years.

Throughout these same four decades the Democrats have shifted from the center left to center right. The last center left Democratic presidential candidate was the recently departed former Sen. George McGovern, who was whipped by the Republicans in 1972. In tribute to this last antiwar and progressive presidential candidate, and as a contrast to the present center right standard bearer, we recall McGovern’s comment from the 1972 Democratic convention:

“As one whose heart has ached for the past 10 years over the agony of Vietnam, I will halt a senseless bombing of Indochina on Inaugural Day. There will be no more Asian children running ablaze from bombed-out schools. There will be no more talk of bombing the dikes or the cities of the North [Vietnam]. And within 90 days of my inauguration, every American soldier and every American prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and then home in America where they belong.”

There is more to America’s presidential and congressional elections than meets the eye of the average voter. Next week’s election, for instance, has two aspects. One has been in-your-face visible for over a year before Election Day, costing billions. The other is usually concealed because it’s not a matter that entertains public debate or intervention.

The visible aspect — the campaign, slogans and speeches, the debates, arguments and rallies —is contained within the parameters of the political system which Obama and Romney meticulously observe. Those parameters, or limitations, are mainly established by that privileged elite sector of the citizenry lately identified as the 1% and its minions.

The concealed aspect of elections in the U.S. is that they are usually undemocratic in essence; and that the fundamental underlying issues of the day are rarely mentioned, much less contested.

 

Many of the major candidates are selected, groomed and financed by the elite, who then invest fortunes in the election campaigns for president, Congress and state legislatures (over $6 billion in this election). And after their representatives to all these offices are elected, they spend billions more on the federal and state level lobbying for influence, transferring cash for or against legislation affecting their financial and big business interests.

American electoral democracy is based on one person, one vote — and it’s true that the wealthy contributor of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to favored candidates is similarly restricted to a single ballot. But the big spenders influence multitudes of voters through financing mass advertising, which in effect multiplies the donor’s political clout by a huge factor.

Democracy is grossly undermined by the funding from rich individuals and corporations that determine the outcome of many, probably most, elections. These are the wealthy with whom a Romney can easily describe 47% of the American people as scroungers dependant on government handouts, and they will chuckle and applaud. They are the same breed with whom an Obama can comfortably mock the “professional left” within his party and get knowing nods and smiles.

The most important of the major issues completely omitted from the elections and the national narrative is the obvious fact that the United States is an imperialist state and a militarist society. It rules the world, not just the seas as did Britannia, and the sun never sets on America’s worldwide military bases, an “empire of bases” as Chalmers Johnson wrote.

Most Americans, including the liberals, become discomforted or angered when their country is described as imperialist and militarist. But what else is a society that in effect controls the world through military power; that has been at war or planning for the next war for over 70 years without letup; that spends nearly $700 billion a year on its armed forces and an equal amount on various national security entities?

The American people never voted on whether to become or continue as an imperialist or militarist society any more than they voted to invade Iraq, or to deregulate the banks, or to vaporize the civilian city of Hiroshima.

In the main a big majority believe Washington’s foreign/military policies are defensive and humanitarian because that’s what the government, the schools, churches and commercial mass media drum into their heads throughout their lives. They have been misinformed and manipulated to accept the status quo on the basis of Washington’s fear-mongering, exaggerated national security needs, mythologies about American history, and a two-party political system primarily devoted to furthering the interests of big business, multinational corporations, too-big-to-fail banks and Wall Street.

Needless to say, both ruling parties have participated in all this and it is simply taken for granted they will continue to cultivate militarism and practice imperialism in order to remain the world’s dominant hegemon.

There are many ways to keep the voting population in line. The great majority of Americans are religious people, including many fundamentalists. Both candidates of the political duopoly have exploited religious beliefs by telling the people that God is on America’s side and that the deity supports America’s dominant role in the world, and its wars, too.

At the Democratic convention in September, Obama concluded his speech with these inspiring words: “Providence is with us, and we are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on Earth.” The term Providence, in the sense intended, suggests that God “is with us,” guides America’s destiny and approves of the activities we have defined as imperialist and militarist.

Romney declared last month that “God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world.”

Further along these lines, Obama said in the third debate that “America remains the one indispensable nation, and the world needs a strong America, and it is stronger now than when I came into office.” Having God’s backing and being the only one of some 200 nation states in the world that cannot be dispensed with is what is meant by the expression “American Exceptionalism” — a designation that gives Washington a free pass to do anything it wants.

American “leadership” (i.e., global hegemony) has been a policy of the Democratic and Republican parties for several decades. A main reason the American foreign policy elite gathered behind Obama in 2007 was his continual emphasis upon maintaining Washington’s world leadership.

Many other key policies will not change whether Obama or Romney occupy the Oval Office.

• For instance, the U.S. is the most unequal society among the leading capitalist nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). About half its people are either low income or poor, and they received lower benefits than families resident in other OECD countries. What will Obama and Romney do about this if elected to the White House? Nothing. Burgeoning inequality wasn’t even a topic during the three debates. And in Obama’s nearly four years in office he completely ignored this most important social problem plaguing America.

According to the Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: “Economic inequality begets political inequality and vice versa. Then the very vision that makes America special — upward mobility and opportunity for all — is undermined. One person, one vote becomes one dollar, one vote. That is not democracy.”

• Climate change caused by global warming is here. America has been wracked in recent years with devastating storms, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods, as have other parts of the world. One of the worst of all storms decimated large parts of the eastern United States a few days ago. And what will Obama and Romney do about it? Nothing. This most important of international questions was not thought worthy of mention in all three debates. Bill McKibben got it right the other day when he said: “Corporate polluters have bought the silence of our elected leaders.”

 

Obama’s environmental comprehension and occasional rhetoric are an improvement over Romney’s current climate denial (one more cynical reversal of his earlier views). But the president has done virtually nothing to fight climate change during his first term — and he simply can’t blame it all on the Republicans. He has a bully pulpit with which to galvanize public consciousness but doesn’t use it. Actually the Obama government has played a backward role in the annual UN climate talks —delaying everything, even though the U.S. is history’s most notorious emitter of the greenhouse gases that have brought the world to this sorry pass.

• The shameful erosion of civil liberties that swiftly increased during the Bush Administration has been continued and expanded during the Obama Administration. One cannot help but question the teacher training that goes into producing a Harvard Professor of Constitutional Law who blithely approves legislation containing a provision for indefinite detention that in effect suspends habeas corpus for some, a heretofore sacrosanct aspect of American democracy.

• The economic suffering of African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans in the years since 2008, when the Great Recession began, is far worse than that of whites. Black family income and wealth is incomparably lower. Black unemployment is twice that of whites. The Obama White House has not brought forth one program to alleviate the conditions afflicting these three communities, and it’s hardly likely a Romney government would do any better.

On other visible election issues, such as the rights of labor unions, the Democrats are much better than the Republicans, who despise the unions, but Obama has certainly been asleep at the switch, or maybe he just knows labor will support him come what may. Portraying himself as a friend of labor, Obama refused to fight hard enough — even when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate — to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, the one bill labor truly wanted from the White House in return for years of service. During his first term Obama presided over anti-union legislation and stood mute as the labor movement was pummeled mercilessly in several state legislatures, even losing collective bargaining rights in some states. With friends like this…

In rhetoric, Obama is far superior to the Republicans on such issues as social programs, the deficit, unemployment, foreclosures, tax policy, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. But in actual practice he has either done virtually nothing or has already made compromises. When he thinks he may lose he backs away instead of fighting on and at least educating people in the process. Look at it this way:

• The only social program to emerge from the Obama Administration is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a near duplicate of Romney’s Republican plan in Massachusetts. Obama wouldn’t even consider the long overdue and far better single payer/Medicare-for-all plan. Obamacare is an improvement over the present system, although it still leaves millions without healthcare. But it only came about after convincing Big Insurance and Big Pharma that it would greatly increase their profits. The big insurance and drug companies accumulate overhead costs of 30%. Government-provided Universal Medicare, based on today’s overhead, would only be about 3% because profit and excessive executive pay would be excluded.

