Archives: Articles

By Franklin Lamb

09 July, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Dahiyeh, Beirut: This observer’s neighbors seemed to believe, especially over the past year, as most of us did, that the war in Syria would, in one form or another, spill into our neighborhood, Dahiyeh, the Hezbollah stronghold in south Beirut near the Shatila and Burj el Barajeh Palestinian refugee camps.

And now it has with a vengeance.

As this observer left his flat this morning and walked toward his motorbike on Abbas Mousawi Street en route to Shatila Palestinian Camp for a 10:30 a.m. appointment, at precisely 10:15 a.m. there was a tremendously loud blast. It seemed to shake our massive 12 story apartment building which had been rebuilt by the WAAD (“promise”) Hezbollah construction enterprise, from the mountain of rubble it was turned into in July of 2006. Leveled as most in the neighborhood were, by American weapons in the service of the Zionist regime still occupying Palestine.

Contrary to media reports, the blast was not on my street, Abass Mousawi, behind Bahman Hospital, but rather down a side street one block over and two east toward the Hezbollah media office near the Hezbollah sponsored Islamic Cooperation Center in the area of Bir al-Abed. The explosion occurred close to the Coop supermarket and Salah Ghandour Square.

Jumping on my motorbike I was one of the first to arrive on the scene face to face with an inferno that initially seemed to engulf ten or so cars in a parking lot surrounded by eight or nine Waad built high-rise apartment buildings, being a few of the more than 250 residential buildings in our neighborhood leveled during the 33 day July 2006 war.

Finally, it seemed like an eternity, two fire trucks arrived and made their way thru the rapidly expanding chaos as nearby residential buildings with windows blown out started to empty of their inhabitants amidst fears that another blast may be triggered. A few men joined this observer in pulling the very long hoses close to the inferno as medics arrived and searched for injured. At press time, 38 neighbors were treated, including several children, at nearby Bahman Hospital and others rushed to Rasoul al-Alham hospital and Cardiac Care Center, ten minutes away on airport road.

I observed a six feet by six feet by around eight foot deep crater at the blast site. As I watched the Red Crescent and Hezbollah emergency services staff care for the injured and the many who were traumatized, the crowd quickly grew to a few thousand, with fear, shock and anger spreading. Many elderly slumped against walls and curbs dazed while neighbor helped neighbor, especially the young to cope with the effects of the blast which shattered windows and caused serious damage to several nearby residential buildings, including cracks in their walls. There was much panic and shouting, with crying turning to anger and with people caring for the elderly and children with apartment building entrances set up as emergency treatment areas and neighbors helping neighboring reassure one another.

The Hezbollah neighborhood of Dahiyeh has been for years considered the safest residential area of Beirut due to strong Hezbollah security measures which over the past year have been intensified including the use of packs of explosive sniffing dogs moving up and across the streets and alleys, usually around three in the morning I have noticed since I often work during the night when its cooler and more quiet, and hearing a barking dog is very rare around here. More scrutiny-security cameras have been placed on utility poles and on rooftopss, with security personnel frequently stopping and questioning new arrivals or visitors to the area and at time residents told not to go to their roofs.

Yet, as Syria’s President Bashar Assad noted several months ago, despite intensive security measures taken in Damascus, it is still very difficult to prevent car bombings.

The speculation has already started concerning who committed this act of terrorism, one day before the start of the Holy Month of Ramadan. Whoever is was, cause the carnage by booby trapping a 1998 Renault Rapid. No one has yet claimed credit and likely will not. Hezbollah’s International Relations official Hizbullah MP Ali Ammar told al-Manar that the blast was carried out by the supporters of the so-called American-Israeli project. “There are clear Israeli fingerprints,” Ammar said as he inspected the damage.

The Bir al-Abed bombing , not far the William Casey ordered 1985 CIA bombing that targeted Sayed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, in which 80 citizens were murdered and more than 200 wounded, is interpreted but some of the residents in my building, two families so far telling me they will move, as simply a message for Hezbollah to leave Syria. Because if it was a typical al Qaeda operation aiming at maximum civilian deaths, detonating the blast a few hundred yards in any direction would have left many more victims, according to a Hezbollah bomb specialist.

This observer counted 15 destroyed vehicles and more than 20 damaged. A fierce fire erupted among some of the vehicles sending thick black smoke billowing high into the sky. I also saw gentlemen who I assumed was the parking lot attendant badly wounded. Another wounded man near him seemed also to be in serious condition.

Reuters has reported five were killed but Hezbollah is denying this report and I met the Hezbollah Media director on the scene and his job was to get the facts straight before the Party of God made any announcements.

For many in my neighborhood, a major concern is that Syria’s troubles will reopen the wounds of Lebanon’s long civil war but this time with the Sunnis community, which by and large supports the Syrian opposition, being pitted against Hezbollah, the powerful Shite led Resistance organization which supports Syria President Bashar Assad.

A reliable Hezbollah source has just advised this observer that 53 have been wounded but so far no confirmed fatalities stood at 53. This is the second time this year that the Hezbollah stronghold has come under attack following threats of retaliation by Syrian rebels.

The concierge of my building just reported that as of 4 p.m. Beirut time on 7/9/2013, two suspects have been arrested following the blast.

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and Syria and is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

By Dr Gideon Polya

05 July, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

The 4th of July is Independence Day for the United States of America and commemorates the 4 July 1776 Declaration of Independence for America, the key passage of which is “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” Unfortunately American racism has grossly violated the proposition that “all men are created equal” and the worst form of racism involves invasion of other countries. The US has invaded about 70 countries since its inception and has invaded a total of about 50 countries since 1945 [1]. The World needs to declare a transition from the 4th of July as Independence for America Day to the 4th of July as Independence from America Day.

The following is a list of countries invaded by the US forces  (naval, military and ultimately air forces) since its inception in order of major incidents. This catalogue derives heavily form the work of US academic Dr Zoltan Grossman’s article “From Wounded Knee to Libya : a century of U.S. military interventions”   [1], Gideon Polya’s book ‘Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (that includes a brief history of all countries since Neolithic times) [2] and William Blum’s book “ Rogue State ” [3]. This list includes instances of violent deployment of US forces within America (e.g. against demonstrators, miners etc), and includes small-scale bombing and military intervention operations, military evacuations of Americans and specific instances of explicit threats of use of nuclear weapons. The list does not include the 1801-1805 US Marine Barbary War operations against Barbary pirates based in Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia and Libya , and also ignores massive US subversion of virtually all countries in the world.

