Just International

Divesting Is The Right Thing To Do

Dear Student Leaders at the University of California – Berkeley

It was with great joy that I learned of your recent 16-4 vote in support of divesting your university’s money from companies that enable and profit from the injustice of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and violation of Palestinian human rights. Principled stands like this, supported by a fast growing number of US civil society organizations and people of conscience, including prominent Jewish groups, are essential for a better world in the making, and it is always an inspiration when young people lead the way and speak truth to power.

I am writing to tell you that, despite what detractors may allege, you are doing the right thing. You are doing the moral thing. You are doing that which is incumbent on you as humans who believe that all people have dignity and rights, and that all those being denied their dignity and rights deserve the solidarity of their fellow human beings.
I have been to the Ocupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid. I have witnessed the humiliation of Palestinian men, women, and children made to wait hours at Israeli military checkpoints routinely when trying to make the most basic of trips to visit relatives or attend school or college, and this humiliation is familiar to me and the many black South Africans who were corralled and regularly insulted by the security forces of the Apartheid government.

In South Africa, we could not have achieved our freedom and just peace without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the Apartheid regime. Students played a leading role in that struggle, and I write this letter with a special indebtedness to your school, Berkeley, for its pioneering role in advocating equality in South Africa and promoting corporate ethical and social responsibility to end complicity in Apartheid. I visited your campus in the 1980’s and was touched to find students sitting out in the baking sunshine to demonstrate for the University’s disvestment in companies supporting the South African regime.

The same issue of equality is what motivates the divestment movement of today, which tries to end Israel’s 43 year long occupation and the unequal treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government ruling over them. The abuses they face are real, and no person should be offended by principled, morally consistent, non-violent acts to oppose them. It is no more wrong to call out Israel in particular for its abuses than it was to call out the Apartheid regime in particular for its abuses.

To those who wrongly accuse you of unfairness or harm done to them by this call for divestment, I suggest, with humility, that the harm suffered from being confronted with opinions that challenge one’s own pales in comparison to the harm done by living a life under occupation and daily denial of basic rights and dignity. It is not with rancor that we criticize the Israeli government, but with hope, a hope that a better future can be made for both Israelis and Palestinians, a future in which both the violence of the occupier and the resulting violent resistance of the occupied come to an end, and where one people need not rule over another, engendering suffering, humiliation, and retaliation. True peace must be anchored in justice and an unwavering commitment to universal rights for all humans, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin or any other identity attribute. You, students, are helping to pave that path to a just peace. I heartily endorse your divestment vote and encourage you to stand firm on the side of what is right.

God bless you richly,

Desmond Tutu.
Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town.

By Archbishop Desmond Tutu .

Archbishop Tutu is an active and prominent proponent of the campaign for divestment from Israel

A Deal in the Works with Iran?

WASHINGTON — The nuclear talks with Iran have just begun, but already the smart money in Tehran is betting on a deal. That piece of intelligence comes from the Tehran stock index, which on the day after the talks opened posted its largest daily rise in months and closed at a record high.

Tehran investors may be guilty of wishful thinking in their eagerness for an agreement that would ease the economic sanctions squeezing their country. My guess is that they probably have it right. So far, Iran is following the script for a gradual, face-saving exit from a nuclear program that even Russia and China have signaled is too dangerous. The Iranians will bargain up to the edge of the cliff, but they don’t seem eager to jump.

The  mechanics of an eventual settlement are clear enough after Saturday’s first session in Istanbul: Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium to  the 20 percent level, and would halt work at an underground facility near Qom built for higher enrichment. Iran would export its stockpile of  highly enriched uranium for final processing to 20 percent, for use in medical isotopes.

In the language of these talks, the Iranians could describe their actions not as concessions to the West, but as “confidence-building” measures, aimed at demonstrating the seriousness of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s public pledge in February not to commit  the “grave sin” of building a nuclear weapon. And the West would describe its easing of sanctions not as a climb down, but as “reciprocity.”

The basic framework was set weeks ago, in an exchange of letters between the chief negotiators. Catherine Ashton, who  represents the “P5+1” group of permanent U.N. security council members and Germany, proposed a “confidence-building exercise aimed at facilitating a constructive dialogue on the basis of reciprocity and a step-by-step approach.”

The Iranian negotiator, Saeed Jalili, responded that because the West was willing to recognize Iran’s right to  peaceful nuclear energy, “our talks for cooperation based on step-by-step principles and reciprocity on Iran’s nuclear issue could be  commenced.” Jalili’s status as personal representative of the supreme leader was important, too.

“Step-by-step” and “reciprocity” are the two guideposts for this exercise. They mark a dignified process for making concessions, much like the formula that President Obama used in his January 2009 inaugural address when he first signaled his outreach to Iran: “We seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual  respect.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played his expected role in this choreography, criticizing the negotiators for agreeing to another round of talks on May 23 in Baghdad without getting concessions in return. “My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie,” Netanyahu said. “It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition.” A perfect rebuff — just scornful enough to keep the Iranians (and Americans, too) worried that the Israelis might launch a military attack this summer if no real progress is made in the talks.

The Iranians seem to be preparing  their public for a deal that limits enrichment, while preserving the right to enrich. In an interview Monday with the Iranian student news agency, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi explained that “making 20 percent fuel is our right,” but that “if they guarantee that they will provide us with the different levels of enriched fuel that we need, then  that would be another issue.” Salehi seemed to be reviving a 2009 Turkish plan to export Iran’s low-enriched uranium abroad, and receive back 20 percent fuel for its Tehran research reactor, supposedly to make  the isotopes. That earlier deal collapsed because of opposition from Khamenei, who apparently is now ready to bargain.

Jalili struck the same upbeat tone in comments printed in the Tehran Times. “We witnessed progress,” he said, explaining that the supreme leader’s religious edict renouncing nuclear weapons “created an opportunity for concrete steps toward disarmament and non-proliferation.” He said “the next talks should be based on confidence-building measures, which would build the confidence of Iranians.”

Translation: The Iranians expect to be paid, in “step-by-step” increments, as they move toward a deal. At a minimum, they will want a delay of the U.S. and European sanctions that take full effect June 28 and July 1, respectively. That timetable gives the West leverage, too — to keep the threatened sanctions in place until the Iranians have made the required concessions. It’s a well-prepared negotiation, in other words, and it seems likely to succeed if each side keeps to the script and doesn’t muff its lines.

By David Ignatius

18 April 2012

@ The Washington Post

David Ignatius writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

Yusuf Al-qaradawi: If The Prophet Mohamad Was Alive

Yusuf al-Qaradawi: ‘If the Prophet Mohamad was alive today, he would lend his support to NATO

“… Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Qatar-based (and financed) preacher often described as the de facto spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, has recently kept up a barrage of verbal attacks on the Shias. He is president of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, a loose Brotherhood-inspired body designed to pronounce on issues of common concern to Muslims. Founded in the friendlier climate of 2004, its top ranks also include Shia clergy.

But Mr Qaradawi now attacks Shias for compromising the oneness of God (about the worst thing a Muslim can do) by ascribing semi-divine status to the people they regard as Muhammad’s legitimate successors. Another accusation is that Shias poach souls in Sunni lands.

Time was when Mr Qaradawi praised the feats of Hizbullah, the Iranian-backed Shia militia in Lebanon, as fighters against Israel. But in recent punditry he has stressed the gap between Sunni and Shia beliefs and passionately called for regime change in Syria, where, among other things, a Sunni majority is rebelling against a ruling elite whose Alawite belief is a Shia offshoot. Senior Shia clergy have deplored his hardening line. Mr Qaradawi, whose utterances command attention from Marseilles to the north Caucasus, also backs Bahrain’s Sunni rulers in their anti-Shia stance.”

By  Yorum Yaz

16 May 2012

@ www.velfecr.com

Worst US Drought Since 1950s Threatens To Drive Up Global Food Prices

A large swath of the US Midwest and mid-South has been devastated by extreme heat and the worst drought since at least 1956. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) declared more than 1,000 counties disaster areas—more than half of the land surface of the country—making the drought officially the largest disaster on record in the country. More than two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought.

The US is the world’s largest producer of corn, soybeans, and wheat, accounting for one in every three tons of the grains traded globally. In its weekly crop estimates this season, the USDA has repeatedly downgraded its forecasts for yields on corn and soybeans. The two crops are staple foods, and prime components of animal feed, cooking oils, and many other products.

On Monday, the government found only 34 percent of soybean acreage was in “good” or “excellent” condition, down six percentage points from the week before and 31 percentage points lower than the 10-year average for this time of year. Good/excellent ratings for corn fell to 31 percent, less than half the 10-year average rate. In the major corn-producing states of Indiana and Illinois, two-thirds of the crops were rated “poor” or “very poor.” In many of the 18 states surveyed, only 1 percent of crops were found to be “excellent.”

Overall, the government has cut its projected corn harvest to 13 billion bushels, the lowest yield since 2003.

The long-term economic, social, and environmental consequences of the extreme weather may be even more catastrophic than the immediate disaster. Meteorologists have noted that the 2012 drought is unusual in comparison to previous years in that it is impacting virtually all US growing areas at once. The widespread nature of the disaster, like other recent severe weather events, points to the impact of global warming.

“There’s not an exact definition of what the USDA means by ‘very poor’ except that it can’t be any worse,” explained Chris Hurt, an agricultural economist at Purdue University in Indiana, who spoke to the World Socialist Web Site by phone Tuesday. “For crops in that rating, it’s probably approaching no yield. The conditions continue to be extreme and the temperatures are in triple digits. We’ve only gotten spotty rain, and the forecast remains pretty much the same for the next two weeks.”

“The drought is really the worst we’ve experienced in the Midwest since 1988,” Hurt said. The drought of 1988 marked a turning point for the family farm in America, when small farmers went out of business en masse after a decade-long crisis.

“If this weather continues, it will surpass that year,” Hurt added. “We will have to go back to 1934 and 1936 for comparison. The Dust Bowl is associated with that period, and those were its worst years.”

Hurt noted that climatologists have projected that the primary corn belt would move north and westward due to warming. “I think we are seeing that. There are also many implications on animal and plant species,” he said. “Planting dates are two to three weeks earlier than they were 20 to 30 years ago.”

In addition to downgrading grain estimates, the USDA rated half of the nation’s grazing land in poor or very poor condition. Indeed, US grasslands have been so dry that since June some two million acres have burnt in wildfires.

Increasing numbers of cattle deaths have been reported in long-blighted Texas, some attributed to poisonous weeds because of the depleted pasture grass and fodder. The distress in some parts of the agricultural southwest bears a growing similarity to famine-stricken regions of Africa, and suggests a creeping desertification of arable land in the US due to climate change and poor agricultural practices.