• In his willingness to compromise, Obama largely accepted the Tea Party right wing emphasis on deficit reduction instead of investing in the economy and social programs, especially to recover from the Great Recession, continuing stagnation and high unemployment. This will mainly entail budget reductions and targeted tax increases focusing on finally ending the Bush tax cuts for people earning $250,000 or more a year. These cuts were supposed to expire two years ago but were extended by Obama in a compromise tax deal with obstructionist Republicans Congress.

It’s an old Republican trick when in office to greatly increase the deficit through tax breaks and war costs, then demand that the succeeding Democratic Administration focus on reducing the deficit by virtually eliminating social programs for the people. Reagan and Bush #1 did it successfully to President Bill Clinton (who spent eight years eliminating the deficit without sponsoring one significant social program), and Bush #2 has done it to Obama.

Almost as informative as what separates the two parties is what they agree upon. Bill Quigley, legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans, compiled the following list, which was published on AlterNet Oct. 27:

1. Neither candidate is interested in stopping the use of the death penalty for federal or state crimes.

2. Neither candidate is interested in eliminating or reducing the 5,113 U.S. nuclear warheads.

3. Neither candidate is campaigning to close Guantanamo prison.

4. Neither candidate has called for arresting and prosecuting high ranking people on Wall Street for the subprime mortgage catastrophe.

5. Neither candidate is interested in holding anyone in the Bush administration accountable for the torture committed by U.S. personnel against prisoners in Guantanamo or in Iraq or Afghanistan.

6. Neither candidate is interested in stopping the use of drones to assassinate people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia.

7. Neither candidate is against warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, or racial profiling in fighting “terrorism.’

8. Neither candidate is interested in fighting for a living wage. In fact neither are really committed beyond lip service to raising the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour — which, if it kept pace with inflation since the 1960s should be about $10 an hour.

9. Neither candidate was interested in arresting Osama bin Laden and having him tried in court.

10. Neither candidate will declare they refuse to bomb Iran.

11. Neither candidate is refusing to take huge campaign contributions from people and organizations.

12. Neither candidate proposes any significant specific steps to reverse global warming.

13. Neither candidate is talking about the over 2 million people in jails and prisons in the U.S..

14. Neither candidate proposes to create public jobs so everyone who wants to work can.

15. Neither candidate opposes the nuclear power industry. In fact both support expansion.

Over the past several weeks, liberal and progressive groups have been seeking to convince disenchanted voters who share their politics to once again get behind Obama with renewed enthusiasm and hope for progress. These organizations fear such voters will not turn out on election day or instead vote for a progressive third party candidate such as the Green Party’s Jill Stein, or a socialist candidate, such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s Peta Lindsay, both of whom are on the New York State ballot.

It would be better for all American working families, including the poor and the oppressed sectors if the Republicans were defeated, and Obama will do less harm than Romney and the far right.

I will not vote for Obama because he is a warrior president comfortably leading an imperialist and militarist system — a man who ignores poor and low income families, who eviscerates our civil liberties and who knows the truth about global warming but does pathetically little about it.

I’ll vote for Peta Lindsay, a young African American socialist woman. I completely agree with her 10-point election platform, the last point of which is “Seize the banks, jail Wall Street Criminals.” And I want to help to build socialism, the only real answer to the problems afflicting America and the world.

The author is editor of the Activist Newsletter and is former editor of the (U.S.) Guardian Newsweekly. He may be reached at jacdon@earthlink.net or http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com

The Universe Unraveling

By William Blum

02 November, 2012

@ Killinghope.org

The Southeast Asian country of Laos in the late 1950s and early 60s was a complex and confusing patchwork of civil conflicts, changes of government and switching loyalties. The CIA and the State Department alone could take credit for engineering coups at least once in each of the years 1958, 1959 and 1960. No study of Laos of this period appears to have had notable success in untangling the muddle of who exactly replaced whom, and when, and how, and why. After returning from Laos in 1961, American writer Norman Cousins stated that “if you want to get a sense of the universe unraveling, come to Laos. Complexity such as this has to be respected.” 1

Syria 2012 has produced its own tangled complexity. In the past 18 months it appears that at one time or another virtually every nation in the Middle East and North Africa as well as members of NATO and the European Union has been reported as aiding those seeking to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad, while Russia, China, and several other countries are reported as aiding Assad. The Syrian leader, for his part, has consistently referred to those in combat against him as “terrorists”, citing the repeated use of car bombs and suicide bombers. The West has treated this accusation with scorn, or has simply ignored it. But the evidence that Assad has had good reason for his stance has been accumulating for some time now, particularly of late. Here is a small sample from recent months:

>> “It is the sort of image that has become a staple of the Syrian revolution, a video of masked men calling themselves the Free Syrian Army and brandishing AK-47s — with one unsettling difference. In the background hang two flags of Al Qaeda, white Arabic writing on a black field … The video, posted on YouTube, is one more bit of evidence that Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists are doing their best to hijack the Syrian revolution.” (New York Times, July 24, 2012)

>> A leading German newspaper reported that the German intelligence service, BND, had concluded that 95% of the Syrian rebels come from abroad and are likely to be members of al Qaeda. (Die Welt, September 30, 2012)

>> “A network of French Islamists behind a grenade attack on a kosher market outside Paris last month also planned to join jihadists fighting in Syria … Two suspects were responsible for recruiting and dispatching people ‘to carry out jihad in some countries – notably Syria’,” a state prosecutor said. (Associated Press, October 11, 2012)

>> “Fighters from a shadowy militant group [Jabhat al-Nusra] with suspected links to al-Qaida joined Syrian rebels in seizing a government missile defense base in northern Syria on Friday, according to activists and amateur video. …The videos show dozens of fighters inside the base near a radar tower, along with rows of large missiles, some on the backs of trucks.” (Associated Press, October 12, 2012)

 

>> “In a videotape posted this week on militant forums, the Egyptian-born jihadist Ayman al-Zawahiri … urged support for Syria’s uprisings.” (Associated Press, October 28, 2012)

According to your favorite news source or commentator, President Assad is either a brutal murderer of his own people, amongst whom he has had very little support; or he’s a hero who’s long had the backing of the majority of the Syrian population and who is standing up to Western imperialists and their terrorist comrades-in-arms, whom the US is providing military aid, intelligence, and propaganda services.

Washington and its freedom fighters de jour would like to establish Libya II. And we all know how well Libya I has turned out.

Of backward nations and modern nations

Page one of the October 24 Washington Post contained a prominent photo of a man chained to a concrete wall at a shrine in Afghanistan. The accompanying story told us that the man was mentally ill and that “legend has it that those with mental disorders will be healed after spending 40 days in one of the shrine’s 16 tiny concrete cells”, living “on a subsistence diet of bread, water and black pepper.” Every year hundreds of Afghans bring mentally ill relatives to the shrine for this “cure”.

