Archives: Articles

There is much more to the conflict in Syria than meets the eye. Syria is currently the scene of a cold war between the US, NATO, Israel, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on one side and Russia, China, Iran, and the Resistance Bloc on the other hand. Amidst the fighting between the Syrian government and anti-government forces, an intense intelligence war has also been taking place.

Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the Bundes Nachrichtendienst (BND, Federal Intelligence Service), has been pointing its finger at Al-Qaeda for the bombings in Syria. This, however, has the effect of hiding and detracting the role that the intelligence services of the US and its allies have played. By crediting Al-Qaeda, the Bundes Nachrichtendienst is helping get Washington and its allies off the hook. Albeit Al-Qaeda is far more than just a US intelligence asset, the organization and label of Al-Qaeda is a catch-all term that is used to camouflage the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other affiliated intelligence services.

Syrian intellectuals and scientists have also been reportedly assassinated in Damascus. Like in Iraq and Iran, it is probably the work of Israel’s Mossad and part of Tel Aviv’s policy of crippling scientific and technological advancement in enemy states. Informed sources in Washington have already clarified that Israel is helping the Free Syrian Army and actively participating in the intelligence war against Syria. An unnamed US official has confirmed to David Ignatius that both the CIA and Mossad are involved in Syria. [1] In his own words: “Scores of Israeli intelligence officers are also operating along Syria’s border, though they are keeping a low profile.” [2] A Qatari defector in Venezuela has also been reported to have divulged that the Qataris have been outsourced intelligence work against Syria by the CIA and Mossad.

The Bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters and its Crisis Unit in Damascus

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about the bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters in the northwest Damascene neighbourhood of Al-Rawda on July 18, 2012. Very little is actually known about what happened exactly. Moreover, Syrian television and media did not show scenes of the explosion as people have become accustomed to. This may be due to the security-based nature of the bombing location.

Key members of Syria’s security and military command structure, Dawoud Rajiha, Assef Shawkat, and Hassan Turkmani, were all killed on July 18. Rajiha was the Syrian defence minister, deputy prime minister, and deputy commander-in-chief of the Syrian Armed Forces. Assef Shawkat was the Syrian deputy defence minister and the husband of Bashar Al-Assad’s older sister Bushra. Hassan Turkmani was the Syrian assistant vice-president, head of Syria’s crisis management operations, and the army general that was formerly minister of defence from 2004 to 2009. Hisham Ikhtiyar (Bakhtiar/Bakhtyar), the chief of the Syrian National Security Bureau, who was also hurt by the bombing, would also die from the injuries he sustained two days later on July 20. These men all formed what was called the Crisis Unit.

A moment should also be taken to note that the biographic background of these dead high-ranking Syrian officials disproves the allegations that the Syrian government is an Alawite regime. While Skawkat was an Alawite, Raijha was a Greek Orthodox Christian, Ikhtiyar a Sunni Muslim, and Turkmani was both an ethnic Turkoman and Sunni Muslim.

The Killing of Crisis Unit Members was executed by a Foreign Intelligence Service

Saudi sources have taken the opportunity to report that the Syrian officials were killed by Maher Al-Assad, the commander of the Syrian Republican Guard and President Al-Assad’s younger brother, because of a rift between them that saw the general’s supporting a political solution over a combative solution. [3] Pakistani sources, claiming to be receiving direct reports from the perpetrators of the July 18 bombing, contradicted the report by saying Maher Al-Assad was also a target and wounded during the attack. [4] The Pakistani source published the following:

“Everyone came in time, but Maher Al-Assad did not show up. Two men responsible for the mission waited for some time and pressed the remote control button as the dreaded general took his seat,” the [Syrian Free Army] source said.

“Our men filmed the video from a safe distance which would be made public at an appropriate time,” he revealed to this correspondent [that is, Naveed Ahmad]. One of the two daredevils was an employee of the government and worked in the very office the device was planted while the other was an outsider, according to the [Syrian Free Army] source.

[…]

The [Free Syrian Army] sources said Maher had brought his best friend Ghassan Bilal to the meeting as well. Maher al-Assad, who was never seen in the funeral of the key security aides assassinated in the attack, was in fact severely injured and according to a source de-capacitated. [5]

What the Pakistani source discloses is unreliable for several reasons. One of them is that the credibility of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is extremely questionable. The Free Syrian Army has an undeniable track-record for shoddy propaganda and lying. Syria has also rejected claims about the Free Syrian Army’s involvement and the assertions that the bomb was remote-controlled. Lebanon’s Al-Manar, which is Hezbollah’s media network, has reported that there were two bombs and the first was actually dismantled by Assef Shawkat before the second one exploded.

This was actually the second attempt to kill this gathering of Syrian military, security, and intelligence officials. The out of control Free Syrian Army, whose reign of terror has seen brutal and senseless attacks on the civilian population and various acts of lawlessness and terrorism, had claimed on May 20 to have murdered these same Syrian officials earlier, as well as Interior Minister Mohammed Shaar and Baath Party leader Mohammad Saeed Bkheitan. [6] The claims of the Free Syrian Army turned out to be false the first time as the alleged assassinated Syrian officials appeared on television and denied the SFA’s claims. This time, however, there was no immediate credit taken and there was silence about the murders.

The Free Syrian Army was most probably bypassed by the US and its allies for this targeted attack. Instead of outsourcing the attack to the Free Syrian Army, the operation was probably directly conducted either by the intelligence agency of a NATO or GCC state or a consortium of intelligence agencies trying to topple the Syrian government.

A Damascene Operation Ajax

The attack on the Syrian National Security Headquarters in Al-Rawda was a carefully coordinated event that was synchronized with the assault on Damascus by the various armed groups operating under the umbrella and banner of the Free Syrian Army. It is clear that the US and its allies more or less used the same playbook of tactics in Damascus that were used in 2011 to topple the Jamahiriya government in Tripoli. Both are modern reincarnations of the infamous Operation Ajax, which was an intelligence operation launched in 1953 by the US and British governments to topple the democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossageh in Iran. Washington and London installed a brutal and repressive dictatorship under Mohammed-Reza Shah in place of Dr. Mossadegh’s government and Iran was transformed from a constitutional monarchy into a de facto absolute monarchy.

The aim of the attack on high-ranking Syrian officials, especially important figures from the military and security apparatus that has been the backbone of the Syrian regime, was two-pronged. The attack’s aim was to cripple Syria’s command structure with the objective of disorganizing resistance to anti-government forces and creating internal panic within the hierarchy of the Syrian government and military. This psychological blow was supposed to lead to fear, defections, and betrayal as anti-government forces attacked the gates of the Syrian capital.

The mainstream media, in terms of what scholar Edward Said called “image making” experts, also played a supportive role in the US-sponsored siege of Damascus. [7] Securing a monopoly over information and air waves has also been a part of the intelligence war and a goal of the US and its allies. This is why the signals of Syrian broadcasters have been banned from the Arab Satellite Communications Organization (Arabsat) and Nilesat satellite feeds. This is aimed at preventing Syria from countering the claims of the US and its allies and proxies. By the same token the US and the EU are also trying to cut and block Iranian stations, which are challenging the accounts of the mainstream media in NATO and GCC states. This is also the reason why the US and British media very decidedly condemned the Iranian, Russian, and Chinese medias in their news coverage of the Syrian crisis, which challenge the tide of misinformation from the declining networks of CNN, Fox News, France 24, and Al Jazeera. [8]

Like the original Operation Ajax in 1953, in which the state-run British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) took part, the mainstream media broadcasts from NATO and GCC states have been synchronized to shape the events on the ground. The media war intensified when the anti-government forces launched their attack of Damascus. The aim was to fuel panic and fear with the hope of getting the Syrian government and the Syrian military to scatter and lose hope instead of facing the anti-government forces. The ultimate objectives are to demoralize the Syrian population and to weaken the Syrian government’s domestic support.

The media outlets of NATO and GCC states insinuated that President Assad and his family fled Damascus to Latakia and would seek asylum in the Russian Federation. [9] Again, the aims were to cause panic and both the governments in Syria and Russia rejected the false claims. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Assad was “not even thinking about” fleeing to Russia. [10] This was a repeat of British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s 2011 lie that Muammar Qaddafi had fled from Libya to Venezuela. [11] This behaviour also falls into line with British Prime Minister David Cameron’s false claim that Vladimir Putin had told him that President Assad had to step down. [12]

A New Saudi Intelligence Boss: Return of Prince “Bandar Bush”

Shortly after the bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters, a July 19 royal decree was enacted in Riyadh to replace Prince Muqrin (Mogren) bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud with Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al-Saud as the director-general of the external intelligence agency of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Al-Istikhbarat Al-Amah (General Intelligence).

Since 2005, Prince Bandar has been the secretary-general of the Saudi Arabian National Security Council, but his new appointment has made heads turn and is being used to infer that Saudi Arabia has a far more aggressive foreign policy. What the appointment reflects is that Saudi Arabia is fully in the service of the US in its intelligence wars against Syria and Iran and that Washington’s men in Riyadh have a firm grip over Saudi Arabia’s intelligence, security, and military apparatus. In the words of the Saudi pundit Jamal Khashoggi and the chief of the Bahrain-based Al-Arab network: “Bandar is quite aggressive, not at all like a typical cautious Saudi diplomat. If the aim is to bring Bashar down quick and fast, he will have a free hand to do what he thinks necessary.” [13]

Prince Bandar, the son of the deceased Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, has been one of the central figures in creating Al-Qaeda and manipulating militant groups as geo-political tools for Washington since the Cold War. He was the Saudi ambassador to the US from 1983 to 2005. He has been a key figure in the intelligence war in Lebanon against Hezbollah and its allies and involved in exporting Fatah Al-Islam to Lebanon in an attempt to help the Hariri family fight Hezbollah and the March 8 Alliance.

Because he was the Saudi ambassador to Washington, he became the key figure in Saudi-US relations and developed close ties to the Bush family, which earned him the name “Bandar Bush.” It has been reported that the relationship was so close that the US Secret Service was part of his security detail. Moreover, he has had a long history with Robert Gates, starting from when Gates was a member of the CIA and helping mobilize fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets. [14]

In 2009, Bandar may have attempted to launch a silent coup in Saudi Arabia to impose his father, Crown Prince Sultan, as the new absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia. He was not seen for several years and may have been in some form of confinement. Things changed, however, in 2011 with the Arab Spring; Prince Bandar, Washington’s man, was seen in public again.

Bandar may also be a key figure in Saudi negotiations with Pakistan to purchase nuclear bombs. [15] United Press International writes:

“As Iran becomes more dangerous and the United States becomes more reluctant to engage in military missions overseas, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may find that renewed military and nuclear cooperation is the best way to secure their interests,” observed Christopher Clary and Mara E. Karlin, former [Pentagon] policy advisers on South Asia and the Middle East. [16]

The picture that UPI depicts actually is misleading. If anyone is pushing the Saudis to acquire nuclear weapons, it is Washington. The US has also been heavily arming the Saudi regime and the GCC for the same reasons. One dimension of the US strategy is clear: Washington aims to create multiple and ongoing contained conflicts in the Middle East to bleed the region and keep it immobilized. Like the Israelis, the US wants perpetual civil war in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and even Turkey. By being duped into burning its bridges with Syria, the Turkish government has laid the foundations for the destabilization of the Turkish republic.