Low river and water table levels have forced larger farms to halt irrigation, placing in question the harvest quality of currently healthy acreage. The state of Nebraska ordered 1,100 farms to halt irrigation this week because of plummeting river levels. Two hundred Kansas farms were ordered to halt irrigation last week. The southern half of the Mississippi River is so low that cargo barges have been running aground.

Some counties in the federal disaster area have recorded rainfalls 10 inches below annual averages. In a statement posted on the USDA web site, meteorologist Brad Rippey said the dry spell and temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit will continue for most of the corn belt through the week, and projected “hotter- and drier-than-normal weather pattern to persist nearly nationwide.”

“I’m about an hour south of Omaha in Nebraska, and this week will end the corn crop for 2012,” Agriculture.com Marketing Talk contributor and farmer “Highyields” said. “South of me about 10 days ago, they got a shot of rain but it was a small area. We haven’t had any rain since the first half of June… Soybeans are hanging out but you can still see a mouse running down the row.”

“This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level,” University of Arizona geosciences and atmospheric sciences professor Jonathan Overpeck told the Associated Press July 5. “This extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about.” Since the beginning of the year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has logged more than 40,000 high temperature records.

A parallel disaster is gripping the grain belt of southern Russia, the world’s third largest wheat exporter. At a press conference July 16, Agriculture Minister Nikolai Fedorov forecast a 22 percent year-over-year decline in the wheat harvest. A mild winter, followed by a spring drought, then torrential rains, have battered the entire region. The Ukraine has not publicly released an estimate on its wheat crop, but the International Grains Council has said that the country’s harvest could be halved from its initial projections.

US officials are seeking to downplay the risk of food inflation. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, in an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, said that while commodity prices would rise, “it will have a marginal impact on food prices… The impact of a drought probably will not likely be seen in the grocery aisles until 2013.”

Seizing on the disaster, speculators worldwide have flocked to grain futures. Following Russia’s downward revision Monday, wheat futures surged by 3.1 percent to $8.74 a bushel, up 34 percent for the year. The same day, prices for corn due for December delivery climbed five percent to $7.89 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade. This is near the record of $7.9925 set during the 2008 food crisis. Soybeans for November delivery are currently trading as high as $16.07 a bushel, also the highest since the summer of 2008.

The price spikes that year, caused by the confluence of extreme weather and the influx into commodities markets of hedge funds and other speculators escaping the financial meltdown, pushed at least 100 million people into dire poverty. Within a year, a record one billion people—one in six of the earth’s inhabitants—suffered from hunger. The crisis triggered riots in more than 30 countries and contributed to the upheavals in the Middle East that culminated in the Arab Spring of last year.

By Naomi Spencer

18 July, 2012

@ WSWS.org

Wikileaks’ Assange Bid For Asylum From US-Threatened Ecuador

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks and Australian and world hero for exposing US war crimes and US global subversion, has sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London under threat of transfer to Sweden and thence rendition to torture and possible death in the US . Julian Assange had failed in his bid to avoid extradition to Sweden to face interrogation over sex-related complaints that have not resulted in any charges so far.

The Ecuadorian Embassy is permitting Julian Assange to stay at the Embassy under their protection while his request is considered. Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam has slammed the Governments  failure to stand up for Julian Assange.

Similarly, the conservative  Australian Coalition Opposition spokesperson for foreign affairs Senator Julie Bishop,  has questioned the Australian Labor Government’s inconsistency in intervening  in such cases. Thus the Australian Foreign Minister has personally flown to Libya in an attempt to secure the release of Australian mother and International Criminal Court lawyer Melinda Taylor. However the Australian Government merely offers the formality of consular assistance to Assange.

The Australian Labor Government  is a slavish lackey of the US and offers a dishonest choice of words over the Assange affair, stating that they have not been “advised” by the US Government about any US legal action against Assange. However the ABC (the Australian equivalent of the UK BBC) recently broadcast a program about the ongoing US torture of US whistleblower Bradley Manning. This ABC Four Corners TV program identifies that  “This Washington courthouse is where, it’s believed, a Grand Jury has been sitting in secret, preparing a sealed indictment against Julian Assange, which will allow his extradition to America , and a trial for espionage. Australia ‘s Government refuses to confirm this” and reveals an “email, from [US Government-linked company] Stratfor’s Vice-President Fred Burton, [which] says: “Not for publication – We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Please protect.” (ABC TV Four Corners, “Wikileaks – the forgotten man”, 18 June 2012: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/06/14/3525291.htm ).

Julian Assange’s mother Christine Assange has commented thus on his seeking political asylum: “This is the last desperate effort because he is a political prisoner, but I hope the Ecuador government gives him asylum. As we speak I have got no doubt the Americans are intimidating Ecuador right now to try and back off. I’m hoping that they’ll hold firm knowing that the world’s people want this to happen” (ABC News, “Desperate” Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador ”, 20 June 2912: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-20/assange-seeks-asylum-in-ecuador/4080674 ).

Assange’s bid for diplomatic asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy was evidently based on an expectation of Ecuadorian sympathy. Thus when Julian Assange, while under house arrest in the UK, interviewed Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa on his show, “The World Tomorrow” on “Russia Today”, Correa made clear his sympathy for Assange and Wikileaks and his opposition to US bullying (in 2011  Ecuador expelled the US Ambassador Heather Hodges after particular cables were released by Wikileaks). President Correa ended the interview by saying: “Cheer up. Welcome to the club of the persecuted” to which Julian Assange replied, “Thank you. Take care. Don’t get assassinated” (see “Assange interview with Ecuador leader shows rapport”, LA Times, 20 June 2012: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/assange-interview-with-ecuador-leader-shows-rapport-video.html ). The warning was serious when one considers the appalling US record of killing national leaders it does not like,  notably in Latin America .

A succinct history of Ecuador is as follows (updated from Chapter 5, “Latin America and the Caribbean – from European invasion, genocide and slavery to US hegemony” in Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since1950”, now available for free perusal on the web:http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/chapter-5-latin-america-and-caribbean.html ) : pre-colonial sophisticated Inca empire; 1532, invasion by Spanish conquistador Pizarro; 1594, conquests by Spanish conquistador Benalcazar; 16th – 18th century, brutal enslavement and decimation of Indians; 1822, Spain defeated and Ecuador became part of Bolivar’s Greater Colombia; 1830, Ecuador seceded and became an independent entity; 1895, liberal revolution; 1944, further revolution; 1941, 1981 and 1995 border wars with Peru; 1950s and 1960s, increasing US-backed repression and malignant US involvement (hegemony, militarization, “running” leaders, secretly bombing churches to excite anti-communist sentiment); 1970s, oil industry commenced with subsequent massive environmental and social damage; April 29, 1979, under a new constitution. Jaime Roldós Aguilera was elected president but was killed (many believe assassinated) in a plane crash in 1981; 1981, 1995 Ecuador-Peru wars; 1999, Ecuador-Peru peace; 2000, military coup and revolution involving Colonel Gutiérrez, US-backed conservative Vice President Gustavo Noboa installed by military and Colonel Gutiérrez jailed ; democracy subsequently restored; 2003, Gutiérrez elected (6th president in 10 years); 2005, removal of President Lucio Gutiérrez from office by Congress, replaced by Vice President Alfredo Palacio; 2006, Rafael Correa elected president.

William Blum provides a succinct summary of US involvement after  the 2000 revolution and military coup in his book “ Rogue State . A guide to the World’s only superpower”. US occupation or hegemony kills poor people. Thus 1950-2005 excess mortality from deprivation (avoidable mortality, avoidable death, excess death, deaths that did not have to happen) totaled 1.3 billion for the World, 1.2 billion for the non-European world, 82 million in countries occupied at some point by the US in the post-1945 era,  and 1.4 million for US-dominated Ecuador. An even more succinct summary of post-1950 Ecuador circumstances considers US involvement, excess mortality and under-5 infant mortality:  foreign occupation: Spain (within the pre-1950 era); none (post-1950); post-1950 foreign military presence: US (hegemony and military training); post-1950 excess mortality/2005 population = 1.404m/13.379m = 10.5%; post-1950 under-5 infant mortality/2005 population = 1.426m/13.379m = 10.7% (see Chapter 5, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since1950”: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/chapter-5-latin-america-and-caribbean.html ).

Many believe that the US assassinated Ecuador President Jaime Roldós Aguilera in 1981 for being “uncooperative” (see “ Ecuador ”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador ). John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” and “The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption”: “Well, when I graduated from business school at Boston University, I was recruited by the National Security Agency, the nation’s largest and perhaps most secretive spy organization… And then I joined the Peace Corps. I was encouraged to do that by the National Security Agency. I spent three years in Ecuador living with indigenous people in the Amazon and the Andes , people who today and at that time were beginning to fight the oil companies… And then, while I was still in the Peace Corps, I was brought in and recruited into a US private corporation called Charles T. Main, a consulting firm out of Boston of about 2,000 employees, very low-profile firm that did a tremendous amount of work of what I came to understand was the work of economic hit men, as I described it earlier, and that’s the role I began to fulfill and eventually kind of rose to the top of that organization as its chief economist… So if we’re caught doing something, if we’re caught bribing or corrupting local officials in some country, it’s blamed on private industry, not on the US government… Jaime Roldos was an amazing man. After many years of military dictators in Ecuador , US puppet dictators, there was a democratic election, and one man, Jaime Roldos, ran on a platform that said Ecuadorian resources ought to be used to help the Ecuadorian people, and specifically oil, which at that time was just coming in. This was in the late ’70s. And I was sent to Ecuador , and I was also sent at the same time to Panama to work with Omar Torrijos, to bring these men around, to corrupt them, basically, to change their minds… On and on, we can list all these presidents that we’ve either overthrown or assassinated because they didn’t play our game. But Jaime would not come around, Jaime Roldos. He stayed uncorruptible, as did Omar Torrijos… And sure enough — it was interesting that Jaime Roldos’s plane crashed in May, and Torrijos said — got his family together and said, “I’m probably next, but I’m ready to go. We’ve now got the Canal turned over.” He had signed a treaty with Jimmy Carter to get the Canal in Panamanian hands. He said, “I’ve accomplished my job, and I’m ready to go now.” And he had a dream about being in a plane that hit a mountain. And within two months after it happened to Roldos, it happened to Torrijos also” (see John Perkins on “The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption”:, Democracy Now, 5 June 2007:http://www.democracynow.org/2007/6/5/john_perkins_on_the_secret_history ).