Immediately to the right of this story, constituting the paper’s lead story of the day, we learn that the United States is planning to continue its policy of assassinating individuals, via drone attacks, for the foreseeable future. This is Washington’s “cure” for the mental illness of not believing that America is the savior of mankind, bringing democracy, freedom and happiness to all. (The article adds that the number of “militants and civilians” killed in the drone campaign over the past 10 years will soon exceed 3,000 by some estimates, surpassing the number of people killed on September 11.)

Undoubtedly there are many people in Afghanistan, high and low, who know that their ancient cure is nonsense, but the chainings have continued for centuries. Just as certain, there are American officials who know the same about their own cure. Here’s a senior American official: “We can’t possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us. … We’re not going to wind up in 10 years in a world of everybody holding hands and saying, ‘We love America’.” Yet , we are told, “Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaeda continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight.”

We can also be confident that there have been people chained to the wall in Afghanistan who were not particularly mentally ill to begin with but became so because of the cure. And just as certain, there have been numerous people in several countries who were not anti-American until a drone devastated their village, family or neighbors.

The Post article also reported that Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, returned from Pakistan a while ago and recounted a heated confrontation with his counterpart, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. “Mullen told White House and counterterrorism officials that the Pakistani military chief had demanded an answer to a seemingly reasonable question: After hundreds of drone strikes, how could the United States possibly still be working its way through a ‘top 20′ list?”

American officials defended the arrangement even while acknowledging an erosion in the caliber of operatives placed in the drones’ cross hairs. “Is the person currently Number 4 as good as the Number 4 seven years ago? Probably not,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official. “But it doesn’t mean he’s not dangerous.” The Post added this comment: “Internal doubts about the effectiveness of the drone campaign are almost nonexistent.”

The next day we could read in the Post: “There is ample evidence in Pakistan that the more than 300 [drone] strikes launched under Obama have helped turn the vast majority of the population vehemently against the United States.”

Wake up and smell the bullshit. Then go vote

After the second presidential debate in early October, Luke Rudkowski of the media group We Are Change asked Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, about President Obama’s widely reported “kill list” of Americans and foreigners who can be assassinated without charge or trial.

Luke Rudkowski: “If President Romney becomes president, he’s going to inherit President Barack Obama’s secret ‘kill list’? This is going to be debated. How do you think Romney will handle this ‘kill list,’ and are you comfortable with him having a ‘kill list’?”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Luke Rudkowski: “Obama has a secret ‘kill list’ which he has used to assassinate different people all over the world.”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “I’m happy to answer any serious questions you have.”

Luke Rudkowski: “Why is that not serious?”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Because I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Luke Rudkowski: “Of course you don’t.”

The existence of the U.S. ‘kill list’ has been publicly known for nearly two years and was the subject of a 6,000-word exposé in the New York Times in May.

At the same event, Sierra Adamson of We Are Change asked former White House Press Secretary and current Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs about the U.S. killing of Abdulrahman Awlaki, the teenage son of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.

Sierra Adamson: “Do you think that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, who was an American citizen, is justifiable?”

Robert Gibbs: “I’m not going to get into Anwar al-Awlaki’s son. I know that Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship.”

Sierra Adamson: “His son was still an American citizen.”

Robert Gibbs: “Did great harm to people in this country and was a regional al-Qaeda commander hoping to inflict harm and destruction on people that share his religion and others in this country. And…”

Sierra Adamson: “That’s an American citizen that’s being targeted without due process of law, without trial. And he’s underage. He’s a minor.”

Robert Gibbs: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father. If they’re truly concerned about the well-being of their children, I don’t think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.” 2

To demonstrate that the bullshit is bipartisan, we now present Mr. Mitt Romney, speaking during the presidential foreign policy debate: “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea. It’s the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel.”

However, a look at a map reveals firstly that Iran does not share a border with Syria; there’s something called Iraq in between; and secondly that Iran already has access to the sea on both its north and south; actually about 1100 miles of coastline. Romney has made this particular blunder repeatedly, and the Washington Post has pointed it out on several occasions. Post columnist Al Kamen recently wrote: “We tried so hard back in February to get Romney to stop saying that.” 3

Of course, neither Obama nor the debate moderator pointed out Romney’s errors.

The sanctity of life

“I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” Congressman Paul Ryan, the Republican candidate for vice-president, told the conservative Weekly Standard in 2010. 4

How nice. Yet the man supports all of America’s wars, each of which takes the lives of large numbers of people, both American and foreign; and he’s opposed to national health insurance, which would save countless more lives. The good congressman is also an avid hunter and supporter of gun-owners’ rights, so he apparently is not too pro-life concerning other creatures of God’s Kingdom. Of course, what Ryan actually means by “life” is an embryo or fetus, perhaps even a zygote. Oh wait, that’s not all of it – corporations are also people whose lives Ryan cherishes.

The fate of those who do not love the empire

On October 7 Hugo Chávez won his fourth term in office as president of Venezuela. The feeling of frustration that must have descended upon the Venezuelan and American power elite is likely reminiscent of Chile, March 1973, when the party of another socialist and American bête noire, Salvador Allende — despite the best intentions and dollars without end of the CIA — won about 44 percent of the vote in congressional elections, compared to some 36 percent in 1970. It was said to be the largest increase an incumbent party had ever received in Chile after being in power more than two years. The opposition parties had publicly expressed their optimism about capturing two-thirds of the congressional seats and thus being able to impeach Allende. Now they faced three more years under him, with the prospect of being unable, despite their most underhanded efforts, to prevent his popularity from increasing even further.

During the spring and summer the Agency’s destabilization process escalated. There was a whole series of demonstrations and strikes, with a particularly long one by the truckers. Time magazine reported: “While most of the country survived on short rations, the truckers seemed unusually well equipped for a lengthy holdout.” A reporter asked a group of truckers who were camping and dining on “a lavish communal meal of steak, vegetables, wine and empanadas” where the money for it came from. “From the CIA,” they answered laughingly. 5

There was as well daily sabotage and violence, including assassination. In June, an abortive attack upon the Presidential Palace was carried out by the military and the ultra-right Patria y Libertad.

In September the military prevailed. “It is clear,” said the later US Senate investigating committee, “the CIA received intelligence reports on the coup planning of the group which carried out the successful September 11 coup throughout the months of July, August, and September 1973.” 6 The United States had also prepared the way for the military action through its economic intervention and support of the anti-Allende media.

Chávez has already been overthrown once in a coup that the United States choreographed, in 2002, but a combination of some loyal military officers and Chávez’s followers in the streets combined for a remarkable reversal of the coup after but two days. The Venezuelan opposition will not again make the mistake of not finishing Chávez off when they have him in their custody.

Both Hugo Chávez and Salvador Allende had sinned by creating “nationalistic” regimes that served the wrong “national interest”. The hatred felt by the power elite for such men is intense. The day after the legally and democratically elected Venezuelan leader was ousted, but before being restored to power, the New York Times (April 13, 2002) was moved to pen the following editorial:

“With yesterday’s resignation [what the coup leaders called it] of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader.”

It should be noted that the “respected business leader”, Pedro Carmona, quickly dissolved the National Assembly and the Supreme Court, and annulled the Venezuelan constitution.

And keep in mind that in the United States the New York Times is widely regarded as a “liberal” newspaper; most conservatives would say “very liberal”, if not “socialist”.