A Tale of Two Security Headquarters

Days after the appointment of Prince Bandar and the attack of the Syrian Crisis Unit an attack on General Intelligence’s Headquarters in Riyadh was reported by Yemen’s Al-Fajr Press and then widely quoted by the Iranian media. The blast is reported to have killed Banadar’s number two man, the deputy director-general of Saudi external intelligence, while he was entering the building. Rumours are also circulating that Bandar may have been hurt or killed. Saudi Arabia has remained silent over the issue.

The blast in Riyadh is no mere coincidence. It is a retaliatory response to the blast in the Syrian National Security Headquarters. The chances that the Syrians executed the operation while all their energies are being spent on fighting against the US-directed siege on their country are marginal, but still possible. This is speculation, but it is most likely that one of Syria’s friends and allies retaliated against the Saudis for their involvement in the attack on the Crisis Unit in Damascus.

A remote-controlled bomb was also discovered in front of a Yemenese Intelligence building in Aden on July 22, 2012. [17] The event came shortly after a Yemenese intelligence officer died after a targeted attack in the province of Bayda. [18] What this means is a matter of speculation, but what is clear is that the intelligence apparatus of Arab states are being targeted. There is a full-out intelligence war in the Middle East and there are probably cross-cutting alliances.

The Bush Jr. Administration’s “Redirection” Policy is Manifest under Obama

In Yemen, the national military has successfully been fractured and divided, which is exactly what Washington, DC and its NATO and GCC allies want to replicate in Syria. Regime change is not their only goal, the destruction and balkanization of the Syrian Arab Republic is. They want sectarianism and balkanization to take root in Syria and across the Middle East. To paraphrase, when the so-called spiritual leaders of the Syrian Free Army and anti-government forces begin saying that “Israel and the Sunnis are allies against the Shias” or that “all Alawites must be exterminated,” it is clear that the end goal is to regionally divide and conquer the peoples of the Middle East by pitting them against one another.

This is part of the Middle East policy that the Bush Jr. White House called the “redirection” in 2007: “The ‘redirection,’ as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.” [19] Robert Gates, Bandar’s old comrade, was brought into the Pentagon to oversee this “redirection” and retained by Barak Obama, who’s “A New Beginning” Speech in Cairo is an extension of this policy. The New Yorker is worth quoting about what the “redirection” policy began to implement: “[Washington] has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.” [20]

Regardless of the political position that one takes about President Assad and his government, what has to be emphasized is that the governments of the US, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are not involving themselves under the cover of the so-called “international community” on the basis of concern for the Syrian people and their well being. Because of them the words “protester” and “activist” have been hijacked by anti-government militias and foreign intelligence services. Humanitarianism and human rights are not the motive for US involvement. This is a fairy-tale for the naïve. Geo-political opportunism is at play and all the parties involved have blood on their hands at the expense of the Syrian people.

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

01 August, 2012

@GlobalResearch.ca

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an award-winning author and geopolitical analyst. He is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He has also contributed to several other books ranging from cultural critique to international relations. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Cultural Foundation (SCF), Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica, Italy. He has also addressed the Middle East and international relations issues on several TV news networks including Al Jazeera, teleSUR, and Russia Today. His writings have been translated into more than twenty languages. In 2011 he was awarded the First National Prize of the Mexican Press Club for his work in international investigative journalism.

NOTES

1. David Ignatius, “Looking for a Syrian endgame,” The Washington Post, July 18, 2012.

2. Ibid.

3. Ali Bluwi, “Role of Russia and Iran in Syrian crisis,” Arab News, July 28, 2012.

4. Naveed Ahmad, “Failing Damascus, Aleppo campaigns expose lack of military expertise,” The News, July 27, 212.

5. Ibid.

6. “Syria: Damascus clashes prompt claims of high-level assassinations – Sunday 20 May,” The Guardian, May 20, 2012.

7. Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 25th anniversary ed. (NYC: Vintage Books, 1979), p.307.

8. “Chinese, Iranian press alone back UN Syria veto,” British Broadcasting Corporation News, February 6, 2012; Robert Mackey, “Crisis in Syria Looks Very Different on Satellite Channels Owned by Russia and Iran,” The Lede (The New York Times), February 10, 2012.

9. Damien McElroy, “Syria: Bashar al-Assad ‘flees to Latakia,’” The Daily Telegraph, July 19, 2012; Khaled Yacoub Owei,” Syrian President Assad in Latakia: opposition sources,” eds. Samia Nakhoul and Diana Abdallah, Reuters, July 19, 2012; Loveday Morris, “Hunt for Assad is on amid claims of wife Asma’s exit to Russia,” The Independent, July 20, 2012.

10. “Russia says ‘not thinking about’ asylum for Assad,” Reuters, July 28, 2012.

11. “Hague: some information Gaddafi on way to Venezuela,” Reuters, February 21, 2011.

12. “Putin no longer backs Syria’s Assad – Cameron,” Reuters, June 19, 2012; “Lavrov Denies Russia ‘Changed Stance’ on Syria,” Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), June 21, 2012.

Copyright © 2005-2011 GlobalResearch.ca

13. Angus McDowall, “Saudi Prince Bandar: a flamboyant, hawkish spy chief,” ed. Mark Heinrich, Reuters, July 20, 2012.

14. In fact, one of the reasons that Robert Gates, who was the defence secretary of the Bush Jr. Administration, was kept by the Obama Administration is tied to Washington’s objectives to remobilize the militant brigades against Arab societies.

15. “Saudis ‘mull buying nukes from Pakistan,’” United Press International, July 25, 2012.

16. Ibid.

17. Mohammed Mukhashaf and Rania El Gamal, “Yemen defuses bomb at Aden intelligence building,” ed. Tim Pearce, Reuters, July 23, 2012.

18. “Yemen intelligence officer shot dead: ministry,” Agence France-Presse, July 21, 2012.

19. Seymour Hersh, “The Redirection,” The New Yorker, vol. 83, no. 2 (March 5, 2007): p.54.

20. Ibid.

‘The challenge is not how the state can regulate the market, but how society can regulate both the state and the market.’- A response to Prof Joseph Stiglitz

Your Excellency, Mr. President; the Chair, the Honorable Minister of Finance; the Honorable Governor of the Bank of Uganda and the Honorable Deputy Governor, Bank of Uganda,

I assume that the Bank of Uganda has asked me to be a discussant hoping I would raise questions they do not feel comfortable raising. I will take a cue from them and ask Professor Stiglitz questions hoping he will give responses that I do not quite feel comfortable giving.

I shall focus on four issues and I will ask four questions. The first concerns the Clinton years. The second is about Professor Stiglitz’s definition of the problem, as one of “market failure.” The third question focuses on the contemporary global crisis; I call for a more comprehensive definition of the crisis, from the point of view of society and not just the state and market binary that frames Professor Stiglitz’s discourse. Finally, I ask that Professor Stiglitz situate our own crisis – the crisis of Uganda and East Africa – within an expanded frame.

1. THE CLINTON YEARS

Deregulation of the financial system in the US began with the Clinton administration’s repeal of key sections of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. That Act had separated commercial and investment banking since the Great Depression era. The repeal of that Act was key to the deregulation of derivatives. In 2008, Clinton denied responsibility for refusing to regulate derivatives. He changed his mind in 2010, then blaming his advisors, among whom were Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers and the Chair of his Council of Economic Advisors, Joe Stiglitz. Larry Summers went on to become President of Harvard University. Joseph Stiglitz went on to be Chief economist of the World Bank and then professor at Columbia University. Summers showed little remorse for his role in the deregulation era. Joe Stiglitz, in contrast, became the best known critic of deregulation.

My first question is not new. Academic reviewers of Stiglitz have often wondered when he saw the light: did Professor Stiglitz oppose deregulation at the time or change his mind when its consequences became clear? Should we understand his critique of deregulation as foresight or hindsight, foresight in 1996 or hindsight after his time as Clinton’s senior policy advisor?

Professor Stiglitz addressed this issue in a book he wrote on the Clinton era, a book titled ‘The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World’s Most Prosperous Decade’. The question I am interested in was posed by an academic reviewer of the book, Robert Pollin of Department of Economics at University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Let me quote Professor Polin:

“… at what point did Stiglitz, in his role as a senior Clinton policy advisor, become convinced of the severe damage that would result from deregulation? … As one important example, the general tenor of the 1996 Economic Report of the President, written under Stiglit’s supervision as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, is unmistakably in support of lowering regulatory standards, including in telecommunications and electricity. This Report even singles out for favourable mention the deregulation of the electric power industry in California — that is, the measure that, by the summer of 2002, brought California to the brink of economic disaster, in the wake of still more Enron-guided machinations.”

Why is the question important? Like the rest of us, Professor Stiglitz has a right to change his mind. The point of asking him this question is to have some information about how his thinking has evolved on this subject. As the reviewer asked: “Was there a moment of epiphany, like Saul of Tarsus falling off his mule? How many possible disaster scenarios did he really anticipate, and how much has he realized only more recently, after observing and ruminating with hindsight?” Did the crisis authored by the Clinton administration of which he was a leading member just confirm his intuition or did it also teach him something new? The answer to this question would tell us something about his intellectual journey. That would allow us to pose a more contemporary question: Should not the present global crisis lead Professor Stiglitz to develop his thought further? My point is that this question is not just one that should interest Professor Stiglitz’s biographer; it is of theoretical significance. Let me explain in terms that a lay person can understand, which will also allow me to pose my second question.

II. WHY CALL IT MARKET FAILURE?

Professor Stiglitz’s theoretical work is on the economics of information. Traditional economics, both classical and neoclassical, has been dominated by two related assumptions. The first is what Adam Smith called ― the invisible hand, the assumption that free competition leads to an efficient allocation of resources. The second is a related assumption in welfare economics, that issues of distribution should be viewed as completely separate from issues of efficiency. It is this methodological “separation” between growth and distribution which allows economists to push for reforms which increase efficiency, regardless of their impact on income distribution. It is the methodological basis of what we know as the “trickle down” school in economics. Professor Stiglitz’s great contribution has been to challenge both these assumptions. As he has shown, asymmetric information is a pervasive feature of how real-world markets operate. The free market is an ideological myth. In the real world, imperfect information makes for imperfect markets.

For Stiglitz, this means that governments need to strongly and effectively regulate what goes on in markets. The point is to level the information field as much as possible so that markets may function with a modicum of efficiency and fairness. I have simplified the matter but I think it gives you an idea of the contribution for which he justly received the Nobel Prize.