A powerful insight into how the US subverts, perverts and terrorizes countries in Latin America and around the world was given by Phillip Agee in his book “Inside the Company. CIA Diary”. Agee was posted to Ecuador where his job in the US Embassy was to “run” leading trade union and political figures who were “on the books” as CIA “assets”. It was immediately obvious to any informed and perceptive Australian readers who the corresponding US Australian “assets” were – and of course once you surmised such involvement the subsequent reported behaviour of these individuals could be seen quite clearly as “fitting the mould”. Indeed recent Wikileaks releases revealed that several Labor politicians were US “assets” who regularly  reported internal Labor Government discussions to the US Embassy in Canberra .

However a colleague of Phillip Agee in Ecuador had a much more exciting time running right wing terrorists involved in bombing Catholic Churches so that these atrocities would be blamed on socialists. In the 21st century  the US Government was almost certainly involved in the 9-11 atrocity and the explosive demolition of 3 World Trade Centre buildings (see “Experts; US did 9-11”:https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ ) , these atrocities being blamed on Muslim “men in caves”, with uncritical Mainstream media permitting the subsequent War on Terror that has egregiously constrained civil liberties and caused the deaths of about 9 million people so far from violence or war-imposed deprivation, the breakdown being 2.7 million (Iraq), 5.6 million (Afghanistan), 1.1 million (Somalia), and 0.1 million (Libya) (see “Muslim Holocaust, Muslim Genocide”:https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ ). Al Qaeda was initially funded by the US and it is clear that Muslim-origin non-state terrorists have been huge assets for genocidal US imperialism. Phillip Agee resigned from the CIA out of repugnance for US torture and killing of dissidents  in Latin America, the fate that is likely to be that of Julian Assange unless the Ecuadorians can resist US pressure and rescue him.

By Dr Gideon Polya

21 June, 2012
Countercurrents.org

Dr Gideon Polya has been teaching science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007:http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm ) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010:http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html ). He has published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see:http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others:http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/ bengalfamine_programme.html ). When words fail one can say it in pictures – for images of Gideon Polya’s huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see:http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ andhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/ .

What Really Lies Behind Israel’s ‘No Occupation’ Report

 

The recently published report by an Israeli judge concluding that Israel is not in fact occupying the Palestinian territories – despite a well-established international consensus to the contrary – has provoked mostly incredulity or mirth in Israel and abroad.

Leftwing websites in Israel used comically captioned photographs to highlight Justice Edmond Levy’s preposterous finding. One shows an Israeli soldier pressing the barrel of a rifle to the forehead of a Palestinian pinned to the ground, saying: “You see – I told you there’s no occupation.”

Even Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, seemed a little discomfited by the coverage last week. He was handed the report more than a fortnight earlier but was apparently reluctant to make it public.

Downplaying the Levy report’s significance may prove unwise, however. If Netanyahu is embarrassed, it is only because of the timing of the report’s publication rather than its substance.

It was, after all, the Israeli prime minister himself who established the committee earlier this year to assess the legality of the Jewish settlers’ “outposts”, ostensibly unauthorised by the government, that have spread like wild seeds across the West Bank.

He hand-picked its three members, all diehard supporters of the settlements, and received the verdict he expected – that the settlements are legal. Certainly, Levy’s opinion should have come as no surprise. In 2005 he was the only Supreme Court judge to oppose the government’s decision to withdraw the settlers from Gaza.

Legal commentators too have been dismissive of the report. They have concentrated more on Levy’s dubious reasoning than on the report’s political significance.

They have noted that Theodor Meron, the foreign ministry’s legal adviser in 1967, expressly warned the government in the wake of the Six-Day War that settling civilians in the newly seized territory was a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Experts have also pointed to the difficulties Israel will face if it adopts Levy’s position.

Under international law, Israel’s rule in the West Bank and Gaza is considered “belligerent occupation” and, therefore, its actions must be justified by military necessity only. If there is no occupation, Israel has no military grounds to hold on to the territories. In that case, it must either return the land to the Palestinians, and move out the settlers, or defy international law by annexing the territories, as it did earlier with East Jerusalem, and establish a state of Greater Israel.

Annexation, however, poses its own dangers. Israel must either offer the Palestinians citizenship and wait for a non-Jewish majority to emerge in Greater Israel; or deny them citizenship and face pariah status as an apartheid state.

Just such concerns were raised on Sunday by 40 Jewish leaders in the United States, who called on Netanyahu to reject Levy’s “legal maneuverings” that, they said, threatened Israel’s “future as a Jewish and democratic state”.

But from Israel’s point of view, there may, in fact, be a way out of this conundrum.

In a 2003 interview, one of the other Levy committee members, Alan Baker, a settler who advised the foreign ministry for many years, explained Israel’s heterodox interpretation of the Oslo accords, signed a decade earlier.

The agreements were not, as most assumed, the basis for the creation of a Palestinian state in the territories, but a route to establish the legitimacy of the settlements. “We are no longer an occupying power, but we are instead present in the territories with their [the Palestinians’] consent and subject to the outcome of negotiations.”

On this view, the Oslo accords redesignated the 62 per cent of the West Bank assigned to Israel’s control – so-called Area C – from “occupied” to “disputed” territory. That explains why every Israeli administration since the mid-1990s has indulged in an orgy of settlement-building there.

According to Jeff Halper, head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, the Levy report is preparing the legal ground for Israel’s annexation of Area C. His disquiet is shared by others.

Recent European Union reports have used unprecedented language to criticise Israel for the “forced transfer” – diplomat-speak for ethnic cleansing – of Palestinians out of Area C into the West Bank’s cities, which fall under Palestinian control.

The EU notes that the numbers of Palestinians in Area C has shrunk dramatically under Israeli rule to fewer than 150,000, or no more than 6 per cent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank. Settlers now outnumber Palestinians more than two-to-one in Area C.

Israel could annex nearly two-thirds of the West Bank and still safely confer citizenship on Palestinians there. Adding 150,000 to the existing 1.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, a fifth of the population, would not erode the Jewish majority’s dominance.

If Netanyahu is hesitant, it is only because the time is not yet ripe for implementation. But over the weekend, there were indications of Israel’s next moves to strengthen its hold on Area C.

It was reported that Israel’s immigration police, which have been traditionally restricted to operating inside Israel, have been authorised to enter the West Bank and expel foreign activists. The new powers were on show the same day as foreigners, including a New York Times reporter, were arrested at one of the regular protests against the separation wall being built on Palestinian land. Such demonstrations are the chief expression of resistance to Israel’s takeover of Palestinian territory in Area C.

And on Sunday it emerged that Israel had begun a campaign against OCHA, the UN agency that focuses on humanitarian harm done to Palestinians from Israeli military and settlement activity, most of it in Area C. Israel has demanded details of where OCHA’s staff work and what projects it is planning, and is threatening to withdraw staff visas, apparently in the hope of limiting its activities in Area C.

There is a problem, nonetheless. If Israel takes Area C, it needs someone else responsible for the other 38 per cent of the West Bank – little more than 8 per cent of historic Palestine – to “fill the vacuum”, as Israeli commentators phrased it last week.

The obvious candidate is the Palestinian Authority, the Ramallah government-in-waiting led by Mahmoud Abbas. Its police forces already act as a security contractor for Israel, keeping in check Palestinians in the parts of the West Bank outside Area C. Also, as a recipient of endless international aid, the PA usefully removes the financial burden of the occupation from Israel.

But the PA’s weakness is evident on all fronts: it has lost credibility with ordinary Palestinians, it is impotent in international forums, and it is mired in financial crisis. In the long term, it looks doomed.

For the time being, though, Israel seems keen to keep the PA in place. Last month, for example, it was revealed that Israel had tried – even if unsuccessfully – to bail out the PA by requesting a $100 million loan from the International Monetary Fund on the PA’s behalf.

If the PA refuses to, or cannot, take on these remaining fragments of the West Bank, Israel may simply opt to turn back the clock and once again cultivate weak and isolated local leaders for each Palestinian city.

The question is whether the international community can first be made to swallow Levy’s absurd conclusion.

By Jonathan Cook

18 July, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

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

 

Western agreement ‘could leave Syria in Assad’s hands for two more years’

Special Report: Need for oil routes buys time, claims key Damascus figure

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria may last far longer than his opponents believe – and with the tacit acceptance of Western leaders anxious to secure new oil routes to Europe via Syria before the fall of the regime. According to a source intimately involved in the possible transition from Baath party power, the Americans, Russians and Europeans are also putting together an agreement that would permit Assad to remain leader of Syria for at least another two years in return for political concessions to Iran and Saudi Arabia in both Lebanon and Iraq.

For its part, Russia would be assured of its continued military base at Tartous in Syria and a relationship with whatever government in Damascus eventually emerges with the support of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia’s recent concession – that Assad may not be essential in any future Syrian power structure – is part of a new understanding in the West which may accept Assad’s presidency in return for an agreement that prevents a further decline into civil war.

Information from Syria suggests that Assad’s army is now “taking a beating” from armed rebels, who include Islamist as well as nationalist forces; at least 6,000 soldiers are now believed to have been murdered or killed in action since the rebellion against Assad began 17 months ago. There are even unconfirmed reports that during any one week up to a thousand Syrian fighters are under training by mercenaries in Jordan at a base used by Western authorities for personnel seeking ‘anti-terrorist’ security exercises.

The US-Russian negotiations – easy to deny, and somewhat cynically hidden behind the current mutual accusations of Hillary Clinton and her Russian opposite number, Sergei Lavrov – would mean that the superpowers would acknowledge Iran’s influence over Iraq and its relationship with its Hezballah allies in Lebanon, while Saudi Arabia – and Qatar – would be encouraged to guarantee Sunni Muslim rights in Lebanon and in Iraq. Baghdad’s emergence as a centre of Shia power has caused much anguish in Saudi Arabia whose support for the Sunni minority in Iraq has hitherto led only to political division.

But the real object of talks between the world powers revolves around the West’s determination to secure oil and particularly gas from the Gulf states without relying upon supplies from Moscow. “Russia can turn off the spigot to Europe whenever it wants – and this gives it tremendous political power,” the source says. “We are talking about two fundamental oil routes to the West – one from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Jordan and Syria and the Mediterranean to Europe, another from Iran via Shia southern Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean and on to Europe. This is what matters. This is why they will be prepared to let Assad last for another two years, if necessary. They would be perfectly content with that. And Russia will have a place in the new Syria.”