Notes

1. William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, chapter 21 ↩

2. Democracy Now, October 25, 2012 ↩

3. Washington Post, October 24, 2012, column by Al Kamen ↩

4. New York Times, August 12, 2012 ↩

5. Time, September 24, 1973, p.46 ↩

6. Covert Action in Chile, 1963‑1973, a Staff Report of The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (US Senate) December 18, 1975, p.39 ↩

William Blum is the author of:

>> Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2

>> Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower

>> West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir

>> Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

Email: bblum6 [at] aol.com

The Kurdish Hunger Strike In Turkey’s Jails

By Memed Boran

02 November, 2012

@ Hevallo Blog

This blog post was originally written on 15, October , on the 33rd day of the hunger strike

On 12th September 2012, nine women prisoners in Diyarbakir E type prison began an indefinite hunger-strike. In the statement they made via lawyers they highlighted two demands: the right to use their Kurdish mother tongue in the public sphere, including court and the removal of obstacles preventing imprisoned Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan from negotiating in peace talks with the Turkish state. Soon after, many other inmates, men and women, from prisons in every corner of Turkey began joining the hunger-strike; sometimes in groups and in certain prisons individually. Now there are 380 prisoners in 39 prisons who are on what has surpassed a hunger-strike and become a ‘death fast.’ This is their 33rd day.

12th September is an infamous day in Turkey’s history; the military coup that took place on this day in 1980 is representative of all that the ‘others’ of Turkey have had to suffer at the hands of the state. The 1980 military coup which opened the path for the Islamist cadres who now lead the AKP government, detained over a million people, imprisoned and tortured tens of thousands, carried out capital punishment on hundreds and pulled a black shroud over the whole of the country. Of course the victims of these inhumane practices were the Kurdish and Socialist Revolutionaries demanding national rights, democracy and independence – just like today.

The aim of the military coup was to silence the opposition and create a monolithic society in Turkey and Kurdistan using any means necessary; and the state was almost successful if it hadn’t been for the resistance of the Kurdish and Turkish cadres of the modern Kurdish Freedom Movement which in those days had recently been founded. It is an irony that these cadres were also imprisoned in Diyarbakir prison when on 14th July 1982 they began what is now termed as the ‘Great Death Fast Resistance’ in protest against the prevention of the right to defence, torture and inhumane prison conditions. The leaders of that ‘death fast’; Kemal Pir, M. Hayri Durmus, Ali Cicek and Akif Yilmaz all lost their lives. But this single event stoked the fire that had been lit by the likes of Mazlum Dogan. Necmi Oner, Ferhat Kurtay, Esref Anyik and Mahmut Zengin who had immolated themselves, and burnt to smithereens the shroud that had been pulled over the people, raising the Kurdish resistance against the Turkish state.

How similar it is today. The AKP regime, like its military counterpart has detained tens of thousands of Kurdish politicians, journalists, health-workers, lawyers, human rights activists and children, imprisoning almost ten thousand since 2009, when the witch-hunt known as the KCK (The Union of Communities in Kurdistan) trials began. It is ironic that almost all these people are members of the legal Peace & Democracy Party (BDP), the AKP’s most fierce and only opposition in the Kurdish areas of Turkey. And that not a single fire-arm, weapon or anything pertaining to terrorist activity was found or discovered about these people who have been in prison for almost four years without sentencing is further proof that the AKP is behind the ‘hostage’ situation. Because with only small changes in the constitution the AKP could bring an end to the unnecessary suffering of these people and their families. However while this grave injustice hangs over the nation like a dark cloud Turkey’s Prime Minister has made ‘one language, one state, one nation’ his favourite slogan, saying that there is no longer a Kurdish issue in Turkey. The AKP dominated Turkish media have followed suit and are not even reporting the clashes between the PKK and Turkish army anymore. Furthermore and to the utter horror of Kurds and democratic circles there is yet to be even a single news item about the ‘death fast’ on mainstream Turkish TV. There is a total black-out regarding all matters Kurdish.

Besime Konca, the chair of the BDP’s women parliament before her imprisonment, and one of the nine who began the ‘death fast’ in Diyarbakir prison has spent 16 of her 38 year life behind bars because of her political activities. In her last meeting with family she told them: ‘ Behind these cold walls we have nothing to sacrifice but our bodies, and we will not refrain from doing this for the freedom of our people and a peaceful solution to the Kurdish issue. Our morale is soaring, we are strong and cannot be defeated by the enemies of democracy and an honourable life.’

As I write this, another statement has been made from prison by Deniz Kaya, the spokesman for prisoners sentenced in PKK (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) and PAJK (Free Women’s Party of Kurdistan) cases. In it he says:

‘From 15th October onwards all PKK and PAJK inmates inTurkey and Kurdistan’s prisons will join in the indefinite hunger-strike. Rather than respond to the demands of people on hunger-strike, the AKP government has attacked prisoners with solitary confinement, disciplinary action and physical torture. There are prisoners who have internal bleeding and are being forced to treatment. If the AKP think they can deter us, they are mistaken, we will not give up our freedom. If there is a price to pay we will pay it, if there is torture we will persist, if there is suppression we will resist, if there is solitary confinement then so be it!

At a time time when our leader Abdullah Ocalan is in intensified solitary confinement and his life is under threat; when our people are attacked and tortured physically, politically and culturally by the racist regime’s military and police, all we have to protect them are our naked bodies. We will not hear the voices of anybody except our leader and movement. We will not heed any calls for us to end the hunger-strikes until our demands are met, the ban on Kurdish is lifted and the path to the freedom of our leader opened.

We are appealing to our people and all revolutionary and democratic public opinion to join in an indefinite act of solidarity and continual period of action to realise the freedom and democratic unity of our people. We are also calling on all sensitive political parties, MPs in parliament, non-governmental and human rights organisations: hear our cries. The people of Kurdistan are under the threat of genocide, our comrades in prison are on the threshold of death, our leader is under savage torture and Kurdistan has been turned into Vietnam.’

Millions of Kurds around the world today are hoping that these ‘death fasts’ do not end in loss. But their voices are going unheard outside Turkey and Kurdistan and Kurdish communities in Europe. Kurds need the support of all individuals, human rights and non-governmental organisations, professional circles, political parties and governments. Everyone can do something to stop these deaths.

What can you do?

Mursi in charge, at home and abroad

By Afro-Middle East Centre

November 2012

The past few weeks have witnessed a convergence of several important issues facing post-uprising Egypt: new Egyptian president Muhammad Mursi’s opportunism in his attempt to reform the judiciary (as he was able to do with the military), the lack of accountability of those responsible for human rights abuses, post-conflict justice and the outstanding new constitution. This has culminated in a battle for the independence of a judiciary that is one of the last bastions of the old regime.

Mursi’s presidency is founded, at a time of uncertain transition, on tenuous popular legitimacy. He must fulfil the demands made during the uprisings while maintaining a broad-based popular legitimacy. One such call was to hold accountable members of the former government, the military and state police for the brutality and human rights abuses that occurred during the uprising. In its report ‘Brutality Unpunished and Unchecked’, Amnesty International concludes that the army used excessive force in the three incidents it studied: the Maspero protest in October 2011, the ‘Cabinet Offices’ events in late 2011 and the Abasseya sit-in. This includes well known incidents such as the woman whose underwear was exposed as policemen dragged her by her hair during the December 2011 protests, a scene that was captured in a video that went viral. Amnesty’s report shows that security forces tortured male and female protesters using beatings, electric shocks, sexual threats and sexual abuse. And worse, the report concludes that victims of these abuses are still waiting for justice and legal remedy.