(1) American Indian nations (1776 onwards, American Indian Genocide; 1803, Louisiana Purchase; 1844, Indians banned from east of the Mississippi; 1861 onwards, California genocide; 1890, Lakota Indians massacre), (2) Mexico (1836-1846; 1913; 1914-1918; 1923), (3) Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896; 1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990), (4) American forces deployed against Americans (1861-1865, Civil War; 1892; 1894; 1898; 1899-1901; 1901; 1914; 1915; 1920-1921; 1932; 1943; 1967; 1968; 1970; 1973; 1992; 2001), (5), Argentina (1890), (6), Chile (1891; 1973), (7) Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005), (8) Hawaii (1893-), (9) China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958), (10) Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953), (11) Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-), (12) Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-), (13) Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962), (14) Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; ); (15) Guam (1898-), (16) Samoa (1899-), (17) Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989), (18) Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966),  (19) Germany (1917-1918; 1941-1945; 1948; 1961), (20) Russia (1918-1922), (21) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (22) Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967), (23) Turkey (1922), (24) El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992),  (25) Italy (1941-1945); (26) Morocco (1941-1945), (27) France (1941-1945), (28) Algeria (1941-1945), (29) Tunisia (1941-1945), (30) Libya (1941-1945; 1981; 1986;  1989; 2011), (31) Egypt (1941-1945; 1956; 1967; 1973; 2013), (32) India (1941-1945),  (33) Burma (1941-1945), (34) Micronesia (1941-1945), (35) Papua New Guinea (1941-1945), (36) Vanuatu (1941-1945), (37) Austria (1941-1945), (38) Hungary (1941-1945), (39) Japan (1941-1945), (40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), (41) Uruguay (1947), (42) Greece (1947-1949), (43) Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975), (44) Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984), (45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011),  (46) Laos (1962-), (47) Indonesia (1965), (48) Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975), (49) Oman (1970), (50) Laos (1971-1973),  (51) Angola (1976-1992), (52) Grenada (1983-1984), (53) Bolivia (1986; ), (54) Virgin Islands (1989), (55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (57) Kuwait (1991), (58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (59) Bosnia (1993-), (60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (61) Albania (1997), (62) Sudan (1998), (63) Afghanistan (1998;  2001-), (64) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (65) Macedonia (2001),  (66) Colombia (2002-), (67)  Pakistan (2005-), (68) Syria (2008; 2011-), (69) Uganda (2011), (70) Mali (2013), (71) Niger (2013).

The human cost of these US interventions has been horrendous. A major component of war- or hegemony-related deaths is represented by avoidable deaths from violently-imposed deprivation. Since 1950 the UN has provided detailed demographic data that have permitted calculation of such avoidable deaths, year by year, for every country in the world. 1950-2005 avoidable deaths total 1.3 billion for the whole world, 1.2 billion for the non-European world and 0.6 billion for the Muslim world [2], the latter carnage being 100 times greater than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million Jews killed, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation) [4, 5} or the “forgotten” WW2 Bengali Holocaust in which the British with Australian complicity deliberately starved 6-7 million Indians to death for strategic reasons [6].  Currently 18 million people die avoidably each year in the Developing World on Spaceship Earth with the US in charge of the flight deck.

Here is a summary of post-1950 avoidable mortality/ 2005 population (both in millions, m) and expressed as a percentage (%) for each country occupied by the US in the post-1945 era. The asterisk (*) indicates a major occupation by more than one country in the post-WW2 era (thus, for example,  the UK and the US have been major occupiers of Afghanistan , Iraq and Korea , leaving aside the many other minor participants in these conflicts). Data is also given for the US: US [8.455m/300.038m = 2.8%],  Afghanistan* [16.609m/25.971m = 64.0%], Cambodia* [5.852m/14.825m = 39.5%], Dominican Republic [0.806m/8.998m = 9.0%], Federated States of Micronesia [0.016m/0.111m = 14.4%], Greece* [0.027m/10.978m = 0.2%], Grenada* [0.018m/0.121m = 14.9%], Guam [0.005m/0.168m = 3.0%], Haiti* [4.089m/8.549m = 47.9%], Iraq* [5.283m/26.555m = 19.9%], Korea* [7.958m/71.058m = 11.2%], Laos* [2.653m/5.918m = 44.8%], Panama [0.172m/3.235m = 5.3%], Philippines [9.080m/82.809m = 11.0%], Puerto Rico [0.039m/3.915m = 1.0%], Somalia* [5.568m/10.742m = 51.8%], US Virgin Islands [0.003m/0.113m = 2.4%], Vietnam* [24.015m/83.585m = 28.7%], total = 82.193m/357.651m = 23.0%.

Thus in the period 1950-2005 there have been 82 million avoidable deaths from deprivation (avoidable mortality, excess deaths, excess mortality , deaths that did not have to happen) associated with countries  occupied by the US in the post-1945 era. However the US has subcontracted a huge amount of violence to nuclear terrorist, democracy-by-genocide, racist Zionist-run Apartheid Israel for which the related data is as follows: Apartheid Israel [0.095m/6.685m =1.4%] – Egypt* [19.818m/74.878m = 26.5%], Jordan* [0.630m/5.750m = 11.0%], Lebanon [0.535m/3.761m = 14.2%], Occupied Palestinian Territories* [0.677m/3.815m = 17.7%], Syria* [2.198m/18.650m = 11.8%], total = 23.858m/106.854 = 22.3% i.e. Apartheid Israeli aggression has been associated in 1950-2005 with 24 million avoidable deaths in the countries  it has violently  occupied, a carnage similar to that caused by the German Nazis in Russia duringWW2.

Except for the Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust of over 1.3 billion avoidable deaths since 1950 and 18 million avoidable deaths per year, the above analysis does not take into account US subversion of virtually every country on earth. One visible expression of this subversion is the presence of US forces in hundreds of bases around the world. Thus the Saudi Arabia-occupied Bahrain dictatorship is not listed above but is a major base for the US Navy.

According to Canadian geographer Professor Jules Dufour : “The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of  an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain. The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide…In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “ U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War’ ”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries. The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).” [7].

How does your country feature  in the history of the genocidally racist American Empire?