In the three decades that preceded Stiglitz, economists had identified important market failures, but in limited areas, such as externalities like pollution, which require government intervention. But the case they had made was for limited government intervention in limited areas. Professor Stiglitz made a more general case. He showed that markets are always imperfect since they are always characterized by imperfect information, why government intervention has to be a constant presence in the market.

Here then is my second question: Why call this “market failure”? The term “market failure” suggests that markets normally function properly and that “market failure” is an exceptional occurrence. It is an appropriate term to describe the thought of pre-Stiglitz economists who focused on externalities like pollution to call for government intervention in select fields. But it hides the real significance of Professor Stiglitz’s contribution, which is to redirect our thinking away from failure as an exceptional occurrence to imperfection as the normal state of markets. Like its twin term “state failure,” the term “market failure” focuses our attention on the exception rather than the norm. But we are not talking of an occasional lapse in how markets function; rather, we are talking of the regular state of markets, of how imperfect markets are when they function the way they are supposed to function. Information is always imperfect and so are markets. What is involved here is a methodological shift from the exception to the norm. This is a shift of paradigmatic significance. “Market failure” is an unfortunate term because it hides the fundamental character of this shift.

III. THE PROBLEM IS NOT JUST ECONOMIC

Before discussing its limits, I will summarize Professor Stiglitz’s response to the problem he calls “market failure.” Professor Stiglitz attributes “market failure” to “lack of transparency.” He has several recommendations on how to check market failure. The first is that government needs to bridge the gap between social returns and private returns, both to encourage socially necessary investment as in agriculture and to discourage socially undesirable investment as in real estate speculation. Second, the government may set up specialized development banks. In support, he cites the negative example of America’s private banks and their “dismal performance” alongside the positive example of Brazil’s development bank, a bank twice the size of the World Bank, and its “extraordinary success” in leading that country’s economic transformation.

Finally, Professor Stiglitz cautions against liberalizing financial and capital markets as advised by the Washington Consensus. He reminds us that African countries that followed the Washington Consensus like so many faithful converts paid the price for not thinking on their own feet. To quote Professor Stiglitz: “Credit to small and medium sized enterprises went down. More broadly, credit to productive investments went down. … Not surprising, the result was that growth was lower in countries that liberalized.” The countries that succeeded were those in East Asia; unlike African countries, they regulated financial markets in the interest of their development.

Professor Stiglitz says that the Washington Consensus is an ideology. He has a term for it: he calls it “free market fundamentalism.” It was “ignored in Asia” but “has inflicted a high cost on developing countries, especially in Africa.” He says the crisis of 2008 provides a moment for reflection, on the key importance of the financial sector, and of how ideology — flawed ideas about markets — led to a global disaster.” The lessons are two-fold: first, “more than better regulation is required”; second, “the government must take an active role in providing development finance.”

I am not an economist, but I have been forced to learn its basics to defend myself in the academy and the world. Like you, I live in a world where policy discourse has been dominated – I should say colonized – by economists whose vision is limited to the economy. Professor Stiglitz derides this as “free market fundamentalism” and I agree with him. Like fundamentalist generals who think that the conduct, outcome and consequence of war is determined by what happens on the battlefield, the thought of fundamentalist economists not only revolves around the market but is also limited by it. Just as war is too important an activity to be left to generals, the material welfare of peoples is also too important to be left to economists alone.

I salute the work Professor Stiglitz has done to show the havoc caused by what he calls “free market fundamentalists.” But I have a critique. I have already argued that his definition of the problem as that of “market failure” is inadequate. I will now argue that, in light of the challenge we face today, his response to the problem is also too limited.

To illustrate how deep and pervasive this crisis is, I would like to sketch some key developments starting with the Clinton years. Let us begin with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration urged on Russia what it called a “shock therapy,” a cocktail of recipes first perfected in African countries in the 1980s, and baptized as Structural Adjustment by the Washington Consensus. That policy practically destroyed essential consumer industries, from pharmaceuticals to poultry, and led to mass poverty in Russia. Fully backed by the Clinton administration, Yeltsin and his fellow conspirators were happy to implement this “shock therapy” as a way to acquire property at the expense of democracy. In the words of a moderate Russian paper, Literary Gazette, the “shock therapy” turned Russia into “a zone of catastrophe.” We may note that none of the architects of this policy in the Clinton administration – neither Larry Summers, nor Jeffrey Sachs nor former President Clinton himself – has every publicly apologized for this.

My second example is more current. The Eurozone was created as a single currency for Europe but without constituting Europe as a democratic polity. The result was that monetary policy was formulated outside the framework of democracy. The states in Europe have done to their own people what the

Washington Consensus did to African peoples in the 1980s. Unelected governments rule Europe; the EU ruling phalanx is not accountable to anyone. By all technical standards, what is taking shape in Europe is dictatorship. Not only are essential mechanisms of democratic systems being eroded or discarded, democracy is rapidly losing credibility. For the third time in a century, Germany is looking to turn Europe into its backyard. Germany is now achieving with banks what it failed to achieve with tanks in World War I and World War II. It is even more interesting that it is Germany that should now propose a democratic solution to the crisis of the Eurozone, calling for a political unification of Europe.

Historically, capitalism – and the market – have been kept in check by democracy. Both the Russian and the European cases show us what happens when you do away with the democratic process in the interest of economic efficiency.

In both the Russian and the European cases – and one could multiply examples – the problem has not been the absence of state activism. If anything, states have reinforced the havoc wreaked by market forces on society. Society is the missing term in the state-market equation that has defined the debate on “market failure” among economists. The tendency of the market, like that of the state, is to devour society. The challenge is to defend society against these twin forces.

Here is my point: The antidote to the market was never the state but democracy. Not the state but a democratic political order has contained the worst fallout from capitalism over the last few centuries. The real custodian of a democratic order was never the state but society. The question we are facing today is not just that of market failure but of an all-round political failure: the financialization of capitalism is leading to the collapse of the democratic order. The problem was best defined by the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US: it is the 99% against the 1%.

Thus my third question: does not this empirical acknowledgement need to be translated into a theoretical insight? Does it not call for a revised theoretical apparatus: one beyond a focus on “market failure”; one that does not limit the frame to the market and the state; one that is more interdisciplinary and more focused on the intersection of the economic, the political, and the social, both to illuminate the depth of the crisis we are faced with today and to shift focus from the state and the market to society?

IV. LESSONS FOR US IN UGANDA, IN EAST AFRICA AND IN AFRICA

I have little doubt that the audience here wants us to go beyond questions of economic theory, beyond a discussion of the global crisis. This audience would like some discussion of the Ugandan crisis. I will ask my fourth and last question on behalf of the audience: What are the lessons for Uganda, East Africa and Africa?

My first observation is that the Ugandan crisis is not really exceptional if you look at the rest of the world. In his more public and less academic observations, Professor Stiglitz has remarked on the depths of the problem in “much of the world”. Take an example from 2007 when Professor Stiglitz wrote of globalization on Beppe Grillo’s Blog in2007: “For much of the world, globalization as it has been managed seems like a pact with the devil. A few people in the country become wealthier; GDP statistics, for what they are worth, look better, but ways of life and basic values are threatened. … This is not how it has to be.”

It would be a shame if this audience is to walk away from Professor Stiglitz’s lecture with a message that the problem is just one of “market failure” and the solution is a robust state that regulates markets and provides development finance. Is the lesson of the Structural Adjustment era simply that we need strong states to defend ourselves from the Washington Consensus? Or does the experience of the SAP era also raise a second question: What happens if developing countries are forced to push open their markets before they have stable, democratic institutions to protect their citizens? Should we be surprised that the result is something worse than crony capitalism, worse than private corruption, whereby those in the state use their positions to privatize social resources and stifle societal opposition?

Social activists in Uganda increasingly argue that the state and the market are not opposites; they have come together in a diabolical pact. Like in the US where the state feeds the greed of the banks, the state in Uganda has become the springboard of systemic corruption. The use of eminent domain clause to appropriate land – from tropical rain forests to primary and secondary schools – is done in the name of development. Even parliamentarians who discuss the oil issue complain, almost on a daily basis, that instead of leveling the information field, the state uses all its resources to keep information secret and muzzle public discussion on how public resources are used. The question is simple: what happens if it is the state, and not just market forces, that hoards information?

I want to broaden our focus to the East African community. The political class in Africa is weak. Often, its vision is clouded by a single-minded preoccupation with the question of it own political survival. The result is a singular lack of imagination, marked by a tendency to borrow ―solutions from the West. The AU named itself after the EU. The East African Community adopted the European process hook, line and sinker: first a common market, then a common currency, before any political arrangement. Here is my question: Will the pursuit of this European recipe – introducing a common East African currency without first creating a common political framework for East Africa, without first solving the question of sovereignty, whether through a federation or a confederation – not invite a Europe-type crisis?

V. CONCLUSION

Let me conclude with two observations, one theoretical, the second political. When I was a graduate student, my economics professor asked me to read a great postwar classic, Karl Polanyi’s ‘The Great Transformation’. Polanyi was the first to point out that self-regulating markets are bound to lead to a social catastrophe. Polanyi began with the observation that the market is much older than capitalism. It has been around for thousands of years. Markets have coexisted with different kinds of economies and societies: capitalist, feudal, slave-owning, communal, all of them. The distinguishing feature of all previous eras has been that societies have always regulated markets, set limit on their operation, and thus set limits on both private accumulation and widespread impoverishment. Only with capitalism has the market wrenched itself free of society. A consequence of this development has been gross enrichment of a few alongside mass poverty. A corollary of this process, we may say, is that regulation is now seen as the task of the state, and not of society.

That solution is rapidly turning into a problem. Not only has the market wrenched itself free from society, the state is trying to do the same. Not only do market forces threaten to colonize society, the state too threatens to devour society. Free markets are not a solution for poverty; they are one cause of modern poverty. State sovereignty is not a guarantor of freedom; it threatens to undermine social freedom. The challenge is not how the state can regulate the market, but how society can regulate both the state and the market.

I thank you.

By Mahmood Mamdani

29 July, 2012

@ Pambazuka News

Mahmood Mamdani is Professor and Director of Makerere Institute of Social Research in Kampala and Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia University, New York City.

REFERENCES

1. Stephen E. Cohen, “The Soviet Union’s Afterlife,” The Nation, New York, January 9/16, 2012

2. Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation.

3. Robert Pollin, Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Review (for Challenge Magazine) of The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World’s Most Prosperous Decade by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Political Economy Research Institute, Working paper No. 83, 2004

4. Joseph Stiglitz, “Market Failures in the Financial System: Implications for Financial Sector Policies, especially in Developing Countries,” Joseph Mubiru Lecture, Bank of Uganda, Munyonyo Conference Centre, Kampala, July 16, 2012, 28 pp.