The president has emphasised that Egypt will chart its own path on international relations, prioritising the country’s national interests. His overall goal appears to be reassertion of Egypt as a regional and global power. He has already pursued several bilateral meetings to bolster Egypt’s international legitimacy.

Mursi has built or strengthened relations with Iran and China on the one hand and the USA on the other; and both Hamas and Israel. In his attempt to reestablish Egypt’s role as a regional powerhouse, he criticised the Syrian regime while conducting bilateral talks with Iran, a key Syria supporter. In August, during his speech at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran, Mursi said Egypt was willing to assist and support Iran if it would cease its unconditional support of the Syrian regime and would participate in finding a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis. While

2

Mursi’s attempt at pulling together key states to find a diplomatic solution (the ‘Islamic Quartet’) has fallen by the wayside, it remains an example of his push for Egypt to regain its regional influence.

Where many had expected Mursi to be naive and uncharismatic, he has proven adept and has already been able to secure important economic support and financial aid from Qatar and Turkey. Abroad, he risked offending Iran in his criticism of Syria, but was able to enhance perceptions of himself and Egypt as a regional leader, thus increasing his support and popularity at home.

Constitutional crisis and the judiciary fights back

Mursi’s greatest domestic political feat was his reversal of the 18 June 2012 Constitutional Addendum issued by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) which sought to deprive the new president of full presidential executive powers, including the role of commander-in-chief of the armed forces. With its addendum, SCAF had sought to resist civilian oversight of the military. Although plans are in place, no date has been set for the re-election of parliament after its dissolution by SCAF. The elections, when they occur, will further cement Mursi’s legitimacy as leader of a new democratic Egypt. New parliamentary elections are to be conducted sixty days after the approval of a new constitution via public referendum.

Herein lays the problem. The process of formulating a new constitution has been marred by the politics of the constituent assembly itself. Around forty court cases have been brought against the assembly since the elected parliament was dissolved by SCAF and the judiciary, just prior to Mursi taking office. These were mainly accusations of the constituent assembly being unrepresentative and unbalanced. The composition of the assembly had originally mirrored that of the elected parliament and was dominated by Islamists – the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi al-Nour party. That first assembly was dissolved by the Supreme Administrative Court in April for having included members of parliament, who are themselves responsible for electing the constituent assembly. An agreement was reached on 7 June 2012 between Islamist and non-Islamist parties on the membership ratio for the assembly, and this was followed by the election of the second constituent assembly. It had been decided that Islamists would hold only fifty per cent of constituent assembly seats. This saw al-Nour forfeiting its twenty per cent of the total Islamist majority of seventy per cent.

While the legality of the second assembly is still being battled in the courts as it again included members of parliament, it has been under pressure to release a draft constitution and avoid further delays. The assembly did release a partial draft of the new constitution on 10 October. The draft was, however, greeted with scepticism as the extracts did not include clauses dealing with the role of

3

Islam, the military and the judiciary. A media frenzy ensued when supposed ‘leaked’ clauses revealed that the constitution would limit the power of the judiciary. There was a fierce reaction from the judicial bureaucracy that resulted in a grand showdown between Mursi and this old-regime institution.

Worsening matters, the prosecutor general, Abdel Meguid Mahmoud, failed to convict twenty-four prime suspects accused of involvement in the ‘Battle of the Camel’, the February 2011 attack on protesters in Cairo ordered by high profile figures from former president Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party. The judges ruled there was a lack of evidence and said there was only one credible witness despite much anecdotal testimony. This followed a string of acquittals in cases against those accused of killing unarmed protesters during the uprisings.

Mursi knows these acquittals can have serious political consequences and are a show of strength by the judiciary, a reminder of the legacy of the previous regime. To counter a possible backlash from the general populace, he issued a decree to pardon all political prisoners detained ‘for all felony and misdemeanour convictions or attempted crimes committed to support the revolution and the fulfilment of its goals’. However, anger over the acquittals overshadowed Mursi’s attempts to fulfil the people’s demand for justice. He tried to remedy the situation by firing Mahmoud and appointing him ambassador to the Vatican. The president’s response, however, lacked legal or popular authority and he was forced to back down and ‘politely ask’ the prosecutor to resign. The move, however, became another in a series of allegations that Mursi is abusing his power.

Neither East nor West

Mursi’s first official visit outside the region was to Beijing at the end of August. He hoped to sign cooperation agreements and discuss regional and international issues of mutual interest with China. This included trade between the two countries which has increased dramatically in the last four years. From Beijing he went to Tehran for the opening of the NAM summit, arriving with the large delegation of business people that had accompanied him to China.

Mursi’s recent diplomatic efforts point to a multi-polar foreign policy. His spokesperson, Yasser Ali, said the president planned to visit Malaysia and Brazil among other Asian and South American countries. He also has Africa high on his agenda for foreign visits and a visit to South Africa could be in the pipeline. The shift towards Africa is significant: Mursi recognises a potential role for Egypt on the continent. His speech at the recent UN General Assembly meeting was indicative of this. In it, he spoke at length on the conflict between Sudan and South Sudan and claimed an African identity for

4

Egypt. He also mentioned the Somali conflict, especially significant since Egypt has been appointed to the African Union’s Peace and Security Council. Mursi’s enthusiasm for participating in African Union (AU) meetings is a sharp departure from his predecessor’s tradition; Mubarak had refused to attend any AU meetings after an assassination attempt on him in Addis Ababa in 1995.

One of Mursi’s very first visits was to Ethiopia as the head of the Egyptian delegation to the AU summit in July. Ethiopia provides Egypt with its largest share of Nile water, although the former has recently been contesting this share. Egypt receives the majority of its Nile stream flow from the Blue Nile which it needs for agriculture, municipal and industrial purposes. However, Ethiopia, one of the key upstream riparians of the Nile, is planning to develop its water sources, to help provide food, energy and jobs to the Ethiopian population, many of whom live in poverty. Egypt believes Ethiopia’s Renaissance Dam project along the Blue Nile, the central project in Ethiopia’s new water plan, would be at the expense of its water flow. This has led to the Nile Tripartite Commission (comprised of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan) study on the impact the dam will have along the Nile River. This week the International Panel of Experts (IPoE), which consists of six experts from Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, and four international experts, reported that it has found no evidence that the dam project will negatively impact on downstream countries, Egypt and Sudan.

The final findings on the impact of the controversial project will be submitted to the relevant governments in under nine months. Ethiopia launched the construction of the Renaissance Dam after Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, and later Burundi, signed the Entebbe agreement in April 2010, partly to undo colonial-era agreements which gave countries such as Egypt an advantage over Nile water. Among Mursi’s priorities is to resolve the matter with other countries along the Nile and to secure its water flow for Egypt. In early October he visited Uganda’s capital Kampala to take part in the country’s fiftieth anniversary celebrations. No doubt the talks between Mursi and the Ugandans included issues related to the Nile Basin region. Egypt’s new prime minister, Hesham Qandil, is expected to visit South Sudan, indicating an increased focus on resolving the Nile water issue and establishing stronger links on the continent.