My country Australia, one of the richest and most peaceful countries in the world, is popularly known as the Lucky Country because of this good fortune. However since the US forced Japan into WW2 [6] , Australia has shifted its allegiance from the UK to the US and has become the American  Lackey Country. Appalled by the Vietnam War, the reformist Whitlam Labor Government (1972-1975) promised to get out of Vietnam and abolish racism and also sought clarity on Australia ‘s role in US nuclear terrorism. Whitlam was sacked in a CIA-backed Coup in 1975 [3]. A cowardly Australian Labor Party (aka the Australian Lackey Party)  quickly realized that the only way top get back into office was to adopt a craven “All the way with the USA” position and leading Labor figures became intimate with the Americans. When in the 2004 election campaign Labor Opposition Leader Mark Latham promised to bring Australian troops back from Iraq “by Christmas” he was publicly rebuked and vetoed by the US Ambassador, lost the election and has been reviled and ridiculed by the pro-war, pro-Zionist, US lackey Australian Mainstream media and MPs ever since.

In 2010 extremely popular Labor PM Kevin Rudd raised the ire of the Americans by suggesting destruction of US- protected  Afghan opium crops that were destroyed by the Taliban in 2000-2001 but restored by the US to 93% of world market share by 2007 and which have killed over 1 million people world-wide since 2001  (including 200,000 Americans, 50,000 Iranians, 18,000 British, 10,000 Canadians, 8,000 Germans and 4,000 Australians) [8]. Kevin Rudd also raised the ire of the traitorous racist Zionists by mildly protesting the large-scale Apartheid Israeli forging of Australian passports for Israel state terrorism purposes and the kidnapping, shooting,  tasering, robbing and imprisonment of Australians in international waters by Israeli state terrorists. On 24 June 2010 PM Kevin Rudd was removed by a US -approved, foreign mining company-backed, pro-Zionist-led Coup. Rudd’s pro-war, pro-Zionist and slavishly pro-American successor PM Julia Gillard rapidly moved to allow the US to station 2,500 child-killing Marines in Darwin with suggestions of bases for US nuclear–armed warships, US drones and US warplanes. Nevertheless WikiLeaks revealed that 2 of the Coup plotters were US “assets” who would regularly update the American Embassy about internal Labor Government  matters. The disastrous and extremely unpopular Gillard Government [9] has finally recently been replaced by a new Rudd Labor Government and it appears  that PM Rudd has learned his lesson  and is evidently  shifting Right to keep Big Business and the Neocon American and Zionist  Imperialist Lobby happy (he hasn’t much choice – 70% of Australian newspaper readers read the media of extreme right-wing, Australian-turned-US-citizen, media mogul Rupert Murdoch in Murdochracy, Lobbyocracy and Corporatocracy Australia).

Conclusions.

America has invaded 70 countries since its 4th of July Independence Day in 1776. American imperialism has made a major contribution to the 1.3 billion global avoidable deaths in the period 1950-2005. The Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist One Percenters can be seen as the New Nazis. The World, including ordinary Americans  (1 million of whom die preventably each year) [10],   must shake off the shackles of endless American One Percenter warmongering, imperialism and mendacity. The World must make the Fourth of July Independence from America Day. Tell everyone you can.

References.

[1]. Dr Zoltan Grossman, “From Wounded Knee to Libya : a century of U.S. military interventions”,  ” http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html .

[2]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, now available for free perusal on the web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/body-count-global-avoidable-mortality_05.html .

[3]. William Blum, “ Rogue State ”.

[4]. Martin Gilbert, “Jewish History Atlas”.

[5]. Martin Gilbert, “Atlas of the Holocaust”.

[6]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, now available for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com.au/  .

[7]. Jules Dufour, “The world-wide network of US military bases”, Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564 .

[8]. “Afghan Holocaust Afghan Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ .

[9]. Gideon Polya, “100 reasons why Australians must reject Gillard Labor”, Countercurrents, 24 June, 2013 : http://www.countercurrents.org/polya240613.htm .

[10]. Gideon Polya, “One million Americans die preventably annually in USA ”,  Countercurrents, 18 February 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya180212.htm .

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

By John Pilger

05 July 13

@ Guardian UK

Imagine the aircraft of the president of France being forced down in Latin America on “suspicion” that it was carrying a political refugee to safety – and not just any refugee but someone who has provided the people of the world with proof of criminal activity on an epic scale.

Imagine the response from Paris, let alone the “international community”, as the governments of the west call themselves. To a chorus of baying indignation from Whitehall to Washington, Brussels to Madrid, heroic special forces would be dispatched to rescue their leader and, as sport, smash up the source of such flagrant international gangsterism. Editorials would cheer them on, perhaps reminding readers that this kind of piracy was exhibited by the German Reich in the 1930s.

The forcing down of Bolivian President Evo Morales’s plane – denied airspace by France, Spain and Portugal, followed by his 14-hour confinement while Austrian officials demanded to “inspect” his aircraft for the “fugitive” Edward Snowden – was an act of air piracy and state terrorism. It was a metaphor for the gangsterism that now rules the world and the cowardice and hypocrisy of bystanders who dare not speak its name.

In Moscow, Morales had been asked about Snowden – who remains trapped in the city’s airport. “If there were a request [for political asylum],” he said, “of course, we would be willing to debate and consider the idea.” That was clearly enough provocation for the Godfather. “We have been in touch with a range of countries that had a chance of having Snowden land or travel through their country,” said a US state department official.

The French – having squealed about Washington spying on their every move, as revealed by Snowden – were first off the mark, followed by the Portuguese. The Spanish then did their bit by enforcing a flight ban of their airspace, giving the Godfather’s Viennese hirelings enough time to find out if Snowden was indeed invoking article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

Those paid to keep the record straight have played their part with a cat-and-mouse media game that reinforces the Godfather’s lie that this heroic young man is running from a system of justice, rather than preordained, vindictive incarceration that amounts to torture – ask Bradley Manning and the living ghosts in Guantánamo.

Historians seem to agree that the rise of fascism in Europe might have been averted had the liberal or left political class understood the true nature of its enemy. The parallels today are very different, but the Damocles sword over Snowden, like the casual abduction of Bolivia’s president, ought to stir us into recognising the true nature of the enemy.