Israel retains its ability to control the Syrian ‘Islamist’ rebels. Netanyahu is not worried about Syria’s possible disintegration. Despite the received wisdom claiming that Israelis prefer a stable and familiar Assad to the great unknown of Islamic guerrillas, the new and sensational information we received points out to the opposite, namely: Israelis prefer the Somalisation of Syria, its break-up and the elimination of its army, as this will allow them to tackle Iran unopposed.

This is implied in a secret file recently leaked by a person(s) apparently close to the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman. It contains a record of conversations between Bibi Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the latter’s recent visit to Israel. Israelis seem to have no doubts about its authenticity. Counterpunch received the original file, and here are the highlights of this conversation (in our translation from Hebrew):

Netanyahu asked Putin to facilitate Bashar Assad’s departure. “You can appoint his successor, and we shall not object , said the Israeli Prime Minister. “There is one condition – the successor must break with Iran».

Putin responded: we have no candidate for Bashar’s successor. Do you?

No, we don’t, replied Netanyahu, but we shall tell you our preference soon.

Apparently, Israel can influence the rebels, inasmuch as it can bear on them to accept a successor acceptable to Tel Aviv. This means that the rebels’ chain of command goes beyond unruly field commanders, beyond Qatar and Saudi Arabia, beyond Paris and Washington, all the way to Israel. It is well known that the rebels seekfriendship with Israel, but nobody thought that Israel was able to control them to such an extent.

It stands to reason that Netanyahu had received a green light from Washington to make such an offer. This means that the US and Israel do not mind that Syria will remain in the Russian sphere of influence, so long as it cuts its ties with Iran. And this points to Israel as being the moving force behind the rebels, for otherwise, such an arrangement would be unacceptable for the Americans.

However, it is possible that Netanyahu’s offer was just a ploy to discover Russian intentions. Anyway Putin thought so, and answered in a similar vein:

“We are not beholden to Assad,” said Putin. “Before the rebellion, he was a frequent visitor in Paris rather than in Moscow. We have no secret agenda regarding Syria. I asked President Obama, what are the US intentions in Syria; why do Americans reject Assad. Is it because of his inability to come to terms with Israel? Or because of his ties with Iran? Because of his position on Lebanon? I received no serious answer. Our reason, said Obama, is Assad’s violent repression of the Syrian people. I replied that violence is caused by Qatar and Saudi interference.”

One understands that Putin is befogged: if he has been offered keeping Syria in the Russian sphere, why does the US goes out against Syrian government? Perhaps, the US is doing Israel’s bidding? And what are Israel’s intentions?

“Israel’s goal is the Somalisation of Syria, following the Somalisation of Iraq,” said Putin, and Netanyahu did not deny his interpretation.

These hard words of Putin answer the question of the US and Israeli intentions. This was the position of Israeli strategist Yinon and of the Neocons – Somalisation of the region. Israeli leaders still follow their high-risk short-term strategy of unleashing civil war in Syria, removing Assad and turning Syria into a mess of armed groups that would not interfere with Israeli jets reaching Iran. It is certainly risky, as it was risky to attack Lebanon in 2006, but Israel has such a powerful militarist complex that it needs to take otherwise unneeded risks.

The record of the Putin-Netanyahu conversation contains two important Russian concessions to Israel: Putin promised to break their contract about supply of S-300 anti-aircraft missile complexes to Damascus (and so he did) and to stop missile information leakage to Hezbollah.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman used the meeting to complain about the audacious RT channel:

“The Israeli office of the RT outpours anti-Israeli propaganda. They broadcast talks with Hasan Nasrallah [probably a reference to Julian Assange’s interview]. We spoke to the RT reporters privately, but they won’t budge, citing instructions from Moscow. Vladimir Vladimirovitch [Putin], please lean on the editorial policy of the RT so it will become objective towards Israel.”

This complaint fits well with Israeli practice of pressuring foreign media. Recently the Israeli ambassador to Washington attempted to interfere with CBS and censor Bob Simon’s report on Palestinian Christians, causing much resentment in the US. Israelis still can’t get used to the existence of a relatively free press.

The main conclusion of the leaked protocols is that Israeli leaders retained their love to live dangerously. While some other countries, notably Russia, are seeking stability, Israelis love play, and power play. Nothing risked, nothing gained, they say. They are ready to accept short term risks for long term gains. And elimination of the Syrian army is certainly a long term gain for Israel.

By ISRAEL SHAMIR

30 July 2012

@ counterpunch

Moscow

Israel Shamir has been sending dispatches to CounterPunch from Moscow.

An enigmatic personality who has periodically vanished from the scene of politics in different junctures in time, Prince Bandar bin Sultan was appointed as the Director General of Saudi Arabia’s main intelligence agency on July 19, an appointment which took place at a critical time, namely when the unrest in Syria was growing gravely worrisome thanks to the influx of the Saudi-funded rebels infiltrating the Syrian soil.

Known as ‘Bandar Bush’ on account of his close ties with former US President George Bush, the prince-cum-spymaster is widely considered as a linchpin in CIA-Mossad dastardly subterfuges in Syria and Iran and his appointment to such a sensitive position is from an intelligence point of view regarded a strategic step to contribute to the materialization of these sinister plans.

On July 18, a blast rocked the headquarters of the National Security Bureau (NSB) in Damascus and killed President Bashar Assad’s brother-in-law and Deputy Defense Minister Gen Assef Shawkat, Defense Minister Gen Daoud Rajiha, former Defense Minister Hassan Turkomani and NSB chief Hisham Ikhtiar.

The role of CIA and Mossad in Syria unrest is highlighted in an article dated July 18 by David Ignatius who is well-connected to intelligence sources, “The CIA has been working with the Syrian opposition for several weeks under a non-lethal directive that allows the United States to evaluate groups and assist them with command and control. Scores of Israeli intelligence officers are also operating along Syria’s border, though they are keeping a low profile.”

In view of the complicated nature of the terrorist attack, one cannot easily rule out the possibility of the CIA-Mossad joint operations.

A Wikileaks cable dated May 2, 2007 details how Mossad is contributing covert assistance to Saudi intelligence.

“MOSSAD is using Nicosia, Cyprus as a primary transit hub into Riyadh, to assist the Saudi intelligence services with intelligence collection and advice on Iran. Sources advised the Saudis are playing both sides of the fence — with the jihadists and the Israelis — for fear that the US does not have a handle on either. Several enterprising MOSSAD officers, both past and present, are making a bundle selling the Saudis everything from security equipment, intelligence and consultation.”

As a main game player in Syria crisis, the regime of Riyadh is reportedly exerting pressure on Jordan to create a buffer zone for the armed gangs and groups fighting to overthrow the anti-Israeli government of President Bashar Assad. According to a report in the al-Quds al-Arabi Daily, the Saudi monarchy is persuading Amman to join the anti-Syria war by cutting off its financial aid to the country. The Saudi spymaster Bandar Bin Sultan is tasked with forcing Jordanian kingdom to agree to host the Free Syrian Army on its soil in return for the aid. In line with this development, Bandar bin Sultan has secretly met with top Jordanian security and military officials along with Saudi Crown Prince Salman Abdul Aziz over the issue.

Saudi Arabia has long been working on a plan to overthrow the regime in Syria and sabotage the Islamic Republic through Bandar bin Sultan who served as the Saudi ambassador to the US from 1983 to 2005. In 2006, Bandar visited Washington a couple of times and discussed the Bush administration’s plan for a new strategy in the Middle East with former Vice president Dick Cheney and Bush’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy Elliott Abrams.

The two neocons together with the prince had wrought out a fiendishly meticulous plan to bring about changes to the satisfaction of the US government and the Saudi kingdom. Part of their grand scheme was to bring about regime changes in Syria and Iran and impose a rotten American version of democracy in the two countries. For his part, Bandar had given them assurances that the Saudi monarchy would wholeheartedly favor this plot. To this end, the Saudi Kingdom has since then spent a deluge of dollars on carrying out covert operations in Iran and Syria with the assistance of CIA (See The King’s Messenger: Prince Bandar bin Sultan and America’s Tangled Relationship With Saudi Arabia by David B. Ottaway and David B Ottaway p. 257).

With the flourish of Arab Spring in North Africa and the Middle East, Saudi Arabia found quite a good excuse to foment unrest in Syria with the help of the al-Qaeda elements who were readily at its disposal, innocuously attribute it to another popular uprising in the region and pave the ground for a regime change in Syria. Bandar bin Sultan, who is the secret architect of this crisis, reappeared in his new capacity as the Saudi superspy to accomplish this long-entertained plot. In this unholy cause they started championing, they saw fit to factor in other intelligence agencies such as Mossad and CIA in order to make sure their modus operandi would raise no suspicious whatsoever.

As time passes and the situation in Syria unravels, the satanic role of Prince Bandar bin Sultan in stoking up chaos in the crisis-ravaged country under the aegis of the Saudi monarchy becomes more crystallized and the thickening plot to overthrow the Syrian regime under the banner of a popular uprising starts to surface.

By Dr. Ismail Salami

01 August, 2012

@Countercurrents.org

The U.S. media has made its intentions clear: the ‘rebels’ attacking Syria’s government must have more support to advance Syria’s “revolution.” This was the result of the much-hyped advance of Syria’s rebels into the country’s two largest cities, which the western media portrayed as a defining moment in global democracy. But “journalists” like these have blood on their hands, with much more in the works.

The systematic dismantling of Syria has more to do with western media lies and geo-politics than “revolution;” and the more that the U.S. media cheers on this bloodletting, the more politicians feel enabled to spill it.

The rebel attacks on the cities of Damascus and Aleppo were, in actuality, meant to convince the western media that the rebels are near victory, with the hopes of attracting more direct military support from abroad. In reality, however, the attacks in Damascus were instantly crushed by the Syrian government, but the U.S. media predicted “victory just around the corner” for the rebels.

Suddenly Syria is becoming a U.S. presidential topic of debate. Republicans have accused Obama of “outsourcing” the Syrian conflict, refusing to be involved when the rebels deserve extra support (guns mainly). But Obama is the principal cause of this humanitarian catastrophe. Middle East expert Robert Fisk explains:

“While Qatar and Saudi Arabia arm and fund the rebels of Syria…Washington mutters not a word of criticism against them. President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, say they want a democracy in Syria. But Qatar is an autocracy and Saudi Arabia is among the most pernicious of caliphate-kingly-dictatorships in the Arab world.”

Fisk fails to mention that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are virtual puppets of U.S. foreign policy; they would never act independently to overthrow a regional neighbor; they do so on command.

Syria is conveniently surrounded by close allies of the U.S., and it is through these allies that guns and foreign fighters have poured into Syria to cause massive destruction. The rebel-held areas of Syria exist only on the rural borders of Turkey, Jordan, and Northern Lebanon, areas in alignment with U.S. foreign policy.

Revolutions are city affairs, but the Syrian revolution has been a rural undertaking ever since foreign powers decided to destroy the country. It is fortunate for the rebels that Syria’s two largest cities are close to these border countries: the rebels made a quick foray into the cities for some high profile attacks, and then drifted back to the border areas to seek protection from their friends.