Mursi’s aides have emphasised that foreign policy expansion to the east and the south will not undermine already-established commitments that Egypt has towards the USA and other western allies. His first visit to the USA took place end September when he attended the opening of the UN General Assembly session in New York. While many expected him to prioritise a visit to the USA given Egypt’s dependence on US aid (including 1.3 million dollars annually in military aid) and trade, this was not so. Among other strategic reasons, a visit to Washington after US Secretary of State Hilary

5

Clinton was given a hostile reception in Cairo by protesting crowds a month earlier would have been a domestic public relations disaster for Mursi. Beyond this, two other issues are relevant to Egypt’s relations with the USA: Iran and Israel.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood – Mursi’s ideological home – has long had relations with Iran. His participation in the NAM summit marked the first visit by an Egyptian president to Iran since that country’s 1979 Islamic Revolution when diplomatic ties between the two countries were severed. Mursi offered to mediate to improve relations between Iran and the Gulf states that have long viewed Iran with suspicion and whose fears have deepened because of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Regarding Israel, Mursi has repeatedly said he will uphold international agreements entered into by the previous Egyptian regime, including the Camp David peace agreement with Israel. However, he has also repeatedly indicated that the terms of the agreement were disadvantageous to Egypt and that Israel had failed to meet its obligations under the agreement. This has been interpreted as a warning that it might be up for renegotiation, a cause for anxiety among the Israelis.

While security coordination with Israel in the Sinai and border areas as well as the main terms of the agreement will likely be maintained in the long term, the Egyptian president has also declared that Egypt and other Arab states were responsible for the restoration of Palestinian rights and statehood. He emphasised at the last Arab League meeting that diplomatic changes backed by popular sentiment will lead to real political action, and that this was the key to restoring Palestinian rights. He also pledged support for Palestine’s bid for membership at the UN.

Populist rhetoric against Israel may continue, but it is unlikely to impact too severely on diplomatic relations between the countries, as both have much to lose. Most interesting is that the Brotherhood has traditionally taken an anti-Israeli position and, in light of Mursi’s democratic election, he has emphasised that his pro-Palestinian policy was representative of the will of the Egyptian people.

While Mubarak preferred good relations with Palestinian group Fatah, the Islamist Hamas has the ear of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement from which it originates. Although joint Israeli-Egyptian campaigns to secure the Sinai region have included the destruction of tunnels connecting Gaza to the Sinai – which have provided routes for goods, people, food, medical aid and weapons for years – Hamas has been uncharacteristically silent on the matter. This can be explained by Hamas’ relative contentment with the consolidation of power – including military authority – in Mursi’s favour.

6

Arab solutions for Arab problems

Egypt’s diplomatic actions thus far indicate the return of a more regionally involved, pan-Arab and pan-Islamic Egypt. The key initiative in this regard is Mursi’s ‘Islamic Quartet’, a group of Muslim countries that was to take the lead in resolving the Syrian crisis. The initiative sought to bring together Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt – all supporters of the Syrian rebellion – with Syria’s main regional ally, Iran.

Egypt tried to entice Iran to join the Quartet by promising full restoration of diplomatic ties and has even dangled the carrot of possible purchases of Iranian oil. This would potentially address Egypt’s recent fuel shortages sparked by its dwindling foreign currency reserves and lowered credit ratings. Mursi also offered a ‘safe exit’ for Syrian president Bashar al-Asad, his family and members of his inner circle. However, Saudi Arabia avoided attending the Quartet meetings and the initiative has effectively failed.

Mursi knows all too well that the key to regional stability and leadership depends on uniting the region against foreign interference. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are major backers of the Egyptian economy through state and private sector investments. However, they have been wary of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings and the risk that these may inspire uprisings in their own states, threatening their long-standing monarchical rule. Relations with Saudi Arabia, which the Brotherhood has historically criticised on the basis of ideological differences, are complicated. Egypt’s taking a lead on the Quartet has not been received well by Saudi Arabia and has increased tension between the two states. Since taking office on 30 June, Mursi has twice visited Saudi Arabia, first for a bilateral visit, and then for an Organisation for Islamic Cooperation summit on Syria.

New alliance with Turkey

The war across Turkey’s border and Egypt’s political and economic crises have brought the two states together. They hope to build an alliance that could lead to a significant geopolitical shift in the region, rooted in political Islam. Recently, Egypt and Turkey discussed lifting visa restrictions and completed joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean in early October. A broader partnership across other sectors will probably be discussed during an upcoming visit to Cairo by Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey needs partnerships with Arab states after its troubles with Syria, and Egypt’s reassertion in the region would be boosted by an alliance with rising hegemon Turkey.

At the end of September, Mursi signed a deal to borrow one billion dollars from Turkey, half of the aid that the latter had promised to Egypt earlier this year. He has spoken frequently of strong

7

regional policy ties with Turkey and praised Turkey for being the first country to support the Egyptian revolution. While the FJP has made it clear it is not looking to Turkey’s ruling AKP as a political model, it will consider learning from the Turkish party’s success in building a regional economic powerhouse which has delivered strong economic growth.

Conclusion

It is clear that the Muslim Brotherhood is more pragmatic and cautious than many had assumed. Mursi has successfully challenged assumptions about Egypt’s foreign policy. His initiation of the ‘Islamic Quartet’, his commitment to uphold the Camp David agreement with Israel and his decisive declarations in support of the Palestinians are, at the very least, audacious. He has been able to clear a path for Egypt’s return to dominance and leadership in the region and globally.

Domestically, the four-month old president has established a powerful, politically pragmatic reputation and has begun actively seeking solutions to Egypt’s socio-economic crisis. He also inserted a new, younger, level of leadership in the military. His rising popularity, increasing financial support from other regional powers and Egypt’s new direction on foreign affairs should not be ignored in light of recent industrial action by workers from various sectors or troubles with the judiciary. Indeed, Mursi remains under pressure to perform a miraculous transformation in the lives of ordinary working class Egyptians, an unrealistic election-time pledge that he has been unable to deliver in his first 100 days in power.

The Brotherhood is politically savvy and pragmatic, as evidenced by events of the last two years, and with numerous competing interests, they may be the only means of ensuring stability and progress in Egypt, particularly with post-uprising expectations of immediate political and socio-economic change. During the formation of the first constituent assembly in April and the dissolution of parliament in June by SCAF, the courts revealed themselves as political actors in Egypt’s transition. With no oversight from an elected parliament, an already controversial new draft constitution and continued, or rather increasing, pressure from the population for justice in the case of human rights abuses during the uprisings, Mursi finds himself in a tricky position. The current showdown between the judiciary and Mursi will be a test of his political power and will determine the nature of Egypt’s democracy in which an independent judiciary is vital.

Washington Seeks New Syrian Puppets In War For Regime-Change

By Bill Van Auken

02 November, 2012

@ WSWS.org

Speaking in Zagreb, Croatia on Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that Washington is reorganizing the front representing the so-called “rebels” in Syria. The shakeup, which includes the withdrawal of US support from the Syrian National Council, is evidently part of the preparations for a more direct US intervention once next Tuesday’s presidential election is over.

Responding to a question about US policy in Syria, Clinton dismissed efforts by United Nations Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, declaring that the US “cannot and will not wait” for the UN to broker a political solution to the war in Syria. Instead, Washington will unilaterally seek to escalate that war with the aim of effecting regime-change and installing a puppet government aligned with US interests in the Middle East.

Clinton went on to describe US efforts to “groom” a new leadership to serve as a front for Washington’s neocolonial project. She allowed that the American government had “facilitated the smuggling-out of a few representatives of the Syrian internal opposition” so that they could appear before representatives of the so-called Friends of Syria, comprised of the US and its allies.

The US Secretary of State treated the Syrian National Council, which only last December she had hailed as the “leading and legitimate representative of Syrians seeking a peaceful democratic transition,” with unconcealed contempt. Syria’s opposition, she proclaimed, could not consist of people who have “not been inside Syria for 20, 30 or 40 years.” Instead, it would have to consist of “those who are on the front lines, fighting and dying today to obtain their freedom.”