Snowden’s revelations are not merely about privacy, or civil liberty, or even mass spying. They are about the unmentionable: that the democratic facades of the US now barely conceal a systematic gangsterism historically identified with, if not necessarily the same as, fascism. On Tuesday, a US drone killed 16 people in North Waziristan, “where many of the world’s most dangerous militants live”, said the few paragraphs I read. That by far the world’s most dangerous militants had hurled the drones was not a consideration. President Obama personally sends them every Tuesday.

In his acceptance of the 2005 Nobel prize in literature, Harold Pinter referred to “a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed”. He asked why “the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities” of the Soviet Union were well known in the west while America’s crimes were “superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged”. The most enduring silence of the modern era covered the extinction and dispossession of countless human beings by a rampant US and its agents. “But you wouldn’t know it,” said Pinter. “It never happened. Even while it was happening it never happened.”

This hidden history – not really hidden, of course, but excluded from the consciousness of societies drilled in American myths and priorities – has never been more vulnerable to exposure. Snowden’s whistleblowing, like that of Manning and Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, threatens to break the silence Pinter described. In revealing a vast Orwellian police state apparatus servicing history’s greatest war-making machine, they illuminate the true extremism of the 21st century. Unprecedented, Germany’s Der Spiegel has described the Obama administration as “soft totalitarianism”. If the penny is falling, we might all look closer to home.

By Robert J. Burrowes

04 July, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Some people have accused Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden of being traitors. But this obscures a deeper and more important question.

If the government of the United States is engaged in endless acts of lawless violence, as the documentary evidence clearly demonstrates, (See Fred Branfman, ‘World’s Most Evil and Lawless Institution? The Executive Branch of the U.S. Government’: http://www.alternet.org/investigations/executive-branch-evil-and-lawless) then it is not Manning and Snowden who are the traitors for providing evidence of this violence and the surveillance necessary to carry it out. The real traitors are all of those other employees of intelligence agencies who say nothing while they collaborate with the endless and often secret perpetration of violence by the U.S. government and its allied governments in our name.

Why does this matter? It matters because it tells us that thousands of individuals are willing to collaborate, without the intervention of analytical thought, compassionate feeling or conscience, with the use of violence. And that bodes ill for our society.

Collaborators and traitors take many forms: they are prevalent in warfare but common in ‘ordinary’ society as well, and labels such as ‘scab labourer’ are used to describe them. Most frequently, they are those relatives and friends who ‘stab you in the back’. Why do so many people collaborate with perpetrators of violence? See ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence An understanding of their psychological profile will tell us this.

First, collaborators are terrified and they are particularly terrified of those individuals (usually one or both parents or other significant adults) who perpetrated violence against them when they were a child although this terror and, remarkably, the identity of their perpetrator(s) remain unconscious to them. Second, because they are terrified, they are unable to defend themselves against the original perpetrator(s) but also, as a result, they are unable to defend themselves against other perpetrators who attack them later in life.

This lack of capacity to defend themself leads to a third feeling – a deep sense of powerlessness. Thus, terrified, defenceless and powerless, some victims will try to placate the perpetrator. Victims who resort to placation, the fourth attribute of collaborators, will invariably fear those individuals who resist the perpetrator’s violence, will usually perceive resistance to violence as ‘morally wrong’ and perhaps even perceive any resistance to violence (including explicitly nonviolent resistance) as ‘violent’, because their own fear of resisting perpetrators is now so deeply embedded in their unconscious that any form of resistance is considered futile and likely to provoke further perpetrator violence. And this ‘violates’ their powerless ‘strategy’ of placation.

The strategy of placation is also attractive to collaborators because they have a warped sense of empathy and sympathy, the fifth attribute. They will have empathy and sympathy for the perpetrators of violence, rather than the perpetrator’s victims, as an outcome of how they were emotionally damaged as a child.

Having unconsciously ‘chosen’ collaboration and betrayal as a means of ‘defending’ themselves against personal victimisation, the collaborator will now acquire a deep sense of self-hatred (precisely because they cannot defend themselves and now betray others) which, in turn, will negate any remaining sense of personal self-worth.

However, it is too terrifying and painful for the collaborator/traitor to be conscious of any of these feelings, so they will usually exhibit an eighth attribute if challenged: self-righteous justification for their collaboration/betrayal often expressed in either ideological/religious terms or as sympathy for the perpetrator.

One version of this occurs when collaborators justify their collaboration with perpetrators of violence in terms of a supposed ‘obligation to obey’, although they might not use this precise language: many collaborators will characterise their obedience as ‘loyalty’, ‘support’ or ‘helpfulness’ in order to mask from themselves the fear that drives their submissive behaviour. For collaborators, the importance of obedience also far outweighs any sense of personal moral choice, if the idea of personal moral choice makes any sense to them at all. If you are scared to resist violence, then you must make a virtue out of submission and obedience.

Penultimately, collaborators/traitors invariably exhibit a ninth attribute: they unconsciously project their fear and self-hatred, as outcomes of their own victimhood, as fear of and hatred for the perpetrator’s victims.

Finally, as a result of all of the above, the collaborator will exhibit a tenth attribute: the delusion that they are ‘in control’; that is, they are no longer (and never were) the victim of violence themselves. Tragically, of course, this delusion is a trap: an individual is never safe in the role of collaborator. The perpetrator might turn on them at any time.

Collaborators and traitors learn their ‘craft’ during childhood. Most usually it will originate when a parent terrorises the child (by threatening and/or inflicting violence) into collaborating with this parent against the other parent and/or the child’s siblings. Sometimes it originates when a teacher terrorises the child into collaborating with the teacher against the child’s fellow students, perhaps to find out who was responsible for some minor ‘wrongdoing’.

Once the child has betrayed its siblings or classmates, it will usually need the ‘protection’ of the violent parent or teacher as a ‘defence’ against any retaliation by its siblings or classmates. Hence, it will become ‘locked’ into the role of collaborator/traitor out of fear of the perpetrator’s violence against it as well as fear of the violent retaliation of siblings or classmates. This, of course, suits the perpetrator.

The collaborator will perform this role throughout their life as they now unconsciously recognise and identify with those who are most violent, including state authorities that inflict ‘legitimised’ violence on those individuals perceived as ‘enemies’ or ‘criminals’.

If you wish to publicly identify yourself as someone who will not collaborate with violence, you are welcome to sign online ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ http://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com

Robert has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is at http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com

By Johannes Stern & Alex Lantier

04 July, 2013

@ WSWS.org

The ouster of Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi, following four days of nationwide mass protests, has placed power in the hands of a military junta which is committed to the defense of the economic interests of the country’s ruling class and to the geo-political aims of American imperialism.