Diplomats who are still discussing these plans should, of course, be treated with some scepticism. It is one thing to hear political leaders excoriating the Syrian regime for its abuse of human rights and massacres – quite another to realise that Western diplomats are quite prepared to put this to one side for the proverbial ‘bigger picture’ which, as usual in the Middle East, means oil and gas supplies. They are prepared to tolerate Assad’s presence until the end of the crisis, rather than insisting his departure is the start of the end. The Americans apparently say the same. Now Russia believes that stability is more important than Assad himself.

It is clear that Bashar al-Assad should have gone ahead with extensive reforms when his father Hafez died in 2000. At that stage, according to Syrian officials, Syria’s economy was in a far better state than Greece is today. And the saner voices influencing Assad’s leadership were slowly deprived of their power. One official close to the president called him during the height of last year’s fighting to say that “Homs is burning”. Assad’s reaction was to refuse all personal conversation with the official in future, insisting on only SMS messages. “Assad no longer has personal power over all that happens in Syria,” the informant says. “It’s not because he doesn’t want to – there’s just too much going on all over the country for one man to keep in touch with it all.”

What Assad is still hoping for, according to Arab military veterans, is a solution a-l’Algerie. After the cancellation of democratic elections in Algeria, its army and generals – ‘le pouvoir’ to Algerians – fought a merciless war against rebels and Islamist guerrillas across the country throughout the 1990s, using torture and massacre to retain government power but leaving an estimated 200,000 dead among their own people.

Amid this crisis, the Algerian military actually sent a delegation to Damascus to learn from Hafez el-Assad’s Syrian army how it destroyed the Islamist rebellion in Hama – at a cost of up to 20,000 dead – in 1982. The Algerian civil war – remarkably similar to that now afflicting Assad’s regime – displayed many of the characteristics of the current tragedy in Syria: babies with their throats cut, families slaughtered by mysterious semi-military ‘armed groups’, whole towns shelled by government forces.

And, much more interesting to Assad’s men, the West continued to support the Algerian regime with weapons and political encouragement throughout the 1990s while huffing and puffing about human rights. Algeria’s oil and gas reserves proved more important than civilian deaths – just as the Damascus regime now hopes to rely upon the West’s desire for via-Syria oil and gas to tolerate further killings. Syrians say that Jamil Hassan, the head of Air Force intelligence in Syria is now the ‘killer’ leader for the regime – not so much Bashar’s brother Maher whose 4th Division is perhaps being given too much credit for suppressing the revolt. It has certainly failed to crush it.

The West, meanwhile has to deal with Syria’s contact man, Mohamed Nassif, perhaps Assad’s closest political adviser. The question remains, however, as to whether Bashar al-Assad – however much he fails to control military events on the ground – really grasps the epic political importance of what is going on in his country. Prior to the rebellion, European and Turkish leaders were astonished to hear from him that Sunni forces in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli were trying “to create a Salafist state” that would threaten Syria. How this extraordinary assertion – based, presumably on the tittle-tattle of an intelligence agent – could have formulated itself in Assad’s mind, remained a mystery.

By Robert Fisk

29 June 2012

@ The Independent

West’s battle for Russian ‘hearts and minds’: NGOs on steroids (Op-Ed)

The Russian Duma has just passed amendments to the Russian NGO law.

Russian NGOs receiving foreign funding will now have to register at the Ministry of Justice as an “NGO carrying out functions as a foreign agent”, make public their sources of funding by marking it on the materials they distribute, and report semi-annually to the Ministry of Justice on their activities.

This law, a great majority of Russians believe, is long overdue. In the past 25 years, billions of dollars have been pouring into Russia from the US State Department and its subsidiary agencies like the US Agency for International Development (USAID – nearly $3 billion alone), as well as from so-called “private foundations” like the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute. All of these institutions, judging by their activities and leadership’s biographies, have important ties to the US State Department, the intelligence community, Cold War and the “color revolutions”.

The goal of all this money was not to express Washington’s generous love of Russia, its culture or its people. In addition to building a loyal infrastructure, it aimed at “winning hearts and minds” – and along the way oil, gas, and military capacity. It has all been about “opening” – “open society”, “open economy”, “open Russia”, “open government” – open for brainwashing, economic plunder, for hijacking Russia’s domestic and foreign policies.

Conquest by war is always an option for the US, as we have seen in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now in Syria. But “victory without war” is cheaper and more effective, as the collapse of Soviet Union has tragically shown.

What did Western funding do to the Russian civil society while pursuing military objectives by “peaceful means”? Might it have accidentally contributed to building democracy in Russia? The word “democracy” here is understood in its original sense, as government of the people for the people, not in Washington’s interpretation as a loyal regime subservient to US interest.

In fact, the multibillions of Western funding have profoundly distorted Russian civil society. A marginal pro-American group of NGOs that was pumped up with US dollars like a bodybuilder with steroids -it has gained much muscle and shine. Those few Russians willing to serve foreign interests were provided nice offices, comfortable salaries, printing presses, training, publicity, and political and organizing technology which gave them far more capacity, visibility, and influence that they could possibly have had on their own. Money and spin are the only means to promote unpopular ideas, alien to national interests.

On the other side is the silent majority of people who is squeezed out of the public space. In Western, and also in Russian media, civil society turns out to be represented by Ludmila Alekseyeva (The Helsinki Group), Boris Nemtsov and Gary Kasparov, rather than by a worker from the Urals, teacher from Novosibirsk or a farmer from Krasnodar Region.

Moreover, Russian NGOs not addicted to Western funding are put under serious pressure from Western funders and their local outlets to join the club. Once the Russian organization shows its effectiveness, its leadership receives a call from US Embassy, and an invitation to visit. Money offers follow shortly. If the Russian NGO dares to refuse the bait, one or several mirror organizations are created that, with massive funding and publicity, hijack the subject, fill it out with its agenda and occupy the field.

For projects in education, for example, suddenly it will be all Anglo-Saxon models and values. For projects fighting abuse by the police, this fight will be selective and serving to compile incriminatory evidence on loyal officials designed to create hostility to the government in general, rather than truly fighting these intolerable practices. In the field of business associations, one Russian NGO was denounced by a major US-allied corporation for “excessively defending the rights of domestic producers”.

No, Western funding does not contribute to strengthening Russian democracy. It only extends the battle field for pro-American forces against patriotic forces. Like steroids, Western funding is injected in the weaker spots of the targeted civil society. Like steroids, it is addictive. Like steroids, it corrupts the mind and body of the political organism. It transforms the target nation into a sick and dependent collaborating entity deprived of independent will, mind, and heart.

Russia and other countries subject to Western funding infusions must take charge of their domestic problems. Building a patriotic civil society cannot be outsourced. Democratic processes and national security cannot be outsourced – all the more so to openly hostile governments.

These NGO amendments, by correcting an evident gap in our laws, take a major step in leveling the playing field. But this step needs to be followed by further measures that strengthen our national civil societies.

By Veronika Krasheninnikova

13 July, 2012

­Veronika Krasheninnikova, Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy Research and Initiatives in Moscow, for RT

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

© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005 – 2011. All rights reserved.

We Must Bury Imperialism in Africa or Perish

Muammar Qaddafi is dead and the Al Fateh revolution has been rolled back. Two months after his death, on October 2011, the imperialists, in collaboration with the Salafists in Tripoli and Khartoum, orchestrated the assassination of the revolutionary leader of the Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), Dr Khalid Ibrahim. On a recent visit to Tripoli, president of Sudan, Omar Bashir, congratulated the Libyan NTC and said that ‘Qaddafi’s death is the best thing that could have happened to the people of Sudan’. When the chairman of the NTC, Mustafa Jalil, recently visited Sudan, Bashir once again sank into absurdity, claiming that ‘Sudan has experienced no harm, even from the colonial nations, like the injury caused by Qaddafi and his group.’ Bashir certainly wasn’t speaking for South Sudan, nor even for some parts of the north. He was speaking only for those Sudanese who support the National Congress Party, which he leads, and their program to promote Arab hegemony.

NATO backed Salafist militias are working with Bashir’s military to seal the Sudanese- Libyan border, and are engaged in a joint military effort to fight pro-Qaddafi Tuaregs and JEM fighters operating in the region.  JEM’s leader, the late Dr Khalid Muhammad, was residing in Libya prior to and during the NATO invasion. Khartoum wanted Qaddafi to hand over Khalid Muhammad who was wanted by the Bashir regime. Qaddafi of course refused. He had for many years assisted the African fighters in Southern Sudan and those operating in the Darfur area in their legitimate struggle against the ethnic and religious chauvinists in Khartoum.  This fuelled Khartoum’s hatred of Qaddafi, because Qaddafi openly supported the struggle being waged against the Bashir regime, and also they hated Qaddafi’s Islam – an Islam that promotes justice, equality and peace – hence the name JEM (Justice and Equality Movement).

A few weeks after Qaddafi’s death, the Justice and Equality Movement, based in the Darfur region, joined forces with the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Movement (North), and two other liberation organizations to form the Sudanese Revolutionary Front, with the aim of toppling the Khartoum regime. Strangely enough, when Bashir visited NATO controlled Libya, no attempt was made to instruct the NTC to hand him over to the International Criminal Court, although only months ago the US was making a big fuss about the fact that other African regimes had allowed Bashir to land on their soil and had not handed him over.  Of course, the imperialists change their allegiances at the drop of a hat – Mubarak is a good example of that. That is at least one thing that we can agree on: that throughout the terrible ‘White Ages’, the politics of the North Atlantic Tribes has always been based on expedience rather than being rooted in moral principles. Their relationships are always based solely on how best the relationship can further Euro/American interests and objectives and they will make a pact with the any demon when and where necessary – I think we can all agree on that self-evident truth.  And we must never forget that their objective is always the same – unchanging – to dominate Africa and the rest of the global south, in order that they can continue to plunder our vast resources,  enabling them to live their irrational, spiritually bankrupt and unsustainable life style – end of story.  We are nothing to them – mere pawns in their game – no more than a bit of collateral damage in their way. Their worldview was perfectly illustrated when Lesley Stahl of CBS asked former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright,  the following question:

‘We have heard that a half million children have died… I mean, that’s more than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?’

To which Madeleine Albright replied, ‘I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.’

There is no better example of the enemy’s total disregard for ‘us’ than recent events in Libya. The most prosperous and stable country on the African continent was bombed to a point of total destruction of its physical environment, economy and social fabric, and then following the globally televised murder of the leader, left to dwell in pure chaos and misery. In the space of 24 hours, the corporate and mainstream media went from 24 hour coverage to zero coverage. They turned off their cameras so that the world would not see the ensuing bloodbath, as the racist and fascist Salafists, who had been handed power by NATO, continued on their murderous rampage of ethnic and ideological cleansing. Intellectuals, religious leaders, Black Libyans and all those who dared to openly support the Al Fateh revolution were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured and murdered – and not a word from NATO countries about the human rights they pretended to cherish while they savagely bombed this defiant African nation.