This public jettisoning of the front group that Clinton had so recently promoted as the salvation of the Syrian people for an as yet unidentified assemblage of new “revolutionaries”—hand-picked by the US State Department—constitutes an admission of the failure of US policy thus far in Syria.

Clearly, Washington had anticipated that its policy of covertly arming and funding armed militia groups in Syria, with the collaboration of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, would have toppled the government of President Bashar al-Assad by now. What has become evident is that large sections of the Syrian population, while hostile to the Assad regime, are even more opposed to and fearful of the so-called rebels, a conglomeration of armed groups that has become ever-more dominated by Islamist jihadist elements, in many cases linked to Al Qaeda, and Sunni sectarian groups.

Clinton’s statements were made in preparation for a conference to be convened in Doha, Qatar next week, where the new opposition council is to be formally constituted under the tutelage of Washington and the former US Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford. He has been directly involved in identifying and selecting “revolutionaries” who appear likely to toe the US line.

“We have recommended names and organizations that we believe should be included in any leadership structure,” Clinton told the news conference in Zagreb. “We’ve made it clear that the SNC can no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition. They can be part of a larger opposition, but that opposition must include people from inside Syria and others who have a legitimate voice that needs to be heard.”

It is difficult to overstate the cynicism and brazenness of the US Secretary of State’s approach. Having previously anointed the SNC as the “legitimate” representative of the Syrian people, she now decrees that they are no longer serviceable as the “visible leader” of the opposition. In other words, a new public Syrian face for US imperialist intervention is needed, and Washington has handpicked the individuals who will make it up.

No doubt, this is dictated in part by the identification of the leadership of the SNC with the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and US concerns that within Syria this only strengthens the hostility of those who see the bid to overthrow the Assad government as a sectarian-based war backed by Washington.

While the SNC leaders would still get a piece of the action—perhaps a third of the leadership—under Washington’s new arrangement, they would have to cede formal control to the new front, including those with “a legitimate voice that needs to be heard.” What Syrian voices are “legitimate” is to be determined by the US State Department, which, no doubt, will want to see a collection of Alawite, Shia, Kurdish and Christian “assets” brought on board.

The SNC itself, however, has rejected the US plan, calling its own conference in Doha in the immediate run-up to the US-sponsored meeting and indicating that it is prepared to fight to preserve its franchise as the “legitimate” opposition backed by the imperialist powers and the Sunni Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. Where these regimes, which have their own interests in the Syrian civil war, will line up is not altogether clear, and it has been reported that Turkey and Qatar still support the SNC.

There is every possibility that the gathering being organized in Doha will turn into an internecine free-for-all, much like a similar conference convened in Cairo last June, where delegates ended up throwing fists and furniture at each other.

“We also need an opposition that will be on record strongly resisting the efforts by extremists to hijack the Syrian revolution,” Clinton told Wednesday’s news conference. Again, the question is what kind of opposition “we,” meaning Washington and its imperialist allies, need, not what the Syrian people want.

In any case, such a formal disassociation from “extremism” and cosmetic change in the exile leaders posing as a government-in-waiting will hardly shift the sectarian lineup of the ongoing civil war. The CIA, which is orchestrating the funneling of weapons supplied by the Saudi, Turkish and Qatari regimes, has acknowledged that the lion’s share of these armaments are going to the Islamist militias.

Washington’s aim is to cobble together a group that can provide the basis for a puppet regime in Damascus, much as it did with various Iraqi exiles in advance of the 2003 US war on Iraq. As one unnamed senior administration official told Foreign Policy, “We call it a proto-parliament. One could also think of it as a continental congress.”

That such a body is being prepared strongly suggests that the Obama administration is preparing a sharp escalation of the US intervention in Syria in the wake of the November 6 election, perhaps including the use of military force to carve out a “safe haven.” Such an intervention would be part of a wider campaign in preparation for war with Iran, posing the threat of a regional and even global military conflagration.

The entire sordid maneuver in Doha has underscored the real character of the so-called Syrian “revolution,” whose leadership is being directly selected and installed by the US State Department. It further exposes the role of pseudo-left forces, such as the International Socialist Organization in the US, the Socialist Workers Party in Britain, and the New Anti-capitalist Party in France, which have sought to promote the US-backed war for regime-change as a revolution and legitimize the “human rights” pretext for imperialist intervention.

Qatari Emir In Gaza

By Dr. Elias Akleh

01 November , 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

The so-called courageous Israeli-siege-breaking visit of Qatari Emir to the six years besieged Gaza carries with it so many controversial meanings and more questions than answers. One could not help but question the real motivations behind such a visit at this particular time: did it come as a solidarity visit with Hamas and as humanitarian aid to the devastated starving Palestinians or an attempt to contain Hamas under the pro-Zionist Qatari wing and a manipulation of the suffering Palestinians?

The Qatari Emir; Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani visited Gaza Strip Tuesday October 23 rd accompanied by his wife Sheikha Mozah within a 61 person entourage for only few hours. During his visit the Emir had doubled Qatar’s financial donation to the long-due Gaza Rebuilding Project, promised by the Arab states, to $400 millions. He also promised to provide Gaza with the urgently needed fuel and gas and with the building materials through Egypt. The Emir also will finance a major housing project; The Hamad Village, a hospital for artificial limbs, and the reconstruction of the two important boulevards in Gaza.

The Emir’s visit is the first one for an Arab leader to visit Gaza since 1999 and the first for an Arab leader to break the Israeli siege of Gaza. Many called this a very courageous and historic visit and called upon the other Arab leaders to follow.

Although the visit was praised by many yet it was also condemned by many others not just Israeli officials but also officials in the Palestinian Authority and pro-Fatah politicians. This visit had angered PA President, Mahmoud Abbas, and his assigned, not elected, government headed by Salam Fayyad. They considered the visit a recognition of the Hamas government that Abbas had dissolved. Abbas and Fatah consider themselves to be the only legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people and thus the Qatari Emir should have visited PA in Ramallah rather than Hamas in Gaza. They accused the Emir of bolstering the Palestinian division when they, themselves, had planned the failed coup against the democratically elected Hamas leadership causing the division, and not adopting any of the reconciliation agreements, and lately had run municipality elections without Hamas representatives but, even though, had lost it. Now Mahmoud Abbas started talking about a complete separation between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Pro-Fatah officials in Gaza had rejected an invitation to receive the Emir side by side with Hamas leadership. Atef Abu Saif, the Fatah official in Gaza had sent an official apology to Hamas refusing to join them in the reception. The Emir himself stated that he, personally, had called Mahmoud Abbas inviting his company in the visit to Gaza, but Abbas refused demanding that Hamas, first, sign the Egyptian reconciliation agreement. The Emir had criticized Abbas and accused him of sabotaging all reconciliation efforts to re-unite the Palestinians. Such criticism and accusation were echoed by some Qatari news writers and Al-Jazeera TV speakers.

Hamas leadership and the Palestinians in Gaza had welcomed the Emir, celebrated his visit, and bestowed on him, and on his wife, the highest honors. Somebody stated that a hungry monkey would dance to the tune of the person who feeds him regardless of the real intentions or any ulterior motives that person might have. This is not meant to belittle Hamas or Palestinians’ patriotism or dignity, rather to point to the wickedness and manipulation of those who abuse their just cause. They are very, very hungry for life and for their inhumane suffering to be recognized and be healed. Any gift that could grant them a breather and refresh their hopes in life is welcomed even though it may come from Zionised American-occupied Qatari Sheikhdom.