The removal of the hated Mursi regime has evoked jubilation. However sincere and deeply felt this sentiment may be, the fact is that Mursi’s overthrow has placed the army, not the masses, in power. None of the essential demands that motivated the mass protests—for decent jobs, livable wages, adequate social services, and democratic rights—will be met by the military regime.

The military has intervened for one overriding purpose: to pre-empt and suppress the growing political movement of the Egyptian working class. The coalition government that it unveiled last night is in no way a genuine expression of the democratic strivings of the working class. Rather, the new ruling structure is a sinister coalition of reactionary forces, which includes long-time henchmen of Hosni Mubarak, various Islamic politicians, and several liberal politicians with close connections to the US-based International Monetary Fund. None of the individuals and organizations has either a mass social base or advances a popular social program.

After seizing control of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) television stations and reportedly arresting Mursi, the head of the military junta, General Abdul Fatah Khalil Al-Sisi, unveiled a political “road map” that includes the immediate suspension of the constitution and the formation of a so-called “national technocratic” government.

The term “technocratic” is being bandied about to evoke the image of politically neutral experts who stand above partisan class interests. In reality, the so-called “technocrats” are steeped in the reactionary nostrums of the international banks.

The anti-working class character of the government emerges clearly from examining the list of reactionaries who flanked al-Sisi as he announced his “road map” yesterday evening. These included several generals, Coptic pope Tawadros II, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, and opposition politicians including National Salvation Front (NSF) leader and former UN official Mohamed ElBaradei, Younis Makhioun of the far-right Salafist Al Nour Party, and Mahmoud Badr of the opposition Tamarod (“Rebel”) coalition.

Each one of these figures was selected to create the impression of broad support for the new regime across key political and religious divides in Egypt.

The army chose the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Adly Mansour, as president. Mohamed ElBaradei has been named prime minister. There are vague promises of early elections.

Mansour had long ties to the old Mubarak regime. ElBaradei, who worked for years as an official of the United Nations, has close ties to the economic and foreign policy establishment of the United States. ElBaradei supports austerity measures worked out in talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which favors cuts to subsidies for basic goods such as grain and fuel.

In the political maneuvers that set the stage for the military coup, a key role has been played by the Tamarod coalition. This is a thoroughly pro-capitalist political movement. Founded at the end of April as a campaign to collect signatures against Mursi, it quickly became a rallying point for a range of opposition parties—liberal, Islamist and pseudo-left alike—and remnants of the former Mubarak regime who oppose the MB. Its supporters include El Baradei’s NSF, the Islamist Strong Egypt Party of former MB member Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, the April 6 Youth Movement, and the pseudo-left Revolutionary Socialists (RS). The movement also accepted an endorsement from General Ahmed Shafiq, the last prime minister under Mubarak.

Although the United States had been backing Mursi, the Obama administration entered into talks with the Egyptian military once it became clear that the regime could not be saved. The Egyptian army launched the coup after intensive discussions with General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In a statement yesterday evening, US President Barack Obama backed the removal of Mursi, while taking care to avoid the word “coup.” Using vague language that imposed no restraints on the military, Obama sanctimoniously requested that the army “move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible, through an inclusive and transparent process.”

Once again, the Revolutionary Socialists—the most prominent of the pseudo-left groups in Egypt—has adapted its rhetoric to the political maneuvers of the bourgeoisie. In February 2011, the RS backed the military junta that came to power after Mubarak’s ouster. In 2012, as the military faced mounting popular opposition, they hailed Mursi’s election as a victory for the revolution. Now that the working class has moved into struggle against Mursi and the MB, they have aligned themselves with a coup to bring back the army and elements of the old Mubarak regime into power.

The only consistent element of the RS’s reactionary politics has been their opposition to the emergence of an independent political movement of the working class. They speak for sections of the upper middle class, closely connected to the Egyptian bourgeois establishment and its imperialist backers.

By Danny Schechter

03 July 13

@ Consortium News

When Nelson Mandela was a dedicated freedom-fighter against white-ruled South Africa, he was almost as much a “non-person” in the U.S. media as he was in South Africa’s press. Only after Mandela pulled back from demands about redistributing wealth was he embraced as a mass media icon, Danny Schechter reports.

There’s anger amidst the apprehension in South Africa as the numbers of “journalists” on the Mandela deathwatch grows. Members of his family have about had it, comparing what even the New York Times called a “media swarm” to African vultures that wait to pounce on the carcasses of dead animals.

President Barack Obama was soon in South Africa, carrying a message that he hyped as one of “profound gratitude” to Nelson Mandela. The Times reported, “Mr. Obama said the main message he intended to deliver to Mr. Mandela, ‘if not directly to him but to his family, is simply our profound gratitude for his leadership all these years and that the thoughts and prayers of the American people are with him, and his family, and his country.'”

It doesn’t seem as if the South Africa’s grieving for their former president’s imminent demise are too impressed with Obama seeking the spotlight. Some groups including top unions protested his receiving an honorary degree from a university in Johannesburg.

Interestingly, NBC with its team buttressed by former South African correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault did not bother to cover the protest but relied on Reuters reporting “nearly 1,000 trade unionists, Muslim activists, South African Communist Party members and others marched to the U.S. Embassy where they burned a U.S. flag, calling Obama’s foreign policy ‘arrogant and oppressive.'”

“We had expectations of America’s first black president. Knowing Africa’s history, we expected more,” Khomotso Makola, a 19-year-old law student, told Reuters. He said Obama was a “disappointment, I think Mandela too would be disappointed and feel let down.”

Reuters reported, “South African critics of Obama have focused in particular on his support for U.S. drone strikes overseas, which they say have killed hundreds of innocent civilians, and his failure to deliver on a pledge to close the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba housing terrorism suspects.”

(Oddly, The South African police detained a local cameraman who used his own drone to photograph the hospital from above. He was stopped for “security” reasons.)

 

For symbolic reasons, as well as because of his global popularity, Nelson Mandela seems to be of special interest to the American media with the networks, nominally in an austerity mode, busting their budgets to have a dominant presence.