Although it is true that the so-called Free Syrian Army includes defectors from the Syrian military, it is possible that these defectors are simply betting that, in the long term, the U.S. will spare no expense in overthrowing the Syrian government.

The commonsense question that the U.S. media never explores is whether Syrians want their country destroyed, the inevitable result of this conflict. In fact, there are numerous indications to the contrary. After constant cheerleading of the Syrian rebels, The New York Times has been forced to admit on several occasions that massive pro-government rallies have been held in Syria’s only two large cities:

“The turnout [at least tens of thousands] in Sabaa Bahrat Square in Damascus, the [Syrian] capital, once again underlined the degree of backing that Mr. Assad and his leadership still enjoy among many Syrians… That support is especially pronounced in cities like Damascus and Aleppo, the country’s two largest.”

This was further confirmed by a poll funded by the anti-Syrian Qatar Foundation, performed by the Doha Debates:

“According to the latest opinion poll commissioned by The Doha Debates, Syrians are more supportive of their president with 55% not wanting him to resign.” (January 2, 2012).

This should be of zero surprise. Syrians have seen Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya destroyed by U.S.-style “liberation.” Americans should know better too — and many do — regardless of their media’s blatantly criminal behavior.

The United States is using a strategy in Syria that has been perfected over the years, starting with Afghanistan (in the 1980’s) Yugoslavia, and most recently in Libya: arming small paramilitary groups loyal to U.S. interests that attack the targeted government — including terrorist bombings — and when the attacked government defends itself, the U.S. cries “genocide” or “mass murder,” while calling for foreign military intervention.

In each instance the targeted society is dismembered, mass murder and ethnic/religious violence is consciously used to gain military advantage that inevitably spirals out of control; refugee crises are also natural consequences, which inevitably lead to cross border destabilization and wider regional conflicts. Millions of lives are completely ruined in each instance, if not ended.

There is every indication that the Syrian conflict has the potential — as the Iraq war before it — to cause incredible ethnic and religious violence on a multi-nation scale. Neighboring Lebanon has already experienced armed conflict as a direct result of Syria and is a powder keg of ethnic and religious tension that needs only a spark to explode, and Syria promises to spew flames.

The U.S. population has largely been spared images of the incredible suffering and social destruction caused by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Syria’s crisis is thus happening in an already-destabilized region, having the potential to completely tear the social fabric of the larger Middle East.

These war crimes benefit nobody except the very rich who take over the helm of governments and use these positions to privatize the invaded country’s economy, though especially the oil. The people in Syria, however, are being used as cannon fodder for an additional reason: so that the U.S. can have a steppingstone towards destroying Iran (Syria is Iran’s close ally). But Russia and China are acting more boldly against this genocidal behavior, and may act with more vigor in defending their allies, a dynamic that could easily lead to a regional or even world war.

Thus, the hell that has become the Middle East is being poked and prodded by U.S. foreign policy with absolutely no regard for the global implications. Both U.S. major presidential candidates are cheerleading the flood of blood to different degrees, ensuring that the next election will provide fresh “legitimacy” to an equally barbarous U.S. foreign policy.

By Shamus Cooke

30 July, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org) He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

Chinese Olympic athletes are people, not comic book villains. Something’s going on when one nation is so singled out

It’s not cricket, you know. There’s something fiendishly cruel about the monstering of 16-year-old Ye Shiwen, who won a swimming gold in Saturday’s 400m individual medley. First she was labelled a cheat in front of a global audience and then refused an apology when repeated drugs tests show up clean as a whistle.

First off the block was the host nation’s BBC commentator Clare Baldwin, who sprinted to the worst conclusion on zero evidence within seconds of Ye’s record-breaking win with her loaded comment: “How many questions will there be, Mark, about somebody who can suddenly swim so much faster than she has ever swum before?”

With the starter pistol thus fired for the media witchhunt to find Ye guilty of winning while Chinese, in they all piled.

If sport is war by other means, then executive director of the American Swimming Coaches Association, John Leonard, is chief drone, still going on like a talent-seeking missile about how anomalies like Ye’s record indicate drug use. He weaselled out of an outright accusation on the aforementioned zero evidence by saying, “we want to be very careful about calling it doping”, but the word was out of his trap and primed for detonation.

Leonard brushed off reminders that Michael Phelps’s haul of eight medals at the Beijing Olympics was also unprecedented, and yet no one had been rude enough to cast aspersions despite the US being no slouch themselves in the doping stakes; steroids and human growth hormone (HGH) being the chief culprits since the 50s and banned since 1975.

So while China shares a history of doping that lasted from the cold war until the 90s, it’s wrong to single it out for suspicion whenever a Chinese athlete comes up with a terrific performance.

The fact that Ye’s swim was 23 seconds slower than Ryan Lochte’s 400m, and that she’d only sped up in the final 50m after pacing herself earlier while Lochte slowed down after sensing victory, has been largely ignored. As has the knowledge, supported by international swimmers, that it is common for young athletes to put on a spurt. Ian Thorpe says he took five seconds off his time in the 400m freestyle from aged 15 to 16, and Adrian Moorhouse was four seconds faster at 17 in the 200m breaststroke. The Lithuanian teenager who also knocked time off her swimming best has been allowed to enjoy her victory, so why can’t Ye?

The argument slips around like a noose that keeps on missing. You can’t get her on doping as she’s clear so, in order to save face, it must be genetic engineering, the Chinese being so subhumanly clever and ruthless. (Let’s remember that it’s not Dr Fu Manchu who tried to copyright the human DNA sequence for profit, but Harvard biologist Walter Gilbert with his Genome Corporation.) TV and press have sniffed up this tree into the realms of science fiction, and found it wanting.

Elsewhere, the press has been sly in their dehumanising insinuations about Ye looking like a “killer whale”, and the Chinese being selected to the point of being a “different species”, with shades of Morrissey’s infamous “subspecies” jibe.

Ye is accused of not looking properly feminine, unlike our own Rebecca Adlington. We had the same row over the runner Caster Semenya who made phenomenal improvements on her time at 800m and 1500m and had to undergo a humiliating gender test before being cleared by the IAAF in 2010. Bernard Manning’s tormenting of British javelin champion Fatima Whitbread for being unbabe-like in his eyes seems to have rubbed off.

With accusations of drugs and sci-fi scenarios running out of steam, and the dawning realisation that it’s hard work and training that’s producing such stunning results, let’s get them on child cruelty. While over-training of youngsters is wrong when it does occur, one British coach who’s worked with the Chinese swimming team attests to their high motivation making the difference, and not the Dickensian nightmare as is being presented.

Luckily, this distracts from the real Dickensian nightmare going on right under our noses and barely reported – of the workers who run the day-to-day machinery of the Olympic Park living in flooded mixed dorms and paying £18 per night for the privilege, whether they are put on the work roster or not.

Cheating is cheating. To pick out one team is ludicrous. There’s something else going on here. Is it the howl of big beasts who once defined human excellence and standards of beauty being knocked off their perch by the rising superpower?

The media heaved a sigh of relief when the badminton fiasco gave it something real to complain about, with competitors trying to get around the new round-robin rules by playing to lose. As China’s not the monolithic entity some would have, there’s been a row going on with claim and counter-claim. These are real people, not comic book villains. There’s a real debate and everything! Champion Yu has quit and the media has a head on a stick.

We shouldn’t be demonstrating such bad British sportsmanship to the world. Accusations are flying in both directions with the Brazil women’s football team stranded at a roadside for five hours before their match with GB which they lost 1-0, meaning they now play world champions Japan.

As Bruce Lee said, when you point the finger, three fingers are pointing back at you. Whichever way this one pans out, at least we’ve all forgotten the scandal of the acres of empty seats at the fantabulous London Olympics.

By Anna Chen

2 August, 2012

@ The Guardian

The Pentagon document on Strategic Guidance entitled, “Sustaining Global Leadership: Priorities for Twenty First Century” released in January 2012 has inaugurated a new cold war. If the theatre of the ‘old’ Cold War was Europe, the new theatre is the Asia-Pacific. The document affirms that the US will of necessity rebalance towards Asia-Pacific region. ‘Rebalance’ seems to have replaced the earlier term ‘pivot’. The document maps the region as “the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia”.

The increasing focus on Asia reflects rebalancing in several ways: Change in the balance of US concentration from the Middle East to Asia after the ebbing of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a change in the balance of forces within Asia from a Northeast Asia focus to a broader reach emphasizing more flexible deployments, rotation and operation and a change in the balance of tools of soft power and hard power moving to the latter.

Redefining Asia-Pacific

In his Introduction to the document for the release of which he made a rare visit to the Pentagon, “As Commander-in-Chief,” remarked President Obama, “I am determined that we meet the challenges of the moment responsibly and that we emerge even stronger in a manner that preserves American global leadership, maintains our military superiority…”. George W. Bush can be proud of his successor. About Obama’s appetite for military action, Aaron David Miller, an adviser to six secretaries of state, wrote in Foreign Policy, ”Barack Obama has become George Bush on steroid.”  American ‘global leadership’ is the fancy name for the Empire, admittedly maintained by military superiority.

The Obama administration has written a new chapter in American foreign policy saying that the US will now ‘pivot’ away from two wars in Southwestern Asia to focus on the rising power of China. Supporters claim that the President has established a foreign policy vision for the next century. Sceptics point out that there is more political spin than substance to the Obama Asia ‘pivot’. Both are right. The increased American focus on Asia is bipartisan and sustainable. “The real debate is not about the importance of Asia, but how the US will resource its increasing engagement of the region.” (1)

The Administration’s increased emphasis on A.P. appears to have been prompted by four major developments:

· the growing economic importance of the Asia-Pacific region and particularly China to the US’s economic future.

· China’s growing military capabilities and its increasing assertiveness of claims to disputed maritime territory with implications for freedom of navigation and the US ability to project power in the region.

· the winding down of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

· efforts to cut US government’s defense budget which threaten to create a perception in Asia that the US commitment to the region will wane. (2)

Announcing a new US military expansion in Australia in autumn 2011, Obama declared in the Australian Parliament, “The US is a Pacific power and we are here to stay.” Early 2012 the Obama administration further clarified the shift saying that it would intensify the US role in the Asia-Pacific region. To do this, it intends to raise the region’s priority in US military planning, foreign policy and economic policy. With the US troops gone from Iraq and poised to be drawn down in Afghanistan, administration officials say they plan to ‘rebalance’ US attention towards planning for future challenges and opportunities. As Obama said in his statement to the Australian Parliament, his goal is to ensure that the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping the region (AP) and its future. “As we consider the future of our armed forces, we have begun a review that will identify the most important strategic interests and guide on defense priorities and spending over the coming decade. So here is what this region must know. As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission the AP region our top priority. As a result reduction in US defense spending will not – I repeat will not – come at the expense of Asia Pacific.”