One may wonder what the real goals of the Emir’s visit are. Did the visit come out of the pure goodness of his heart and his wish to help deprived Palestinians? If so, then why did the visit come now and not few years earlier or not immediately after the 2009 devastating Israeli attack when the Palestinians needed help so badly? What did remind him of Gaza reconstruction after four long years of its devastation compared to his generous $100 million donation to rebuild the American city of New Orleans immediately after the 2005 Hurricane Katrina? How come Israel did not block the Emir’s visit when its pirating troops violated all international laws and hijacked all humanitarian ships bound to Gaza?

To understand the meaning of this visit one needs to examine the Emir’s background and his political views (if he really has any).

The Emir Hamad is the eldest son of his father Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani. He was not a particularly smart person. He failed his high school, and was reported to be kicked out of Sandhurst Military Academy in England. Yet his father granted him the title of Major General and appointed him as the Commander in Chief of the Qatari Armed forces. His political ambitions did not surface until he married his second wife; Sheikha Mozah the daughter of Nasser bin Abdullah Al Missned, who was the strongest political opponent to the ruler Sheikh Khalifa bin Al Thani, the father of the present Emir. Al Missned lived in exile until a political alliance with Al Thani was proposed through Marriage of his daughter Mozah to Emir Hamad.

Sheikha Mozah, initially and later on, with Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Al Thani, are the real political drivers behind the Emir’s political ambitions. Mozah turned Hamad against his father Khalifa. Hamad deposed his father and took his place in what is dubbed as the TV coup. After locking his father in the bathroom Hamad went out to greet the sheikhdom officials and then broadcasted their greetings as their approval of his coup and designating him the ruler Emir. He exposed his father’s corruption and hired an American law firm to force the Swiss banks to seize his father’s accounts. A counter coup led by the father’s loyalists and Hamad’s own sons from his first wife failed leading to stripping these sons of their titles and positions and replacing them with Mozah’s own sons; a goal Mozah was striving for to strengthen her own family’s, Al Missned, political position.

To strengthen his rule and to prevent any further coups against him, Emir Hamad invited the American administration to establish a military base in Qatar. Through Al-Jazeera TV the Saudi people were incited to demand the shutdown of the American Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. The Qatari Emir, then, opened his country to the US to establish the largest American air base in the Gulf region; Al Udeid Air Base and Camp As-Sayliyah. The base served as logistics, command and base hubs for the US Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations that included Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. The base was also the source of the cluster bombs Israel dropped on Southern Lebanon in 2006 and of the white phosphorous bombs Israel used to bomb Gaza Strip in 2008/2009. It was reported that these shipments were supervised by the Emir Sheikh Hamad personally.

Similar to all the Arab dictators, subservient to the American military protection and political support, Qatar was instructed to normalize relationship with Israel. This started with opening Israeli trade offices in Doha, then upgraded to mutual official visitations and meetings to establish trade agreements especially supplying Israel with cheap Qatari gas. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Shimon Peres, was seen shopping in local shops in Doha, and visiting Al-Jazeera TV headquarters to insure it suppresses its criticism of Israeli terrorism against Palestinians. Emir Hamad and his Foreign Minister, Hamad bin Jassim, had visited Tel Aviv to strike gas deals and to ostensibly learn from the Israeli brain-washing scholastic curriculum to use it against Qatari school children. They, also, had frequent meetings with Israeli officials in France. The news and youtube are full of reports and video clips of such meetings.

The Emir’s visit to Gaza came in full Israeli coordination and American approval. The Israelis waited until the Emir had left Gaza in order to conduct a raid allegedly in retaliation for an Israeli soldier, who got injured by a mine on the Gaza border. The Israeli criticism of the Emir’s visit came only to shove another wedge in the Palestinian division claiming that the visit showed that the Emir is backing the Islamist Hamas rulers over the Western-backed Palestinian Authority of president Abbas. The Israeli foreign ministry spokesperson; Yigal Palmor, stated: “We find it weird that the Emir doesn’t support all of the Palestinians, but sides with Hamas over the Palestinian Authority (in the West Bank) which he has never visited”.

As for the fuel and construction materials Qatar promised to ship to Gaza, Israel will easily block their delivery or/and divert most of it to Israel instead. Egyptian military source stated that Israel is expected to oppose the delivery of fuel and construction materials donated by Qatar to Gaza thus Egypt may refuse to deliver Qatari aid to Gaza Strip.

On the regional arena Qatar seems to have appointed itself as an emissary for spreading the American style democracy either through bribery or through financing and arming militia groups and terrorists to affect regime change. After the 2006 Israeli aggression against Southern Lebanon the Qatari Emir hastened to donate millions to rebuild the southern towns in an attempt to gain the residents away from Hezbollah. In Libya Qatar financed, trained and armed rebels and terrorists to topple Gaddafi’s regime, then tried to impose its political solutions on the new government. After the Egyptian revolution and ousting of Mubarak, Egypt has asked the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a $3.2 billion aid package to support the country’s flagging economy. When the IMF refused the request the Qatari Emir Hamad bin Al Thani visited Egypt, his first visit to the country, and granted the newly elected Egyptian government a $2 billion loan.

It is obvious to everybody by now that Qatar is playing the leading role, as it did in Libya, in the Syrian crises. Qatar has gathered mercenary militias of Al-Qaeda terrorists, religious extremists, and anti-Syrian opposition, financed them, trained them, and armed them to destroy Syria as a whole, not just toppling the government. Qatar has played an aggressive role in calling for international military intervention in Syria. Qatari money has also been invested in recruiting anti-Syrian inciters especially Lebanese and Egyptian Islamic clerics and religious school teachers, who had been put on Qatari payroll for the rest of their lives on the condition of calling for jihad against Syrian government. Many had suspected Qatari/Israeli involvement in the explosion that killed Lebanese Security Chief Wissam al-Hasan on October 20 th to incite March 14 Coalition to topple the pro-Hezbollah government.

During his visit to Mauritania the Qatari Emir lectured the President, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, urging him to adopt democracy. As a response Abdel Aziz criticized the Qatari policies of supporting rebels against governments and advised the Emir to adopt what he preaches in his own country first. The Emir had also ignored the calls of his next door neighbors; Yeminis and Bahrainis, for freedom and democracy.

Qatar is a dictatorship who does not respect even the basic human right of speech. In a secret court Qatari judges had sentenced the poet Mohammad al-Ajami, who praised the Arab Spring in Tunisia and criticized the Gulf States who resort to American protection. Even President Obama had criticized the Emir for he, through his Al-Jazeera TV, keeps calling for reforming and democratizing the Arab world while he is not democratizing his own country, whose 75% of its citizens are foreigners not indigenous Qatari.

There is much to say about this Emir’s personality, political views and humanitarian ideology featuring prominent betrayal of his own father, his own children, his own countrymen and his Arab brothers. So, what is the Emir’s motive for his donations to Gaza, which could be considered mere peanuts compared to the billions he spent arming terrorists in Libya and Syria? The comments of his Foreign Minister, Hamad bin Jassim, to members of the so-called Syrian National Council after Khaled Mashal, the Chairman of Hamas Political Bureau, moved his office from Damascus, Syria to Doha, Qatar, could shed some light. Bin Jassim stated that Hamas, as a resistance movement, is finished.

Dr. Elias Akleh is a writer living in Corona, CA., eakleh@ca.rr.com