South African skeptic Rian Malan writes in the Spectator, “Every time Mandela goes into hospital, large numbers of Americans (up to 50) are flown here to take up their positions, and the South African network is similarly activated. Colin, (a cameraman who works for a U.S. network) for instance, travels to Johannesburg, hires a car and checks into a hotel, all on the network’s ticket. Since last December, he’s probably spent close to 30 days (at $2000 a day, expenses included) cooling his heels at various poolsides. And he has yet to shoot a single frame.

“As Colin says, this could be the worst disaster in American media history, inter alia because all these delays are destroying the story. When the old man finally dies, a lot of punters are going to yawn and say, Mandela died? Didn’t that already happen a year ago?”

Hostility to the media is satirized in an open letter by Richard Poplak from the foreign media to South Africa that appears in The Daily Maverick:

“As you may have noted, we’re back! It’s been four long months since the Oscar Pistorius bail hearing thing, and just as we were forgetting just how crappy the Internet connections are in Johannestoria, the Mandela story breaks.

“We feel that it is vital locals understand just how big a deal this is for us. In the real world – far away from your sleepy backwater – news works on a 24-hour cycle. That single shot of a hospital with people occasionally going into and out of the front door, while a reporter describes exactly what is happening-at length and in detail? That’s our bread and butter. It’s what we do. And you need to get out of the way while we do it.”

Why all the fanatical interest? The U.S. media loves larger-than-life personalities, often creating them when they don’t exist. Mandela has assumed the heroic mantle for them of Martin Luther King Jr. whose memory enjoys iconic status even as his achievements like Voting Rights Act was just picked apart by right-wing judicial buzzards in black robes. (King’s image was also sanitized with his international outlook often muzzled).

The current homage to Mandela wasn’t always like this. For many years, the U.S. media treated Mandela as a communist and terrorist, respecting South African censorship laws that kept his image secret. Reports about the CIA’s role in capturing him were few and far between. Ditto for evidence of U.S. spying documented in cables released by Wikileaks.

In the Reagan years, Mandela’s law partner Oliver Tambo, then the leader of the ANC while Mandela was in prison, was barred from coming to the U.S. and then, when he did, meeting with top officials. Later, Rep. Dick Cheney, R-Wyoming, refused to support a congressional call for Mandela’s release from jail.

In 1988, I, among other TV producers, launched the TV series “South Africa Now” to cover the unrest the networks were largely ignoring as stories shot by U.S. crews ended up on “the shelf,” not on the air.

A 1988 concert to free Mandela was shown by the Fox Network as a “freedom fest” with artists told not to mention Mandela’s name less they “politicize” all the fun. When he was released in 2000, a jammed all-star celebration at London’s Wembley Stadium was shown everywhere in the world, except by the American networks.

Once Mandela adopted reconciliation as his principal political tenet and dropped demands for nationalization anchored in the ANC’s “Freedom Charter,” his image in the U.S. was quickly rehabilitated. He was elevated into a symbolic hero for all praised by the people and the global elite alike. Little mention was made of his role as the creator of an Armed Struggle, and its Commander in Chief,

U.S. networks also did not cover the role played by the U.S.-dominated IMF and World Bank in steering the economy in a market-oriented neo-liberal direction, assuring the new government could not erase deep inequality and massive poverty and that the whites would retain privileges.

The American press shaped how Mandela was portrayed in the U.S. The lawyer and anti-nuclear campaigner, Alice Slater, tells a story of her efforts to win Mandela’s support for nuclear disarmament.

When “Nelson Mandela announced that he would be retiring from the presidency of South Africa, we organized a world-wide letter writing campaign, urging him to call for the abolition of nuclear weapons at his farewell address to the United Nations. The gambit worked.

“At the UN, Nelson Mandela called for the elimination of nuclear weapons, saying, ‘these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction – why do they need them anyway?’ The London Guardian had a picture of Mandela on its front page, with the headline, ‘Nelson Mandela Calls for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.’

“The New York Times had a story buried on page 46, announcing Mandela’s retirement from the Presidency of South Africa and speculating on who might succeed him, reporting that he gave his last speech as President to the UN, while omitting to mention the content of his speech.”

And so it goes, with his death seeming to be imminent, he has been reduced to a symbolic mythic figure, a moral voice, not the politician he always was. He became an adorable grandfather praised for his charities with his political ideas and values often lost in the ether of his celebrity. He has insisted that he not be treated as a saint or a savior. Tell that to the media.

As ANC veteran Pallo Jordan told me, “To call him a celebrity is to treat him like Madonna. And that’s not what he is. At the same time, he deserves to be celebrated as the freedom fighter he was.”

Watch the coverage and see if that message is coming through, with all of its implications for the struggle in South Africa that still lies ahead.

By Yasmine Fathi

03 July, 2013

@ Ahram Online

Despite decades of planning for Egypt ‘s eventual transition into an Islamic state, only two years of post-revolution politics appear to have put paid to the Muslim Brotherhood’s longed-for Islamist renaissance

As Egypt ‘s first freely chosen president took the stage last summer, the thousands arrayed in Cairo ‘s Tahrir Square roared their approval. After a knife’s-edge vote, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi had clinched the country’s most powerful civilian position – the secretive Islamist organization’s goal for over eight decades. Now, surely, an Islamic state was within its grasp.

But one year on, Morsi’s unofficial inauguration in downtown Cairo seems more like the pinnacle of the Islamists’ power then the emergence of a Sharia-compliant Egypt .

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood’s dream of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt is nowhere close to becoming a reality. Some experts believe that, not only has Morsi’s first year in power tarnished the image of the 85-year-old group, but that of all Islamists.

Following Mubarak’s downfall in February 2011, the Islamists – and specifically the Brotherhood – were expected to effortlessly climb to power. They were the largest opposition present at the time and had the sympathy of many average Egyptians. Their selling point was Islamic Law and the establishment of an Islamic state that would take Egypt back to the glory days of Islam.

The Brotherhood quickly established its political leg, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP).

Meanwhile, members of Egypt ‘s Salafist Call – the country’s largest Salafist movement – established the Nour Party. During the Mubarak era, Salafists had refused to participate in opposition politics on grounds that it was sinful to oppose a Muslim ruler.

Parliamentary, constitutional travails

The two competed in the first post-Mubarak parliamentary and Shura Council elections, winning majorities in both. Despite their lackluster performance in parliament – in which they were accused of ignoring pressing matters, such as Egypt’s failing economy, while focusing on trivial issues – they remained popular with many Egyptians.