One only has to look back on the days of what the enemy has termed the ‘Arab Spring’ to understand how sinister and sophisticated their plans for domination really are. They quite clearly have a contingency plan for every eventuality and so, when they need to support a repressive regime such as Ben Ali in Tunisia or Mubarak in Egypt they do so, when that is no longer working, they can switch gear within hours to support the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi electoral outfits, despite the fact that only yesterday they were raging against them. The only thing that matters is that they remain at the top of the global pyramid, exerting total control. There are many, who for years, have discarded such ideas as the ranting of whacky conspiracy theorists, however,  it is now becoming crystal clear for all to see that the unfolding  of global events is not taking place as a result of ‘shared interests converging in some ad hoc manner’, but rather is part of a carefully planned strategy. Of course, there are random events that occur which are beyond anybody’s control, such as  the Tunisian vegetable seller, Muhammad Bouazizi, setting himself on fire in protest at his harassment by Tunisian local authorities, but let us not be confused by random events that occur. It is important to note that those that are manipulating world events have contingency plans for every conceivable series of events and outcomes. As soon as the rebellion in Tunisia and Egypt started, they swung into gear, launching plan B to either co-opt and/or destabilize the rebellions. They would support any commotion – even an al Qaeda inspired and led takeover of Libya, as long as they remain in control.

Confusion Reigns
Even amongst so-called anti-imperialist and ‘revolutionary’ organizations and personalities, confusion reigns. They shout ‘revolution’ as soon as they see a rebellion, failing to realize that all rebellions are not revolutions and some, as in the case of Libya and more recently Syria, are simply imperialist orchestrated ‘rebel commotion’. Revolutions do not happen without a revolutionary theory and revolutionary organization. In the absence of these weapons, and indeed, revolutionary theory, consciousness and organization are weapons, confusion, co-option and chaos are easy to establish. In an alliance with the powerful corporate media and local players, commotion of a destabilizing nature is all around us. In such circumstances, as we have witnessed over the past 18 months, if we are not careful we can lose our bearings. Sadly many progressive and so-called anti-imperialists figures fell for the bait and found themselves on the same side as NATO and the Salafists.

For the past decades, since the end of the so-called Cold War, as the single global super-power, the US and their European allies have enjoyed unfettered access to Africa, however, with the rise of China as a powerful economic player, and their own deepening economic crisis and decline, they are once again on the offensive, determined that they will maintain sole control over Africa by whatever means necessary. Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan Jamahiriya were major obstacles to their plan. Qaddafi had the ability to provide financial assistance to African countries, and his vision of African unity was fast gaining momentum, Qaddafi and Libya’s prosperity and capability to lead the charge towards African liberation had to be eliminated.  No one was more aware of their nefarious agenda than the Brother-Leader himself.  His last message to the peoples of Africa stated:

‘The fight, if it is not won in Libya, will be coming to you. Prepare for it. Prepare traps for the invaders. You must defend your corners…Do not let them use you. Be united. Build your defenses for they are coming if they manage to pass Libya.’

Since the overthrow of the Libyan revolution, The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), set up to facilitate US military intervention in Africa has, as expected, stepped up its activity throughout the continent. Muammar Qaddafi was totally opposed to AFRICOM and all it stood for. His ability to influence other African governments meant that not a single African country had allowed AFRICOM to establish a military base on their soil, which was what AFRICOM had set out to do. As a result of this unanimous rejection by African nation-states, AFRICOM was forced to establish its headquarters in Germany. This was a humiliating defeat for the US led mission to militarily occupy Africa.

AFRICOM – a creature of US imperialism – is modeled after the infamous School of the Americas, where military training, including instruction on torture techniques, was provided to the military and paramilitary personnel of the most vicious of Central and South American dictatorships. The objective was to build their capacity to fight US imperialist conflicts and achieve the imperialist’s outcomes throughout the Americas, without having to deploy US troops. This partnership with compliant South American countries meant that citizens of the South, rather than US citizens, could fight and die to further US objectives in the region. Likewise, AFRICOM already has Ugandan, Rwandan, Kenyan, Ethiopian and Somali troops fighting to achieve the US agenda in Somalia.  We have witnessed the hideous Youtube campaign, known as Kony 2012, which was a crude attempt to win support for US military advisors and troops to be deployed in central Africa. Kony 2012 is also part of imperialism’s ongoing attempt to control and co-opt the internet however, it was a dismal failure. In fact, due to the huge number of comments ridiculing this pitiful attempt to establish a credible cover for the US military being on the ground in Africa, an order was given from somewhere to disable the comments to avoid further embarrassment. So, although this social experiment using the internet failed dismally, in the midst of the Kony madness, Obama authorized 100 US troops to be deployed to central Africa to ostensibly assist in the US created mythical struggle against Joseph Kony – yet another African bogeyman. The imperialists are tightening their military grasp on Africa.  In fact, military intervention is clearly the preferred method.

Control or Kill – that is the Question?
The second form of warfare, psychological warfare, is becoming a more difficult option, posing many challenges in a world connected by internet and social media. The enemy is clearly aware of this.  In a recent address, the Hon. Minister Louis Farrakhan once again reminded us that we need to listen carefully to the enemy because they are crystal clear regarding their plans for our continued enslavement.  Minister Farrakhan quoted the infamous speech given by Zbigniew Brzezinski, to a gathering of British elites in London on November 17, 2008.

Brzezinski was national security advisor in the Carter administration. He is also a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, which is a think tank set up to increase co-operation between the US, Europe and Japan with the aim of furthering their domination of world affairs, and is highly influential in the Obama administration. He had this to say on what he termed, ‘the global political awakening’.

‘This is a truly transformative event on the global scene, namely that for the first time in human history… almost all of mankind is politically awake, activated, politically conscious and interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity, here or there, in the remotest corners of the world, which are not politically alert and interactive with the political turmoil and stirrings and aspirations around the world,  and all of that is creating a worldwide surge in the quest for personal dignity and cultural respect, in a diversified world sadly accustomed for many centuries to domination of one portion of the world by another.

That is an enormous change and beyond that is the interacting of a further change, namely in the distribution of global power. It pertains to some of the obvious of which we are aware  but which it is important to register, namely that we are living in a time of the basic shift away from the 500 years long global domination by the Atlantic powers. It is the countries that have been located on the shores of the Atlantic ocean, and let’s recall them, Portugal, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain and more recently the United States that have dominated world affairs and that shift now is taking us towards Asia. It is not the end of the preeminence of the Atlantic world but it is now the surfacing of the Pacific region, most notably Japan, the number two economic power and China, an assertive global power that is  now occupying a pre-eminent  place in the global hierarchy, and of course, beyond them, there is India’s future development, though it is currently still in the wings,  and it is also complicated by the re-appearance of Russia which is still restless, rather unclear about its own definition, very un-definite about its recent past and very insecure about its place in the world… these new and old major powers face still yet another novel reality, in some respects unprecedented, and it is that, while the lethality of their power is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historical low.

I once put it rather pungently and I was flattered that the British foreign secretary repeated this as follows: namely in earlier times it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control…’

Here it is – the chilling plan – easier to kill than to control – a clear picture of the era that is before us. And I can guarantee that Brzezinski and his kind have a plan – the question is do we?

Notice that nowhere in Brzezinski’s speech is there any mention of ‘us’ – of those of us that dwell in the parts of the world that the imperialists continue to wrangle over and dominate. We are treated as nothing – expendable – not even worth a mention. The Trilateralists are very different from the crude Neo-Cons. Their plans for global domination are much slicker. Where the Neo-Cons support direct military intervention, the Trilateralists are among those who believe that it is smarter and more effective to pit us against each other, and to ensure that we fight the wars on their behalf. While Brzezinski welcomes the Russians back onto the world stage, and acknowledges China’s rise in a seemingly friendly way, behind the rhetoric is a plan to directly counter China and Russia’s global power, ensuring the continuity of West European/American dominance. Hence, Brzezinski and his kind would rather see us embroiled in conflict and turmoil, fighting each other, and where possible, use this chaos to their advantage in their battle to counter the growing influence of China and Russia.

‘Era of the Masses’
Muammar Qaddafi predicted this moment in history many years before Brzezinski and his cohorts.  Even progressive commentators and intellectuals speak about the current awakening of the masses without referring to The Green Book.  As far back as 1975, when the Green Book was first published, Qaddafi spoke about the ‘era of the masses’, describing it as a time ‘rapidly advancing towards us to overtake the era of republics’, an era that would ‘excite the emotions and dazzle the eyes’. However, he also realized that it would usher in a dangerous time, where we may find ourselves teetering on the brink of disaster. He sounded this warning: ‘But in as much as it heralds the advent of real freedom for the masses and the blissful emancipation from the chains of all instruments of government, it is also the harbinger of a chaotic and tumultuous era. If the new democracy, the authority of the people, were to suffer a relapse, such an era would bring back autocracy…’

Qaddafi the visionary was able to comprehend the movement of history and the spirit of time, always believing that the present era represents a turning point in humanity’s history, heralding the great awakening of the masses – both men and women moving forward together to shape history and social evolution.

Revolution or Commotion and Chaos?
Leaders from Marcus Garvey to Muammar Qaddafi have warned us over and over that we will continue to be condemned to the imperialist’s genocidal policies and domination until we are able to unite and set our own agenda.  We must have zero tolerance of those amongst us who continue to be manipulated to serve the interests of and achieve the very outcomes laid out for us by our enemies. Even this historical moment, which Brzezinski describes as a truly transformative event on the global scene and what he rightly terms a ‘global political awakening’, will be of no use to us without some level of clarity and unity of purpose.

The objective of psych-ops is to defeat us mentally – to convince us of the invincibility of Euro/American domination. This forces us into an acceptance of the inevitability of being relegated to nothing more than collateral damage in a battle between powerful global forces. The aim is to make us feel completely disempowered and impotent in the face of this leviathan, which destroys entire nation-states that stand in its way with its foreboding military might, and parades the televised murder of our leaders before us with impunity. Amos Wilson explains:

‘The European inhabits only a small part of this globe. The parts of the globe that the European occupies are relatively resourceless when compared to those occupied by non-European people. And yet, the European is saddled with great wealth, economic and political power. He controls the globe and maintains the world in a state of terror, and has the earth now on the brink of suicide. We must question how is it that a minority people, a very small percentage of mankind, a people who are essentially resourceless in terms of their natural resources, maintain the power they have. Why is it that the people whose lands contain the wealth of the earth are the poorest people? Why is it that Afrika with some twenty (20) or thirty (30) strategic metals that make the space age possible – why is it that the image of Africa is projected at us time and time again as that of starving children, as societies in disorder, as societies on the verge of disaster?