Global control – The role of the military

In a November 2011 article in Foreign Policy entitled ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the “future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq and the US will be right at the centre of the action.” She detailed US plans to bolster its military presence in the region. Claiming that it is the US which “maintains peace and security, defends freedom of navigation and ensures transparency”, Clinton emphasized the importance of Asia-Pacific’s economic development, trade routes, resources and investment opportunities for the US.” The Asia-Pacific’s “remarkable economic growth… and potential for continued growth,” she wrote, “depends on the security and stability that has long been guaranteed by the US military” whose presence has to be further strengthened.

The new policy towards Asia-Pacific has two fundamental elements. First there is a clear admission by the USA that its defense posture must be substantially recalibrated in view of its economic circumstances. Second, the policy document reaffirmed that the US has vital interests in the whole region and is therefore determined to continue to play a more prominent role in shaping the future of the region.

Many aspects of the Asia-Pacific pivot represent an expansion rather than a transformation of policy. A number of Obama’s discrete initiatives build on previous actions so that some observers argue that the administration overstated the depth and scope of its pivot. For instance, in the military sphere the administration is expanding and accelerating policies under Bush. The Obama administration is also expanding Bush-era initiatives such as strengthening relations with existing allies in Asia and forging new partnership with India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

That said, there are at least three broad new features of US policy that are worth emphasizing: new military priorities and deployments; an arguably more integrated and region-wide approach to the Asia-Pacific and a vision of the region’s geography to include the Indian Ocean.

The highest profile new initiatives lie in the security sphere. The planned deployment of troops and equipment to Australia and Singapore represent an expanded US presence. Moreover the pledge that reductions in deficit spending will not come at the expense reflects Asia-oriented priorities. The most obvious implication subsequently reflected in the Department of Defense’s January 2012 ‘Strategic Guidance’ has been to minimize cuts in the size of the navy with reductions focused on the Army’s ground forces. Asia is seen mainly as a naval theatre of operation and the decision not to cut the Navy as sharply as other services reflects a shift in priorities that is unusual in year to year defense planning. It is an ocean-centered strategy in which the USA is far superior to China.

A second new dynamic is the way the various new and old military, diplomatic and economic initiatives have been presented as parts of one package.

Another new element in the Obama administration’s policy is the inclusion of the coastal areas of South Asia in the geographic area of the Pacific pivot. South Asia has often been considered as a distinct strategic sub-region of Asia. Increasing strategic rivalry between China and India also serves to bring that Asia sub-region into a larger Asia-wide strategic dynamic.

In her Foreign Policy article, Secretary of State Clinton defined the Asia-Pacific as “stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas, the region spans two oceans – the Pacific and the Indian – that are increasingly linked by shipping and strategy.” Underlying the rebalancing is the Administration’s belief that the centre of gravity for US foreign policy, national security and economic interests is shifting towards Asia and that US strategies and priorities need to be adjusted accordingly.

As Noam Chomsky wrote in Al Jazeera (7 May 2012) the US pivot towards the Asia Pacific region is in response to what he calls the classic security dilemma posed by the rising influence of China and Russia. The pivot is perceived as bullying, threatening and an intrusion of the same – in other words more of the same – by those most impacted by US foreign military presence.  The “classic security dilemma makes sense” Chomsky argues, if one operates under the assumption that the US “has the right to control most of the world and that US security requires absolutely global control.”

The most high profile and concrete elements in the Administration’s announced rebalancing toward Asia Pacific have come in the military realm. Leon Panetta, U.S. Defense Secretary, unveiled at the annual meeting of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies on June 3 in Singapore, the details of the military’s plans for Asia-Pacific. The Navy, Mr. Panetta said, would reconfigure its forces from a 50-50 split between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific to 60 per cent of the Navy’s assets assigned to the Pacific. He said, “Make no mistake in a steady, deliberate and sustainable way the United States military is rebalancing and brings enhanced capabilities to this vital region.” Some nations represented at the meeting questioned the wisdom of stepped up military emphasis, arguing that it appears intended to force a confrontation with China, a situation feared by many countries in the region, all of which enjoy strong trade ties with China.

Aimed at China?

As Obama administration officials have said in the past, Mr. Panetta insisted the renewed US interest in the Asia Pacific region was not aimed at China. But few in the audience which consisted of Asian defense ministers and military officials said they believed that.  The concern of most Asian countries was expressed by Marty Natalegawa, Indonesia’s Foreign Minister who said, “What worries is having to choose; we don’t want to be put into that position. The Pacific is sufficiently accommodating to provide not only for the role of China and the United States but of emerging powers too,” he added.

At the same time, some Asian leaders may feel that the enhanced U.S. presence may serve as a counterweight to China as it asserts territorial rights to the oil-rich South China Sea that are disputed by other Asian countries. The U.S. asserted its position in the region at the ASEAN regional forum where it declared the outcome of the disputes in the South China Sea to be of ‘national interest’. The stance received conspicuous support within and beyond ASEAN and was accompanied by efforts to energize U.S. relations with Vietnam and the Philippines.

We may have to go back a bit in White House history to see the significance of South China Sea in US strategy. There is reason to believe that President Obama is implementing the geopolitical blueprint of former Vice-President Dick Cheney. Among the key features of this blueprint prominent is “to dominate the sea lands of Asia so as to control the flow of oil and other raw materials to America’s political rivals China and Japan.”(3)

Among the strategic initiatives that the Department of Defense has been developing apparently with AP in mind is a new ‘Air Sea Battle (ASB)’ concept that is intended to improve the joint effectiveness of U.S. naval and air force units, particularly in operations for countering anti-access strategies. This strategy is of course the primary reason that the South Korean navy is building at the behest of Pentagon, the naval base on Jeju Island. US Navy needs more ports to dock their warships. The Pentagon has stated that it is modernizing its basing arrangements with traditional allies while enhancing its presence in South East Asia and into the Indian Ocean. It is working on an “operational concept” to translate the growing connection between the Indian and Pacific Ocean which in effect will mean military presence over a broader region.

Military Bases

Concerns over China in the past were founded mostly on its claims to Taiwan which it considers a renegade province. But that has broadened out to Beijing’s increasingly assertive claims to South China Sea where it has territorial disputes with half a dozen countries. Those rival claims came to a head in April, when the Philippines Navy accused Chinese boats of fishing illegally around Scarborough Shoal which Manila claims as part of its exclusive economic zone, but which Beijing insists has been Chinese for centuries. The standoff has yet to be resolved though no shots have been fired.

Beijing’s perceived highhandedness in the South China Sea has strengthened Washington’s hands and promoted the project of the construction of a network of bases and alliances encircling China, the globe’s rising power, in an arc stretching from Japan and South Korea in the north to Australia, Vietnam and the Philippines in the southwest and hence to India in the southwest.

· Singapore has agreed to allow US to deploy four new littoral Combat Ships designed to fight close to shorelines to its main naval port, starting next year.

· Indonesia which had only limited military relations with Washington in the 1990s because of human rights concerns, is now looking to buying a wide range of American military hardware and is conducting joint exercises.

· The Philippines which kicked out US forces based on their soil in 1992 is actively courting increased US military support including allowing more troops on a rotating basis and base facilities.

· South Korean navy is building at the behest of the Pentagon, the naval base on Jeju Island.

· Washington is already testing out that approach in Australia which has agreed to allow up to 2500 marines to deploy to the northern city of Darwin. The marines will use Australian facilities not a new US base and the plan has met with little opposition. The new basing facility in Darwin is close to the South China Sea.

It may be useful to look at the role of military bases or base-like facilities.  Foreign military bases have been established throughout the history of expanding states and warfare. They proliferate where a state has imperial ambitions either through direct control of territory or through indirect control over the political economy, laws and foreign policies of other countries. Whether or not recognizing itself as such, a country can be called an empire when it projects substantial power with the aim of asserting and maintaining dominance over other regions.

Chalmers Johnson has pointed out that the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. “Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II U.S. has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. This vast network of American bases in every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire – an empire of bases with its own geography, not likely to be taught in any high school geography.”

Bases are usually presented above all as having rational strategic purposes. The empire claims that it provides towards defense of the homeland, supplies other nations with security and facilitated control of trade routes and resources. More recently as well, bases have been used to control the political and economic life of the host nation. Military bases in South Korea, for example, have been key parts of the continuing control that the US military exercises over Korean forces and Korean foreign policy. More specifically it has extracted important political and military support for example in its wars in Vietnam and more recently in Iraq. (5)

The Chinese Response

It is only natural that the U.S. Asia ‘pivot’ has prompted Chinese anxiety about U.S. containment. One might inquire on what is exactly about ‘rising China’ that is being counterbalanced with such an increased military presence in the Pacific. The US is not putting a military presence in the region to be an impartial or fair mediator but to pursue its own interest and that of its allies which are competing against China for ownership of resource-rich islands (including oil). (6)

Although Obama administration officials have often stated that these moves are not aimed at any one particular country, the Strategic Guidance document says they are responses at least in part to China’s growing influence. “The maintenance of peace, stability, the free flow of commerce and of US influence in this dynamic region will depend in part on an underlying balance of military capability and presence. Over the long-term China’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the US economy and our security in a variety of ways… The growth of China’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intention in order to avoid causing friction in the region.” This is a rather strange statement and would suggest that there is clarity about USA’s strategic intention.

“The new developments from the US side are about one thing: containing China’s military rise and the tectonic shifts associated with it.”(7) While commentators of all ideologies agree that China by virtue of its advances on the entire standard measures of power from economic to military putting it high up in the list of rising powers it is far from clear it is a menacing power. One may even say that China’s military rise is normal – not illegitimate, if we speak in terms of power politics.

The widespread perception that the ‘rebalancing’ initiative is aimed at China creates a host of risks. The pivot to the Pacific is seen by some in China in starker terms as focused on dividing China from its neighbors and keeping China’s military in check. Such an impression may strengthen the hands of China’s military (PLA) which has long been suspicious of US intensions in the region. The military in turn could become more determined to strengthen China’s anti-access capabilities and more assertive about defending China’s territorial claims. The impression that the rebalancing is aimed at containing China could potentially make it more difficult for the US to gain China’s cooperation in issues such as North Korea. China cannot ignore the new U.S. stance. The question is how they interpret it.

An interpretation was given by China Daily in an article at the end of last year (27-12-2011). It said, “Washington uses the ‘China threat’ as an excuse to maintain excessive military spending so that it can continue its hegemony.” It added that “the confused policy of ‘congagement’ –mixing containment and engagement – has increasingly characterized the US approach to China.” The article accused the US of “attempting to maintain a de facto empire on borrowed money while its creditors are at its doors.” The new strategy is seen as threat in Beijing. “The administration’s plan to augment America’s permanent strength in Asia cannot be seen as anything but threatening,“ spokesman of the Ministry of Defense, Geng Youshang said. “We believe it is all a matter of a cold war mentality.”