“Their performance in parliament had a negative impact,” explained political analyst and former MP Emad Gad. “But when Morsi came to power, most people still had a positive view of the Islamic project. But during his first year in office he managed to destroy this image in the eyes of most Egyptians.”

He points out that Morsi has made many promises that he never kept and that his regime has tried to ‘Brotherhoodise’ the nation by taking over many of the country’s top institutions, including the Ministry of Interior and the judiciary.

However, Gad adds that the turning point came when he passed a constitution that was rejected by most political forces in Egypt .

The constituent assembly tasked with drafting Egypt ‘s new constitution saw numerous squabbles, along with accusations that Islamist assembly members were forcing their opinions on the non-Islamist minority. This led most non-Islamist members to withdraw from the constitution-drafting body, leaving only the Islamists to conduct a final vote in a 14-hour marathon session.

“After this, he confirmed to the public that the Islamic current is undemocratic and does not like dialogue,” said Gad.

Morsi’s refusal to fulfill his promises, including the creation of a coalition government that would include Egypt ‘s diverse political forces, also hurt his popularity, say critics.

“His lack of commitment to democracy made people not trust him,” explained Khalil El-Anani, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington . “Secondly, it showed that the Islamists are fascists, and don’t have a democratic ideology.”

Additionally, many Egyptians began to realize that what is said and what is done are two different things.

“He talked about the Islamic project, but did not apply Islamic Law, which is one of the main sellers of the Islamic project,” said El-Anani.

El-Anani pointed out that Morsi agreed to take a loan from the IMF at interest, which is forbidden by Islamic Law.

However, Ahmed Sobie, a leading member of the FJP shoots down these accusations.

“The Islamic current has actually proven to be much more democratic and more serious about pushing Egypt into a democratic path then the other currents,” he said.

He pointed out that it is the Islamist current that has fought to keep the parliament and Shura Council in place. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) that was ruling Egypt after the ousting of Mubarak had dissolved the parliament in June after a ruling by the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) found fault with laws governing the assembly’s elections.

One of Morsi’s first actions after becoming president is to reinstate the parliament. When the SCC suspended his decision a few days later, the Islamists began a yearlong fight to keep the Shura Council, which was threatened with a similar fate.

“We did this to protect Egypt . We had to make sure that all its important institutions were working,” Sobie added.

 

He also said that it was the Islamists who fought to draft a new constitution for Egypt . He also denied that the Islamists controlled the constituent assembly.

“Let’s not forget that it was the Islamist ultra conservative Building and Development Party that decided to give up their seats in the constituent assembly for the liberals and leftists,” Sobie said. “They did this in order to give them a voice,” stressed Sobie.

He also pointed out that it was Morsi who turned Egypt from a military state to a civil state.

“I doubt either the liberal or Nasserists would have been able to do this amidst all the criticism we received,” explained Sobie.

Alienating the Islamists

However, it is not just the liberal and leftists forces that are at loggerheads with Morsi. The Islamists themselves have also felt let down by him.

“I believe that Morsi’s first year in power, had a negative impact on the Islamic project,” said Nader Bakar, spokesperson of the Salafist Nour Party.

He accused Morsi and the Brotherhood of marginalizing and alienating anyone who is not a member of the group. Then he points out that shed a bad light on the Islamic project.

“The Islamic project does not say that you discriminate between the citizens of one country; it does not say promote authoritarian rule, it does not tell us to ignore those who have opposing views,” explained Bakar. “The stubbornness of the Brotherhood and the unprofessional manner in which they dealt with all the problems of the country has had a negative impact on the way average Egyptians view the Islamists.”

The Islamists also had other gripes with Morsi including his decision to license liquor stores and his lack of support to officers wanting to sport Islamist-style beards. He also opted to smooth relations with Iran thus paving the way for Shia tourists – often seen as a threat by Sunni Muslims – to enter Egypt .

“He also allowed security forces to pursue jihadists, which turned even more Islamists against him,” said El-Anani.

He adds that several other factors have led to the Brotherhood’s failure to lead the country, one of which is the lack of experience in running a populous, diverse and complex state like Egypt .

Mubarak’s iron-fisted rule and repression of the Islamists also resulted in their being excluded from working in government bodies and gaining needed experience.

“Another is the secretive character of the Brotherhood,” said El-Anani. “They know how to work under pressure, but not openly.”

Nor did Egypt ‘s January 25 Revolution provide the group sufficient time to go from repressed opposition to ruling power.

El-Anani cited the example of Turkey , where the Islamists were gradually drawn into politics allowing them to develop their ideas and moderate their political discourse and approach.

In Egypt , by contrast, the Brotherhood was faced with what El-Anani calls “sudden inclusion.”

“They couldn’t strike the balance between being an opposition movement and a responsible political force or ruling party. So they now hover between both,” he explained. “They still think of themselves as an opposition movement, staging protests, strikes and sit-ins; the mindset has not changed.”

On a more practical level, Morsi’s government has failed to provide Egyptians with much needed services. During the past year, there have been frequent power cuts, along with shortages of diesel fuel, gasoline and bread, among other vital commodities.

“These shortfalls are what bother people the most,” says political analyst Amr Hashem Rabie. “In terms of other issues – concerning politics, judicial independence, human rights and civil rights – Mubarak repressed the Egyptians in all this, too. But he, at least, offered these services to the people, so they were patient with his rule to a certain extent.”

Islamist disunity

What’s more, the Islamists’ united front after Mubarak’s downfall did not last long. Within months, cracks appeared, as electoral rivalries heated up.

Hostilities climaxed when the Salafist Nour Party split in early 2013, after party president Emad Abdel-Ghafour defected and announced the formation of a new party, the Watan Party. There were reports that the Brotherhood had played a role in the falling out.

“The Brotherhood encouraged the differences between the Salafists to split and weaken them,” explained El-Anani. “This is what used to happen under Mubarak; it’s the same old game played by Mubarak-era leaders to divide the opposition in order to manipulate them.”

Another issue is that inter-Islamist divisions have always been present. Their unity in the days following the revolution, says El-Anani, was only temporary.

“There has always been historical tension between them,” he explained. “They never trusted each other. This dates back to the end of the 1970s and early 1980s, when they clashed in Alexandria University .”

Tarek Osman, author of ‘ Egypt on the Brink,’ added that the revolution had brought together different Islamic forces to fight a common enemy.