This implies, to my mind, that there must exist, a political and social situation wherein the mental orientation of our people must be so structured, that the power and ability of the Europeans to rule this earth are continually maintained… The imperialistic European must essentially function in a very devilish fashion. That is, in a fashion that uses deception as its major characteristic. Consequently, fundamental values and ways of seeing reality must be reversed. The good must appear to be the bad, the light dark. Truth must be taken for the lie; the lie for truth. Otherwise a small group, such as European people could not continue to keep the rest of the world out of its mind. The European hegemonic establishment must project false and injurious ideologies that are accepted by its victims.’

Imperialism can only be buried in Africa…
In an earlier article, I invoked as its title Sekou Toure’s bold assertion: that imperialism will be buried in Africa. From a Eurocentric perspective that might have seemed optimistic, and indeed some commentators asserted that it was not grounded in reality and that we were, if anything, being crushed by imperialism’s might. However, looking at it from a revolutionary Pan-African perspective one simply sees it as inevitable. Actually, imperialism can only be defeated in Africa.  Although there is a revolutionary fightback globally and most notably throughout South America, it is only when Africa is finally free and regains its sovereignty that imperialism in its current form can be buried, since it is Africa that fuels the space age.  The onus is on revolutionary Pan-African organizations and movements, on the continent and in the Diaspora, to provide clear analysis and strategies that are capable of thwarting the enemies’ plans at every point in the evil axis of Euro/American imperialism, Saudi and Qatari sponsored Salafism parading as Islam, and the neo-colonial regimes in Africa and the Diaspora. There is no room for weakness, ineffective ways of operating that drain our resources and fail time and time again to achieve results. There is no room or time for indecision leading to inaction.
We must bury imperialism in Africa or we will surely perish.

In a recent interview with The Southern Times, veteran African freedom fighter and former president of Namibia, Sam Nujoma, was extremely critical of the African Union’s weakness, stating that they ‘had woefully failed to mobilize militarily to stop the bombing of Libya and that the African Union should have mobilized their forces in order to fight and defend the territorial integrity of Libya.’

He offered the following advice on confronting what he identified as a new scramble for Africa: ‘Africans should talk war – the language best understood by Western countries…The imperialists understand no other words than fighting. We dislodged them from our continent by fighting them. If we did not fight in Namibia or in Zimbabwe or elsewhere, we would not be free today. We must now prepare to fight them again…’

Nujoma stated that Africa’s sovereignty was not up for debate and called upon the youth of Africa, to prepare themselves to fight and defend the continent.

Black Power – African Power
It is only with access to Africa’s resources, that modern day empires, fuelled by industrialized and high-tech economies, can be built. Even Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are in the scramble for African lands to grow food for their populations, and African resources to fuel their economies. The Lebanese, Saudis, Qataris and Israeli’s are among those that rival the Europeans in their plunder of Africa’s wealth. It came as no surprise that it was the Lebanese who assisted the French to draft the so-called ‘No-Fly Zone’ resolution which spelled Libya’s destruction. The same Lebanese, who now so hypocritically recognize Syria’s plight in the face of groups of Salafi terrorists being armed, trained and organized by the NATO member states, and are calling for no outside intervention with an agenda for regime change in Syria. The only Arab nations to oppose NATO’s invasion of Libya were Algeria, Syria and Mauritania.

Qaddafi’s plans for Africa were inimical to the Lebanese and other Arab business interests on the continent. Like their European counterparts, they simply could not afford a united and independent Africa.

Libyan Popular National Movement (LPNM)
The fight back is on and intensifying in every region of Libya. The NTC is definitely not in control, and faces a well coordinated armed rebellion on a daily basis. Qaddafi loyalists have launched the Libyan Popular National Movement, which embodies the principles of the Al Fateh revolution and draws on 40 years of experience in struggle against imperialism, pseudo-Islam and neo-colonialism.  Its leader, Qweldi al Hamedi, was one of the original members of the Free Unionist Officers that toppled the pro-western monarchy of King Idris back in 1969. He lost his pregnant daughter-in-law and three of his grandchildren when his home was bombed by NATO.  This man, like Muammar Qaddafi and Abubakr Younis Jabr, is a man of steel. Prior to the NATO invasion, Qweldi al Hamedi was semi-retired, and now in his 70s, after losing so many of his family members, is once again in the trenches. As revolutionary Pan-Africanists, we must give unwavering support to the Libyan Popular National Movement, the natural heir of the Al Fateh Revolution.

Axis of Evil: Imperialists, Neo-Colonial Regimes and Salafists
Imperialism and its neo-colonial client regimes have been written about extensively and are old members of this axis. Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah provided us with a masterful analysis of neo-colonialism in Africa in his book Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism.

Pretenders to Islam
The Salafists are a less understood and recent member of this most unholy of alliances. While we were sleeping, these religious charlatans were quietly stealing the minds of large numbers of Muslim youth throughout Africa and the Arab region. It was not a difficult task. The Salafists had, and continue to receive massive financial backing to the tune of millions from the medieval Wahhabi creatures in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This allowed them to prey on the disillusioned and poverty stricken youths throughout the continent and the Arabian Peninsula. They seduced the poorest of them with scholarships, covering all costs, to Salafi infested institutions, where they have been and continue to be, indoctrinated with a simplistic, puritanical and one dimensional view of Islam and the world. The Salafis offer themselves to the Muslim Ummah as the sole solution to the crisis of modernity and secularism.  This is opium for the people, especially the youth.  It appeals to the poor and marginalized who have little or no education. It also appeals to youth from the wealthier middle-classes, who are completely disaffected by the hypocrisy and double standards of their parents’ generation – a generation which they perceive as having ‘sold out’ to the West, which entailed abandoning their Islamic values.  To these youths, the Salafists seem to be the only ones talking militancy and offering a tangible solution. 

This is not the first time we have witnessed the emergence of such movements. In recent history, we have observed the emergence of fascist movements, which in all their tendencies, offer simplistic and puritanical solutions to the crisis of capitalism and existing political systems, and prey on the disillusionment, disenfranchisement and fear of the masses, especially the youth. We have also seen deviant religious ideas used as a weapon during slavery, throughout the colonial project and in Apartheid South Africa, to name a few examples.

The Salafists have become imperialism’s shock troops – foot soldiers doing their dirty work.  It is no accident that Ansar Dine has emerged out of the blue to challenge the revolutionary nationalist and Islamic MNLA in Mali, while in Nigeria, Boko Haram is well funded and armed to wage war against the Nigerian state, bombing Christian churches and killing Muslims who do not adhere to their Salafist doctrine, and all the while shouting Allahu Akhbar.  Throughout the continent, Salafism is on the rise, posing a serious threat to the Pan-African struggle for the liberation of Africa and the creation of a United States.

As I write, the Salafist Ansar Dine which is linked to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are destroying historical religious and cultural artifacts in Timbuktu, on the grounds that they are somehow un-Islamic.  An observer aptly referred to them as ‘madmen with guns’. Let us be clear, that in order to defeat these enemies of Islam, Africa and humanity, we have to wage war against them on every front, including in the realm of theology and ideas. The battle of ideas is crucial, since it is the hearts and minds of the youth that have been captivated.  It is important to understand that these pretenders to Islam are not revolutionaries but are rather reactionaries in the true sense – both racist and fascist; they are not rebels but are actually counter-revolutionaries, with little or no understanding of Islam. For them Islam and Arab culture is one and the same thing. They are religious deviants, preaching a false and misguided theology, in order to achieve their objective, which is to subvert Islam and dominate the Ummah. This is not a new battle but is a battle that has been waged since the time of the Prophet and before. The Salafists’ objective is to ensure that Islam is stripped of its revolutionary essence and reduced to a mere ritualistic/legalistic doctrine and practice, which will no longer challenge the existing order. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist parties are no threat to western economic and geo-political interests in the region and globally. Their electoral outfits, wherever they assume political office, will implement neo-liberal economic policies and will manage the ‘free market’ economy with an ‘Islamic’ veneer.

Zia-ul-Haq (not the former president of Pakistan, but the Muslim scholar) showed how the early conflicts in the Muslim world shaped the Wahhabi/Salafi mindset:

‘After the civil wars and counter revolution of the Umayyads, the revolutionary principles of Salat, Jihad, Zakat etc, were all reinterpreted in a feudal framework. Feudalism reasserted itself when under monarchy and autocracy,  feudal social and economic relationships of master and slave, lord and serf, king and his subjects replaced the pristine revolutionary principles of justice and social equality…feudal Islam was a political instrument to enslave the broad masses in the name of pristine Islam…Feudal Islam was thus a negation of the Qu’ranic Islam, the Islam of the prophet-revolutionaries, the Islam which was synonymous with truth, justice, social equality, sincerity and humility.’

Qaddafi knew them well. In the early 70s he spoke of this ongoing battle:

‘As the Muslims have strayed far from Islam, a review is demanded. The Libyan revolution is a revolution for rectifying Islam, presenting Islam correctly, purifying Islam of the reactionary practices which dressed it in retrograde clothing not its own.’

‘Soon we’ll find out who is the real revolutionaries cos I don’t want my people to be tricked by mercenaries…’
African youth, especially Muslim youth, need to familiarize themselves with the writings and teachings of the real revolutionary Islamic thinkers and Islamic liberation theologians, such as Muhammad Iqbal, Ali Shariati, Mahmoud Ayoub, Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleqani, Muammar Qaddafi, Louis Farrakhan and Wesley Muhammad among others.

As revolutionary Pan-Africanists, we must heed the call of Nigeria’s African Renaissance Party and join with them in applying pressure on the African Union not to recognize the NTC racists in Libya. We must also put pressure on African governments in the Caribbean to do the same. We must, as Qaddafi implored us in his final message – ‘hold down our corner’. We need to make sure that wherever we are, the battle against these enemies of humanity is raging. As the brothers and sisters of the Pan-African Society Community Forum stated, ‘African neo-colonial agents of imperialism have no strategic power. They have no economic or financial power, which therefore means that they have no strategic political power. Whilst they have a degree of operational powers, they are under the total strategic control of their racist masters; they’re active tools of imperialism’s racist agenda as well as its economic one. The racism of the imperialist system is still present, but the role of the African neo-colonial agents is disguising it at the point of conflict.’