But there are even more strident voices from Beijing. Writing in the People’s Liberation Daily on 13th January 2012, Major Luo Luan bluntly warned that the US was targeting China. “Casting our eyes around, we can see that the US has been bolstering its five major military alliances in the Asia-Pacific and is adjusting the positing of its four major military base clusters in the AP region while also seeking more entry rights for military bases around China. Who can believe that you are not directing this at China?” he asked.

In theory senior party and government cadres have not abandoned late patriarch Deng Xiaoping’s famous foreign policy dictum of the early 1990s: “Take a low profile and never take the lead.” A rising number of influential academic and military advisers in Beijing have argued that due to China’s fast-rising quasi-superpower status and intensification the country’s competition with the US and its Asian allies, the low profile has become all but obsolete. According to widely published defense theorist Yang Yi, “It is no longer possible for China to keep a low profile.” (8)

The differing responses reflect a debate in Beijing that intensified after last year’s NATO intervention in Libya, which caused losses of billions of dollars of Chinese investments in that country. This happened in the wake of the NATO’s ousting of the Libyan regime of Gaddafi. The NATO was able to do this only with the support of the US. The US is now threatening Iran which China relies on as a major supplier of oil.  One camp advocates a continuation of the present cautious policy of avoiding a confrontation with the US. The second calls for a shift to a more aggressive policy to defend China’s growing economic and strategic interests around the world.

In the run up to the leadership transition that will take place at China’s 18th Party Congress this fall, Beijing is inwardly focused and unlikely to act on its fears. However 2013 could see a change in China’s foreign policy based on the new leadership’s judgment that it must respond to a U.S. strategy that seeks to prevent China’s  re-emergence as a great power.

India Aligned or Non-Aligned?

What does the US pivot to Asia mean for India? The Indian Ambassador to Washington recently pointed out that the idea of a ‘pivot’ is hardly new. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister used this time to characterize India even before there was an India, saying of his not-yet independent country. We are of Asia, India is the pivot of Western, Southern and Southeast Asia.

India is highly visible in the new US Asia-Pacific map. The January Strategy Document refers specifically to “the area extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia”. Hillary Clinton was even more specific when she defined Asia-Pacific as reaching from the Indian subcontinent to the Western shores of America. Not to be outdone, Indian diplomats have taken to referring to the Indo-pacific region – a term one can guess that will not gain much traction in China. (9)

Leon Panetta, US Defense Secretary came to New Delhi at the end of the first week of May with an agenda to win India to the US side in its new Asia-Pacific strategy. India gets a prominent place in the Strategy Guidance document of the Pentagon. It says that the US intends to invest in a ‘long-term strategic partnership’ with India in order that New Delhi might serve as a regional economic and military anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region. Commenting on New Delhi’s role Panetta said defense cooperation with India is a linchpin in US strategy. “India is one of the largest and most dynamic countries in the region and the world and with one of the most capable militaries.” Defense cooperation with India has deepened from the time of the War on Terror and India is the largest partner in defense exercises with the US. Moreover from that time India had aligned itself with the USA.

But observers have noticed a shift in India’s policy recently. Responding to Panetta’s overtures, the Indian Defense Minister Antony emphasized the need to strengthen multilateral security architecture in the Asia Pacific and to move to a pace comfortable to all countries concerned. India is closely watching the ramifications of US rebalancing as it will considerably increase American military presence in its neighborhood especially in the Indian Ocean. It did not go unnoticed that exactly the same days Panetta was in New Delhi, India’s Foreign Minister S.M.Krishna was in China where in response to questions about the new US strategy he affirmed that the bilateral relationship with China was a priority for India’s foreign policy. More specifically he expressed India’s desire to expand strategic cooperation with China.

There seems to be a debate within the Indian establishment with one section arguing for a new non-alignment in the emerging cold war in Asia and another advocating linking its strategic partnership with the USA’s Asia Pacific rebalancing.

The Arc of Empire

From Central and South Asia to Africa, the Middle East and Asia, the Obama administration is working out its formula for a new American way of war. In its pursuit, the Pentagon and its increasingly militarized government partners are drawing on everything from classic precepts of colonial war to the latest technologies. The U.S is an imperial power chastened by more than ten years of failed heavy footprint wars. No wonder the current combination of special ops, drones, spy games, civilian soldiers, cyber warfare and proxy fighters sound like a safer brand of war-fighting. The new light footprint Obama doctrine actually seems to be making war an even more attractive and seemingly easy option. As a result, the new American way of war holds great potential for unforeseen entanglements and serial blowbacks. (10)

Although conventionally treated as separate, America’s four wars in Asia were actually phases in a sustained US bid for regional dominance, according to Michael H. Hunt and Steven Levine. The effort unfolded as an imperial project in which military power and the importance of America’s political will created the Arc of Empire. America’s wars in Asia from the Philippines to Vietnam follow the long arc of conflicts across. “Seventy five years from the Philippines war through Japan and Korea to Vietnam, we trace the way American ambitions, ascendance and ultimate defeat. By the time we got to the Japan war, we were convinced how American leaders had developed a strong sense of a stake in the future of Pacific.” (11)

The consequence of this strategy as well as ideological stake were soon apparent in Korea and then in Vietnam. After seventy five years President Nixon finally abandoned the forward policy in East Asia. Ultimately the political and social changes transforming the region proved beyond the control of Americans despite the military advantage that their vastly superior weaponry and material resources conferred.

Only in the last decade or so have the uninhibited exercise of US global power sought to sweep aside popular hesitations and doubts. These latter day champions had forgotten the lessons learned the hard way over the last half century. They don’t seem to have learnt anything either from the imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new cold war in Asia-Pacific is a continuation of the US-led imperial project for dominance in the region recreating the Arc of the Empire.

Notes:

1.    Michael Green, “The US Turns Its Gaze to the Public,” The World Today, February and March, 2012.

2.    “Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration Rebalancing Towards Asia,” Congressional Research Service, March 28, 2012.

3.    Michael Klare, “Is Barack Obama Morphing Into Dick Cheney?” Asiatimes Online, June 23, 2012.

4.    Chalmers Johnson, “America’s Empire of Bases”, TomDispatch.com, January 15, 2004.

5.    Catherine Lutz, “US Bases and Empre: Global Perspectives on the Asia-Pacific,” Transnational Institute, July 2009.

6.    Michael McGrehee, New York Times Examiner, November 8, 2011.

7.    Willy Lam, “Beijing Laces Up Its Foreign Policy Lace,” Asiatimes Online, June 28, 2012.

8.    Robert Kagan, Atlantic Magazine, April 2012.

9.    Robert M. Hathaway, Yale Global Review, February 24, 2012.

10.    Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch.Com, June 13, 2012.

11.    Michael H. Hunt and Steven L. Levine, “Arc of Empire”, University of North Carolina Press, 2012.

By NINAN KOSHY

27 July 2012

@ PfL Forum

It was not an opportune time for Dalai Lama, the most revered spiritual head of Buddhists around the world, to be in Kashmir & enjoy walking over the scattered hair of his female followers lying prostate. Instead he should have been in Myanmar to get a feel of the scores of dead bodies of Muslims killed by his followers in Myanmar and lying scattered all-round. And the advice of remaining peaceful to the oppressed people of Kashmir should have been directed at the killers in Myanmar, otherwise touted as followers of the most peaceful religion.

The genocide of the Muslims in Myanmar is not a new affair but institutionalized in the history of Myanmar. During World War II, these Muslims, also known as Rohingyas, remained loyal to British and paid dearly for this choice. The advancing Japnese & Burmese armies with the help of identification provided by local Buddhists massacred, tortured & raped these defenseless Muslims. On March 28, 1942 alone about 5,000 Muslims were massacred in Minbya and Mrohaung Townships. After conquering the region in 1945,the British compensated them to some extent by setting up an autonomous civilian administration zone for them in Arkan. But the affair proved short lived as this autonomous zone was merged with Burma in 1948 treaty granting Burma independence from Britain. Following the merger, Muslims were barred from Military services and Muslim civil servants & policemen were immediately replaced by Buddhists. Rohingya leaders were arbitrarily placed under arrest and those refugees who had earlier fled to India were not permitted to return. Back home their properties were confiscated & allotted to Burmese Buddhists. In 1958, Buddhism was declared as official religion of Myanmar after which the Buddhists extremists have been encouraged more to carry out massacre of the Muslims at regular intervals. The persecution became more intense after General Ne win engineered the military take-over of the Government in 1962.

Described as the Palestine of Asia by the UN, the Rohingya Muslim community in Myanmar is living under extremely appalling circumstances. The dictatorial government of Myanmar has deliberately neglected their ordeal and the international community is overlooking their suffering. Going through an unutterable ordeal at the hands of the extremist Buddhists who are targeting them at every available opportunity& indulging in worst form of genocide & religious cleansing. In a recent spate of violence triggering fresh migration, some 2000 Rohinga Muslims have come to Delhi and are living in pitiable & sub-human conditions in Vasant Kunj jungles.

Not content with killing & rape, this unfortunate community is even denied their basic rights, i.e. the right to freedom of movement, marriage, faith, identity, ownership, language, heritage and culture and above all citizenship rights.. The government of Myanmar considers them to be “resident foreigners.” This lack of full citizenship rights means that they are subject to other abuses, including restrictions on their freedom of movement, discriminatory limitations on access to education, and arbitrary confiscation of property. Deplorable as it is, the Muslims in Myanmar are among the most persecuted minorities in the world according to UN.

Unfortunately, the Myanmar peace prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the plight of these Muslims. Maybe she has forgotten her own words on democracy and human rights that, “The struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma is a struggle for life and dignity.”

In view of the ongoing inhumane violations in Myanmar , the US and its western allies, which keep pontificating about human rights in the world, have feigned ignorance about this humanitarian catastrophe. Why? Because they will not be able to reap any benefits of their future efforts in the country as they do in the Middle East and elsewhere. To crown it all, they have kept an agonizingly meaningful silence over the massacre. It is certainly incumbent upon every person who cares about human dignity to fly in the face of this inhumanity and give a helping hand to the downtrodden Myanmar Muslims.

By Abdul Majid Zargar

29 July, 2012

Countercurrents.org

(The author is a practicing chartered Accountant. Feed back at amzargar1@indiatimes.com)

The human race stands on the verge of nuclear self-extinction as a species, and with it will die most, if not all, forms of intelligent life on the planet earth. Any attempt to dispel the ideology of nuclearism and its attendant myth propounding the legality of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence must directly come to grips with the fact that the nuclear age was conceived in the original sins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined by the Nuremberg Charter of August 8, 1945, and violated several basic provisions of the Regulations annexed to Hague Convention No. 4 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907), the rules of customary international law set forth in the Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare (1923), and the United States War Department Field Manual 27-10, Rules of Land Warfare (1940). According to this Field Manual and the Nuremberg Principles, all civilian government officials and military officers who ordered or knowingly participated in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been lawfully punished as war criminals. The start of any progress toward resolving humankind’s nuclear predicament must come from the realization that nuclear weapons have never been legitimate instruments of state policy, but rather have always constituted illegitimate instrumentalities of internationally lawless and criminal behavior.

THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The use of nuclear weapons in combat was, and still is, absolutely prohibited under all circumstances by both conventional and customary international law: e.g., the Nuremberg Principles, the Hague Regulations of 1907, the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977, etc. In addition, the use of nuclear weapons would also specifically violate several fundamental resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly that have repeatedly condemned the use of nuclear weapons as an international crime.

Consequently, according to the Nuremberg Judgment, soldiers would be obliged to disobey egregiously illegal orders with respect to launching and waging a nuclear war. Second, all government officials and military officers who might nevertheless launch or wage a nuclear war would be personally responsible for the commission of Nuremberg crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol 1, and genocide, among other international crimes. Third, such individuals would not be entitled to the defenses of superior orders, act of state, tu quoque, self-defense, presidential authority, etc. Fourth, such individuals could thus be quite legitimately and

most severely punished as war criminals, up to and including the imposition of the death penalty, without limitation of time.

THE THREAT TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter of 1945 prohibits both the threat and the use of force except in cases of legitimate self-defense as recognized by article 51 thereof. But although the requirement of legitimate self-defense is a necessary precondition for the legality of any threat or use of force, it is certainly not sufficient. For the legality of any threat or use of force must also take into account the customary and conventional international laws of humanitarian armed conflict.

Thereunder, the threat to use nuclear weapons (i.e., nuclear deterrence/terrorism) constitutes ongoing international criminal activity: namely, planning, preparation, solicitation and conspiracy to commit Nuremberg crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocol I of 1977, the Hague Regulations of 1907, and the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, inter alia. These are the so-called inchoate crimes that under the Nuremberg Principles constitute international crimes in their own right.

The conclusion is inexorable that the design, research, testing, production, manufacture, fabrication, transportation, deployment, installation, maintenance, storing, stockpiling, sale, and purchase as well as the threat to use nuclear weapons together with all their essential accouterments are criminal under well-recognized principles of international law. Thus, those government decision-makers in all the nuclear weapons states with command responsibility for their nuclear weapons establishments are today subject to personal criminal responsibility under the Nuremberg Principles for this criminal practice of nuclear deterrence/terrorism that they have daily inflicted upon all states and peoples of the international community. Here I wish to single out four components of the threat to use nuclear weapons that are especially reprehensible from an international law perspective: counter-ethnic targeting; counter-city targeting; first-strike weapons and contingency plans; and the first-use of nuclear weapons even to repel a conventional attack.

THE CRIMINALITY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

As can be determined in part from the preceding analysis, today’s nuclear weapons establishments as well as the entire system of nuclear deterrence/terrorism currently practiced by all the nuclear weapon states are criminal — not simply illegal, not simply immoral, but criminal under well established principles of international law. This simple idea of the criminality of nuclear weapons can be utilized to pierce through the ideology of nuclearism to which many citizens in the nuclear weapons states have succumbed. It is with this simple idea of the criminality of nuclear weapons that concerned citizens can proceed to comprehend the inherent illegitimacy and fundamental lawlessness of the policies that their governments pursue in their names with respect to the maintenance and further development of nuclear weapons systems.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE/TERRORISM

Humankind must abolish nuclear weapons before nuclear weapons abolish humankind. Nonetheless, a small number of governments in the world community continue to maintain nuclear weapons systems despite the rules of international criminal law to the contrary. This has led some international lawyers to argue quite tautologically and disingenuously that since there exist a few nuclear weapons states in the world community, therefore nuclear weapons must somehow not be criminal because otherwise these few states would not possess nuclear weapons systems. In other words, to use lawyers’ parlance, this minority state practice of nuclear deterrence/terrorism practiced by the great powers somehow negates the existence of a world opinio juris (i.e., sense of legal obligation) as to the criminality of nuclear weapons.

There is a very simple response to that specious argument: Since when has a small gang of criminals — in this case, the nuclear weapons states — been able to determine what is legal or illegal for the rest of the community by means of their own criminal behavior? What right do these nuclear weapons states have to argue that by means of their own criminal behavior they have ipso facto made criminal acts legitimate? No civilized nation state would permit a small gang of criminal conspirators to pervert its domestic legal order in this manner. Moreover, both the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Tokyo Tribunal made it quite clear that a conspiratorial band of criminal states likewise has no right to opt out of the international legal order by means of invoking their own criminal behavior as the least common denominator of international deportment. Ex iniuria ius non oritur is a peremptory norm of customary international law. Right cannot grow out of injustice!

To the contrary, the entire human race has been victimized by an international conspiracy of ongoing criminal activity carried out by the nuclear weapons states under the doctrine known as “nuclear deterrence,” which is really a euphemism for “nuclear terrorism.” This international criminal conspiracy of nuclear deterrence/terrorism currently practiced by the nuclear weapons states is no different from any other conspiracy by a criminal gang or band. They are the outlaws. So it is up to the rest of the international community to repress and dissolve this international criminal conspiracy as soon as possible.

THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ANTI-NUCLEAR CIVIL RESISTANCE

In light of the fact that nuclear weapons systems are prohibited, illegal, and criminal under all circumstances and for any reason, every person around the world possesses a basic human right to be free from this criminal practice of nuclear deterrence/terrorism and its concomitant specter of nuclear extinction. Thus, all human beings possess the basic right under international law to engage in non-violent civil resistance activities for the purpose of preventing, impeding, or terminating the ongoing commission of these international crimes. Every citizen of the world community has both the right and the duty to oppose the existence of nuclear weapons systems by whatever non-violent means are at his or her disposal. Otherwise, the human race will suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs, and the planet earth will become a radioactive wasteland. The time for preventive action is now!

By Francis A. Boyle

05 August, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010).

Has there ever been a Middle Eastern war of such hypocrisy? A war of such cowardice and such mean morality, of such false rhetoric and such public humiliation? I’m not talking about the physical victims of the Syrian tragedy. I’m referring to the utter lies and mendacity of our masters and our own public opinion – eastern as well as western – in response to the slaughter, a vicious pantomime more worthy of Swiftian satire than Tolstoy or Shakespeare.

While Qatar and Saudi Arabia arm and fund the rebels of Syria to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite/Shia-Baathist dictatorship, Washington mutters not a word of criticism against them. President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, say they want a democracy in Syria. But Qatar is an autocracy and Saudi Arabia is among the most pernicious of caliphate-kingly-dictatorships in the Arab world. Rulers of both states inherit power from their families – just as Bashar has done – and Saudi Arabia is an ally of the Salafist-Wahabi rebels in Syria, just as it was the most fervent supporter of the medieval Taliban during Afghanistan’s dark ages.

Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijacker-mass murderers of 11 September, 2001, came from Saudi Arabia – after which, of course, we bombed Afghanistan. The Saudis are repressing their own Shia minority just as they now wish to destroy the Alawite-Shia minority of Syria. And we believe Saudi Arabia wants to set up a democracy in Syria?

Then we have the Shia Hezbollah party/militia in Lebanon, right hand of Shia Iran and supporter of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. For 30 years, Hezbollah has defended the oppressed Shias of southern Lebanon against Israeli aggression. They have presented themselves as the defenders of Palestinian rights in the West Bank and Gaza. But faced with the slow collapse of their ruthless ally in Syria, they have lost their tongue. Not a word have they uttered – nor their princely Sayed Hassan Nasrallah – about the rape and mass murder of Syrian civilians by Bashar’s soldiers and “Shabiha” militia.

Then we have the heroes of America – La Clinton, the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Obama himself. Clinton issues a “stern warning” to Assad. Panetta – the same man who repeated to the last US forces in Iraq that old lie about Saddam’s connection to 9/11 – announces that things are “spiralling out of control” in Syria. They have been doing that for at least six months. Has he just realized? And then Obama told us last week that “given the regime’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, we will continue to make it clear to Assad … that the world is watching”. Now, was it not a County Cork newspaper called the Skibbereen Eagle, fearful of Russia’s designs on China, which declared that it was “keeping an eye … on the Tsar of Russia”? Now it is Obama’s turn to emphasize how little clout he has in the mighty conflicts of the world. How Bashar must be shaking in his boots.

But what US administration would really want to see Bashar’s atrocious archives of torture opened to our gaze? Why, only a few years ago, the Bush administration was sending Muslims to Damascus for Bashar’s torturers to tear their fingernails out for information, imprisoned at the US government’s request in the very hell-hole which Syrian rebels blew to bits last week. Western embassies dutifully supplied the prisoners’ tormentors with questions for the victims. Bashar, you see, was our baby.

Then there’s that neighboring country which owes us so much gratitude: Iraq. Last week, it suffered in one day 29 bombing attacks in 19 cities, killing 111 civilian and wounding another 235. The same day, Syria’s bloodbath consumed about the same number of innocents. But Iraq was “down the page” from Syria, buried “below the fold”, as we journalists say; because, of course, we gave freedom to Iraq, Jeffersonian democracy, etc, etc, didn’t we? So this slaughter to the east of Syria didn’t have quite the same impact, did it? Nothing we did in 2003 led to Iraq’s suffering today. Right?

And talking of journalism, who in BBC World News decided that even the preparations for the Olympics should take precedence all last week over Syrian outrages? British newspapers and the BBC in Britain will naturally lead with the Olympics as a local story. But in a lamentable decision, the BBC – broadcasting “world” news to the world – also decided that the passage of the Olympic flame was more important than dying Syrian children, even when it has its own courageous reporter sending his dispatches directly from Aleppo.

Then, of course, there’s us, our dear liberal selves who are so quick to fill the streets of London in protest at the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. Rightly so, of course. When our political leaders are happy to condemn Arabs for their savagery but too timid to utter a word of the mildest criticism when the Israeli army commits crimes against humanity – or watches its allies do it in Lebanon – ordinary people have to remind the world that they are not as timid as the politicians. But when the scorecard of death in Syria reaches 15,000 or 19,000 – perhaps 14 times as many fatalities as in Israel’s savage 2008-2009 onslaught on Gaza – scarcely a single protester, save for Syrian expatriates abroad, walks the streets to condemn these crimes against humanity. Israel’s crimes have not been on this scale since 1948. Rightly or wrongly, the message that goes out is simple: we demand justice and the right to life for Arabs if they are butchered by the West and its Israeli allies; but not when they are being butchered by their fellow Arabs.

And all the while, we forget the “big” truth. That this is an attempt to crush the Syrian dictatorship not because of our love for Syrians or our hatred of our former friend Bashar al-Assad, or because of our outrage at Russia, whose place in the pantheon of hypocrites is clear when we watch its reaction to all the little Stalingrads across Syria. No, this is all about Iran and our desire to crush the Islamic Republic and its infernal nuclear plans – if they exist – and has nothing to do with human rights or the right to life or the death of Syrian babies. Quelle horreur!

By Robert Fisk

29 July, 2012

@The Independent

Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper. He is the author of many books on the region, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.

© 2012 Independent/UK