Qaddafism – Out of Africa
I believe that those who are committed to the unification and total liberation of Africa must understand and grasp Qaddafism, the revolutionary theory and practice of the Al Fateh revolution of 1969. It is a theory of revolution capable of ushering in a new era of popular democracy in Africa. In the words of Qaddafi himself, ‘democracy can only occur when power, wealth and arms are in the hands of the African people’. Presently none of these are in our hands, and the ludicrous mimicry of the western parliamentary system parading as democracy is obsolete.  If we are to succeed in our protracted struggle against imperialism, neo-colonialism and religious deviationism, we must have a revolutionary theory that provides us with the tools to combat Africa’s enemies, while also providing us with the guidelines for social, economic and political reconstruction on our own terms.  

Qaddafism and its concept of a Jamahiriya which means ‘State of the Masses’ was developed under African skies, by a Bedouin, who was able to create a system that embraced the values, traditions and entire way of life/culture of the people it was designed to govern. It is, in every sense of the word, a political theory and system of governance indigenous to Africa. It offers an Afrocentric alternative to the two Eurocentric paradigms that have been dominant globally in this epoch, that is, Liberal Capitalism and Marxism.

Qaddafism addresses the problems confronting Africa as a result of the imposition of alien ideologies and political systems, in that it gives us a political theory and practice that is wholly applicable to Africa and the African psyche. What makes Qaddafism unique is that unlike so many great thinkers to have emerged from the global south, there are no traces of Marxism or any other European revolutionary ideas lingering in Qaddafi’s political thought. Those who disagree with this premise need to examine the history of Islam during the period of the Prophet Muhammad and before, and the history, culture and indigenous political systems of Africa. It is clear from such research that Qaddafi’s socialism and concept of popular democracy are rooted in the ancient democratic practices of Africa and early Islam, which are far older than any Greek and European notions of democracy and European versions of socialism.

This is why there are so many challenges faced by those of us who have been involved in the dissemination of the ideas contained in The Green Book, and the attempt inside Libya to put these ideas into practice. It is important to understand that any attempt by any non-western leader to develop and articulate a political theory which is outside western intellectual tradition and paradigms, is unacceptable in the halls of western academia and political circles, and unfortunately many of our academics are still tangled up in these circles and influenced by them. Non-western political thought is frowned upon, and only those scholars whose works are shaped by Enlightenment ideologies such as Liberalism and Marxism are given any serious consideration. Hence, the deliberate marginalization and ridicule of Qaddafism and The Third Universal Theory by Eurocentric academics, political philosophers and activists is to be expected.

There can be no doubt that one of the gravest enemies of Africa has been the imposition of European materialist ideologies and political systems – whether they emanate from right or left. Africa’s true liberation cannot occur unless we free ourselves from this ‘conceptual incarceration’. We must move beyond ‘multi-partyism’ and ‘electocracy’ parading as democracy. We must reject the criminal and fraudulent neo-liberal economic policies that have been imposed on us with the full complicity of African neo-colonial regimes.  Also, we must reject Marxist ‘solutions’ as yet another imposition of an alien ideology.

Another important factor in the negation of Qaddafi’s ideas in western circles, and sadly in some non-western circles still influenced by western thought, is that secular European discourse is unable to comprehend an ideology such as the Third Universal Theory, precisely because this ideology acknowledges the transcendental and metaphysical dimension of human civilization and existence. However, it is this very aspect of the ideology that provides us with an alternative model for social and political reconstruction and transformation in synergy with our culture and traditions, which for Africans is deeply rooted in the metaphysical and transcendental.

This is why the rejection of Marxism being applied as a theory of social change in Africa is as inevitable as our rejection of the Liberal/Capitalist paradigm. However, the rejection of Marxism is not yet accepted by all Pan-Africanists, despite the fact that many of our greatest African thinkers have lamented the fact that Marxism is fundamentally at odds with African culture and thinking and therefore doomed to fail as a solution to Africa’s crisis.

Oba T’Shaka, puts it this way: ‘While Marxism represents western man’s best attempt to formulate a just system of thought and a conception of the just society in the modern world, the fundamental flaw of Marxism is its western orientation…precisely because Marxism is a product of the European mind and the European worldview, it accepts the Greek notion that ‘nothing can give rise from nothing’. Marxism is rooted squarely in a western materialistic paradigm, which regards the invisible or the spiritual as superstitious…this is a fundamental flaw in Marxism because it denies our humanity, which is tied to a spiritual – physical – spiritual – material unity and synthesis. Only when man and woman as physical beings aspire to be better spiritually can we become truly human. The inability of Marxism to deal with the invisible spiritual is the central reason why western Marxism has not even offered a conception of a just human being. Marxism simply proposes that somehow human beings will be better if the goods are equally distributed. Here Marxism is only partially correct.’

In contrast, Qaddafism is a holistic paradigm incorporating the theological, philosophical, political, economic, legal and scientific principles, all inter-related. As such, it represents an ideological paradigm that is applicable to Africa and indeed other parts of the global south.

Molefi Kete Asante explains another fundamental aspect of Marxism that places it at odds with the African psyche:

‘Marxism over-simplifies the significance of our history… In some ways Marxism acts on the same Eurocentric basis as Capitalism because for both, life is economics… The class-warrior attitude dominates the thinking of Marxists and capitalists. It is a war of class against class, group against group, and individual against individual…Marxism’s base is antithetical to the African concept of society. Life for the Afrocentric person is organic and harmonious… However, the Marxist view of life is as competitive as that of the capitalist, since both are rooted in Eurocentric materialism.’

Qaddafism on the other hand rejects the notion of class-warfare and sees the aim of the nation as an integral whole striving for harmony, which must not be fragmented or socially stratified along class, tribal, ethnic or partisan lines. It is a ‘party-less’ system because the political party is seen as an instrument which fragments and divides the society.

As Yahaya Ndu of the African Renaissance Party of Nigeria said recently:

‘The western world has through the systems of government that it has forced upon Africa today put the whole continent in collective amnesia, which has rendered the continent totally stultified to such an extent that it is incapable of doing anything about its sorry state. Unless and until Africans can return to their own form of democratic governance there can be no salvation for her and her peoples.’

He goes on to state that, ‘Historical revelations point to the fact that democracy was practiced in Igboland of Nigeria long before it found its way to Greece and that western visitors to Igboland strikingly discovered the extent to which democracy was truly practiced.’ He cites a number of academics and historians who saw the Igbo political culture as, in their words ‘ultra democratic in its values and having no hierarchical type of political organization’. Ndu concludes it was ‘this political climate or tradition that gave everyone who cared, the opportunity to mobilize and distinguish him or herself’. In other words, it was a model of direct and ‘party-less’ democracy which can be traced, in its various forms, to many parts of the African continent. It is this same concept that was implemented in the Libyan Jamahiriya, where ‘everyone who cared’ was able to fully participate in making the decisions that affected their lives through a network of People’s Congresses and Popular Committees.

We are oppressed by the enemies military and economic might. However, both their military and economic might would have been humbled if only we were not still captivated by and adopting alien ideologies and political systems, that have stood  in the way of our total liberation for so long.  It is imperative that we free ourselves from these ideologies and the neo-colonial regimes that foster this mindset. The struggle must be intensified against this axis of evil on every front, and most importantly at the battlefront of ideas. For, if we do not free ourselves mentally, then I fear that we will fight these same battles many times over and not see the change we fight for. Unfortunately many more lives will be lost before we realize that one of the most potent weapons in our arsenal lies, in the words of Amilcar Cabral, in our ‘return to the source’.

By Gerald A. Perreira

Gerald A. Perreira is a founding member of the Guyanese organizations Joint Initiative for Human Advancement and Dignity and Black Consciousness Movement Guyana (BCMG). He lived in Libya for many years, served in the Green March, an international battalion for the defense of the Al Fateh revolution and was an executive member of the World Mathaba based in Tripoli.

Sources:
Asante, Molefi Kete, Afrocentricity, Africa World Press, Inc., New Jersey, 1990.

Oba T’Shaka, Return to the African Mother Principle of Male and Female Equality, Vol. 1, Pan Afrikan Publishers and Distributors, California, 1995.

Qaddafi, Muammar, The Green Book, World Centre for the Study and Research of the Green Book, 1975.

Ul-Haq, Zia, Revelation and Revolution in Islam, Idara Isha’at-E-Diniyat, New Delhi, 1996.

Wilson, Amos, The Falsification of African Consciousness: Eurocentric History, Psychiatry and the Politics of White Supremacy, Afrikan World Infosystems, New York, 1993.

Washington’s Militarized Mindset

Americans may feel more distant from war than at any time since World War II began. Certainly, a smaller percentage of us — less than 1% — serves in the military in this all-volunteer era of ours and, on the face of it, Washington’s constant warring in distant lands seems barely to touch the lives of most Americans.

And yet the militarization of the United States and the strengthening of the National Security Complex continues to accelerate. The Pentagon is, by now, a world unto itself, with a staggering budget at a moment when no other power or combination of powers comes near to challenging this country’s might.

In the post-9/11 era, the military-industrial complex has been thoroughly mobilized under the rubric of “privatization” and now goes to war with the Pentagon. With its $80 billion-plus budget, the intelligence bureaucracy has simply exploded. There are so many competing agencies and outfits, surrounded by a universe of private intelligence contractors, all enswathed in a penumbra of secrecy, and they have grown so large, mainly under the Pentagon’s aegis, that you could say intelligence is now a ruling way of life in Washington — and it, too, is being thoroughly militarized. Even the once-civilian CIA has undergone a process of para-militarization and now runs its own “covert” drone wars in Pakistan and elsewhere. Its director, a widely hailed retired four-star general, was previously the U.S. war commander in Iraq and then Afghanistan, just as the National Intelligence Director who oversees the whole intelligence labyrinth is a retired Air Force lieutenant general.

In a sense, even the military has been “militarized.” In these last years, a secret army of special operations forces, 60,000 or more strong and still expanding, has grown like an incubus inside the regular armed forces. As the CIA’s drones have become the president’s private air force, so the special ops troops are his private army, and are now given free rein to go about the business of war in their own cocoon of secrecy in areas far removed from what are normally considered America’s war zones.

Diplomacy, too, has been militarized. Diplomats work ever more closely with the military, while the State Department is transforming itself into an unofficial arm of the Pentagon — as the secretary of state is happy to admit — as well as of the weapons industry.

And keep in mind that we now have two Pentagons, thanks to the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is focused, among other things, on militarizing our southern border. Meanwhile, with the help of the DHS, local police forces nationwide have, over the last decade, been significantly up-armored and have, in the name of fighting terrorism, gained a distinctly military patina. They have ever more access to elaborate weaponry and gadgets, including billions of dollars of surplus military equipment of every sort, often being funneled to once peaceable small town police departments.

The Military Solution in the Greater Middle East

Militarization in this country is hardly a new phenomenon. It can be traced back decades, but the process hit warp speed in the post-9/11 years, even if the U.S. still lacks the classic look of a militarized society. Almost unnoticed has been an accompanying transformation of the mindset of Washington — what might be called the militarization of solutions.

If the institutions of American life and governance are increasingly militarized, then it shouldn’t be surprising that the problems facing the country are ever more often framed in militarized terms and that the only solutions considered are similarly militarized. This paucity of imagination, this constraining of what might be possible, seems especially evident in the Greater Middle East.

In fact, Washington’s record there, seldom if ever collected in one place, should be eye-opening. Start with a dose of irony: before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it was a commonplace among neoconservatives to label the region extending across the oil heartlands of the planet, from North Africa to the Chinese border in Central Asia, “the arc of instability.” After a decade in which Washington has applied its military might and thoroughly militarized solutions to the region, that decade-old world now looks remarkably “stable.”

Here, in shorthand, is a little regional scorecard of what American militarization has meant in the Greater Middle East, 2001-2012:

Pakistan: The U.S. has faced a multitude of complex problems in this nuclear nation beset with insurgent movements, its tribal areas providing sanctuary to both Afghan and Pakistani rebels and jihadis, and its intelligence service entangled in a complicated relationship with the Taliban leadership as well as other rebel groups fighting in Afghanistan. Washington’s response has been — as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently labeled it — war. In 2004, the Bush administration launched a drone assassination campaign in the country’s tribal borderlands largely focused on al-Qaeda leaders (combined with a few cross-border special forces raids). Those rare robotic air strikes have since expanded into something like a full-scale covert drone war that is killing civilians, is intensely unpopular throughout Pakistan, and by now is clearly meant to punish the Pakistani leadership for its transgressions as well.

Frustrated by what they consider Pakistani intransigence, elements in the U.S. military and intelligence community are reportedly pressing to add a new set of cross-border joint special operations/Afghan commando raids to the present incendiary mix. American air strikes from Afghanistan that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last November, with no apologies offered for seven months, brought to a boil a crisis in relations between Washington and Islamabad, with the Pakistani government closing off the country to American war supplies headed for Afghanistan. (That added a couple of billion dollars to the Pentagon’s expenses there before the crisis was ended with a grudging apology this week). The whole process has clearly contributed to the destabilization of nuclear Pakistan.

Afghanistan: Following a November 2001 invasion (light on invading U.S. troops), the U.S. opted for a full-scale occupation and reconstruction of the country. In the process, it managed to spur the reconstruction and reconstitution of the previously deeply unpopular and defeated Taliban movement. An insurgent war followed. Despite a massive surge of U.S. forces, CIA agents, special operations troops, and private contractors into the country, the calling in of air power in a major way, and the expansion of a program of “night raids” by special ops types and the CIA, success has not followed. By the end of 2014, the U.S. is scheduled to withdraw its main combat forces from what is likely to be a thoroughly destabilized country.

Iran: In a program long aimed at regime change (but officially focused on the country’s nuclear program), the U.S. has clamped energy sanctions — often seen as an act of war — on Iran, supported a special operations campaign of unknown proportions (including cross-border actions), run a massive CIA drone surveillance program in the country’s skies, and (with the Israelis) loosed at least two major malware “worms” against the computer systems and centrifuges of its nuclear facilities, which even the Pentagon defines as acts of war. It has also backed a massive build-up of U.S. naval and air power in the Persian Gulf and of military bases in countries on Iran’s peripheries, along with “comprehensive multi-option war-planning” for a possible 2013 strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities. (Though little is known about it, an assassination campaign against Iranian nuclear scientists has usually been blamed on the Israelis. Now that the joint U.S.-Israeli authorship of acts of cyberwar against Iran has been confirmed, however, it is at least reasonable to wonder whether the U.S. might also have had a hand in these killings.) All of this has embroiled the region and brought it to the edge of yet more war, while in no obvious way shaking the Iranian regime.

Iraq: The U.S. invaded in March 2003, occupying the country. It fought (and essentially lost) an eight-year-long counterinsurgency war, withdrawing its last troops at the end of 2011, but leaving behind in Baghdad the world’s largest, most militarized embassy. The country, now an ally and trading partner of Iran, remains remarkably unreconstructed and significantly destabilized, with regular bombing campaigns in its cities.

Kuwait: Just across the border from Iraq, the U.S. has continued a build-up of forces. In the future, according to a U.S. Senate report, there could be up to 13,000 U.S. personnel permanently stationed in the country.

Yemen: Washington, long a supporter of the country’s strong-man ruler, now backs the successor regime. (In Yemen, as elsewhere, Washington has been deeply uncomfortable with Arab-Spring-style democracy movements among its allies.) For years, it has had an air campaign underway in the southern part of the country aimed at insurgents linked to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). More recently, it has put at least small numbers of special operations troops on the ground there as advisers and trainers and has escalated a combined CIA drone and Air Force manned-plane air campaign in southern Yemen. There have been at least 23 air strikes already this year, evidently causing significant civilian casualties, reportedly radicalizing southerners, increasing support for AQAP, and helping further destabilize this impoverished and desperate land.

Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, tiny Bahrain, facing a democratic uprising of its repressed Shiite majority, called in the Saudi military on a mission of suppression. The U.S. has offered military aid and support to the ruling Sunni monarchy.

Syria: In radically destabilized Syria, where a democracy uprising has morphed into a civil war with sectarian overtones that threatens to further destabilize the region, including Lebanon and Iraq, the CIA has now been dispatched to the Turkish border. Its job: to direct weapons to rebels of Washington’s choice (assuming that the CIA, with its dubious record, can sort the democrats from the jihadis). The weapons themselves are arriving, according to the New York Times, via a “network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.” It’s a project that has “this can’t end well” written all over it.

Somalia: Long a failed state, Somalia has suffered, among other things, through a U.S.-fostered Ethiopian invasion back in 2006 (and another more recently), drone attacks, CIA and special forces operations, a complicated U.S. program to subsidize a force of African (especially Ugandan) troops in the capital and support for a Kenyan invasion in the south — each step in the process seemingly leading to further fragmentation, further radicalization, and greater extremism.

Egypt: Ever since Tahrir Square, Washington has been focused on its close ties with the Egyptian military high command (key figures from which visit Washington every year) and on the billions of dollars in military aid it continues to provide to that military, despite the way it has usurped democratic rule.

Libya: The Obama administration called in the U.S. Air Force (along with air power from NATO allies) to support an inchoate uprising and destroy the regime of long-time strong-man Muammar Gaddafi. In this they were successful. The long-term results still remain unknown. (See, for instance, the Islamist revolt in destabilized neighboring Mali.)

How to Set the Planet on Fire and Learn Nothing

This remains a partial list, lacking, to give but one example, the web of drone bases being set up from the Seychelles Islands and Ethiopia to the Arabian Peninsula — clearly meant for expanded drone wars across the region. Nonetheless, it is a remarkable example of the general ineffectiveness of applying military or militarized solutions to the problems of a region far from your own shores. From Pakistan and Afghanistan to Yemen and Somalia, the evidence is already in: such “solutions” solve little or nothing, and in a remarkable number of cases seem only to increase the instability of a country and a region, as well as the misery of masses of people.

And yet the general lack of success from 2002 on and a deepening frustration in Washington have just led to a stronger conviction that some recalibrated version of a military solution (greater surges, lesser surges, no invasions but special forces and drones, smaller “footprint,” larger naval presence, etc.) is the only reasonable way to go.

In fact, military solutions of every sort have such a deep-seated grip on Washington that the focus there might be termed obsessive. This has been particularly obvious when it comes to the CIA’s drone wars. Back in the Vietnam War years, President Lyndon Johnson was said to have driven his generals crazy by “micromanaging” the conflict, especially in weekly lunch meetings in which he insisted on picking specific targets for the air campaign against North Vietnam.

These days, however, Johnson almost looks like a laissez-faire war president. After all, thanks to the New York Times, we know that the White House has a “nominating” process to compile a “kill list” of terror suspects, and that the president himself decides which drone air attacks should then be launched, not target area by target area, but individual by individual. He is choosing specific individuals to kill in the Pakistani, Yemeni, and Somali backlands.

It should be considered a sign of the times that, whatever shock this news may have caused in Washington (mainly because of possible administration leaks about the nature of the “covert” drone program), few have even mentioned presidential micromanaging, nor, it seems, are any generals up in arms. Some may have found the “nomination” process shocking, but rare are those who seem to think it strange that a president of the United States should be involved in choosing individuals (including U.S. citizens) for assassination-by-drone in distant lands.

The truth is that such “solutions,” first tested in the Greater Middle East, are now being applied (even if, as yet, in far more modest ways) from Africa to Central America. In Africa, I suspect you could track the growing destabilization of parts of that continent to the setting up of a U.S. command for the region (Africom) in 2007 and in subsequent years the slow movement of drones, special forces operatives, private contractors, and others into a region that already has problems enough.

Here’s a 2012 American reality then: as a great power, the U.S. has an increasingly limited toolkit, into which it is reaching far more often for ever more similar tools. The idea that the globe is a chessboard, that Washington is in control of the game, and that each militarized move it makes will have a reasonably predictable result couldn’t be more dangerous. The evidence of the last decade is clear enough: there is little less predictable or more likely to go awry than the application of military force and militarized solutions, which are cumulatively incendiary in unexpected ways, and in the end threaten to set whole regions on fire. None of this, however, seems to register in Washington.

The United States is commonly said to be a great power in decline, but the militarization of American policy — and thinking — at home and abroad is not. It has Washington, now a capital of perpetual war, in its grip.

This process began, post-9/11, with the soaring romanticism of the Bush administration about, as the president put it, the power of the “greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known” (a.k.a. the U.S. military) to change the world. It was a fundamental conviction of Bush and his top officials that the most powerful military on the planet could bring any state in the Greater Middle East to heel in a “cakewalk.”

Today, in the wake of two failed wars on the Eurasian continent, a de-romanticized version of that conviction has become the deeply embedded, increasingly humdrum way of life of a militarized Washington. It will remain so.

If Barack Obama, the man who got Bin Laden, is reelected, nothing of significance is likely to change in this regard. If Mitt Romney wins, the process is likely to accelerate, possibly moving from global misfire, failure, and obsession to extreme global fantasy, with consequences — from Iran to Russia to China — difficult now to imagine.

By Tom Engelhardt

05 July, 2012

TomDispatch.com

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The United States of Fearas well as The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. His latest book, co-authored with Nick Turse, is Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050.