“The revolution brought together these forces behind a very clear objective: defining themselves as ‘Islamists’ against the old regime and against the liberal current in Egypt ,” he said. “The more they delve into the details of the country’s legislative, political and economic transition, the more the fractures appear.”

Many Egyptians are now discontented with the Brotherhood’s performance. The group’s seeming confusion has prompted a popular joke: “The Brotherhood fought to control Egypt for 80 years but had no plan what to do when it actually achieved it.”

It remains unclear how much damage this last year has done to the Islamists’ popularity.

“In this struggle about the country’s social identity, the shape of the future, the loudest voice – the key determinant – will be the 45-million Egyptians under 35 years old,” said Osman. “Their preferences, ideas and views will be the deciding factor,” he asserted. “At the end of the day, it is a fight over the hearts and minds of this generation.”

© 2010 Ahram Online

By Edward Snowden

02 July, 2013

@ Common Dreams

The following is the full text of a letter by Edward Snowden to the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. Written in Spanish, it was obtained and translated by the Press Association in London.

There are few world leaders who would risk standing for the human rights of an individual against the most powerful government on earth, and the bravery of Ecuador and its people is an example to the world.

I must express my deep respect for your principles and sincere thanks for your government’s action in considering my request for political asylum.

The government of the United States of America has built the world’s largest system of surveillance. This global system affects every human life touched by technology; recording, analysing, and passing secret judgment over each member of the international public.

It is a grave violation of our universal human rights when a political system perpetuates automatic, pervasive and unwarranted spying against innocent people.

In accordance with this belief, I revealed this programme to my country and the world. While the public has cried out support of my shining a light on this secret system of injustice, the government of the United States of America responded with an extrajudicial man-hunt costing me my family, my freedom to travel and my right to live peacefully without fear of illegal aggression.

As I face this persecution, there has been silence from governments afraid of the United States government and their threats. Ecuador however, rose to stand and defend the human right to seek asylum.

The decisive action of your consul in London, Fidel Narvaez, guaranteed my rights would be protected upon departing Hong Kong – I could never have risked travel without that. Now, as a result, and through the continued support of your government, I remain free and able to publish information that serves the public interest.

No matter how many more days my life contains, I remain dedicated to the fight for justice in this unequal world. If any of those days ahead realise a contribution to the common good, the world will have the principles of Ecuador to thank.

Please accept my gratitude on behalf of your government and the people of the Republic of Ecuador, as well as my great personal admiration of your commitment to doing what is right rather than what is rewarding.

Edward Joseph Snowden.

Whistleblower Edward Joseph Snowden is a US former technical contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who leaked details of top-secret US and British government mass surveillance programs to the press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ShareThisShareThis

 

 

 

Comments are moderated

 

 

Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a statement that “the way that the protests are reflected in the media depict Turkey as a second class democracy.” He said this in response to US Vice-president Joe Biden’s comment that, “Turkey’s future belongs to the people of Turkey and no one else. But the United States does not pretend to be indifferent to the outcome.” Biden’s comment came following a State Department travel alert to the country. Earlier U.S. State Department Spokesman Jen Psaki said, “We believe that Turkey’s long-term stability, security and prosperity can be guaranteed with the protection of the fundamental freedoms. That’s what the [protesters] seemed to be doing. These freedoms are very important in a healthy democracy.” These developments lead us to raise question about democracy. What does democracy entail? How does a “first class democracy” function? What are the characteristics of a first class democracy? Why is Turkey’s democracy being categorized second class democracy?

How did the US administration deal with the Occupy Wall Street Movement? How was this movement different from Turkish Taksim Square demonstrations? Both began with insignificant number of people but were joined by thousands, in fact millions all over the world in the case of Occupy Wall Street Movement, with the passage of time. In both instances the security forces have used tear gas and pepper spray to control protesters. In both instances hundreds were arrested. The Turkish Prime Minister has labeled some protesters as being extremist and terrorist while U.S. government documents suggest that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had been monitoring Occupy Wall Street activists through joint terrorism task force. However, Turkish police are reported to have used disproportionate force, and this is a matter of concern, but there are striking differences in the nature and characteristics of the two movements.

 

Originally Occupy Wall Street activists wanted to hold their demonstration in front of 1 Chase Plaza but as soon as the police came to know about it a fence was put around the area in order to prevent the demonstrators. Demonstrators then decided to move to nearby Zuccotti Park where they continued to express their views until they were totally evicted by the police. The demonstrators claimed to represent 99% and wanted to curb influence of corporations in politics. It should be noted that the movement emerged in the context of 2008 global financial crisis and 2011 Arab uprisings. However, although within months this movement attracted huge attention and millions expressed their support holding demonstrations various parts of the world, it seems to have lost momentum. The White House hardly took any notice of their demands.

 

As opposed to Occupy Wall Street Movement the Turkish Taksim Square demonstration began with less than hundred environmentalists expressing concern about a development project. They were then infiltrated by opponents of government: among them were former vested interests known as Kemalists, leftists, ultra-nationalists, homosexuals and other marginalized minorities. They provoked the police who responded heavy-handedly creating chaos in the area. The government responded by both carrot and stick. While the Prime Minister offered to abide by court ruling on the issue and offered to hold a referendum; he also accused some protesters as being extremist and terrorist. The President and the Deputy Prime Minister came out with more sympathy for the demonstrators. Following days of violent confrontation the police seem to have succeeded in restoring order. Do the two settings say anything about democracy? I leave readers to judge, but as one who voted for Biden (he was Obama’s choice, not mine) I feel embarrassed.

 

In this context one may ask what happened to Obama’s pre-election commitments. I don’t want to list broken promises but my question is: Is it democratic to ignore electoral promises? Many observers blame various other centers of power in American politics for this failure of President Obama. This division of power has been viewed positively by scholars. According to Francis Fukuyama, “The American system was built around a firm conviction that concentrated political power constituted an imminent danger to the lives and liberty of citizens. For this reason, the U.S. Constitution was designed with a broad range of checks and balances by which different parts of the government could prevent other parts from exercising tyrannical control.” (The Origins of Political Order. 2012). Division of power? Yes, of course! Fukuyama has failed to comprehend how with the passage of time certain non-democratic elements have learned how to flout all centers of power and pose danger on lives and liberty of citizens. This element is called lobby: American democracy today is no more “for the people, by the people, of the people;” it is almost “for the lobby, by the lobby of the lobby.”

 

America and Turkey are not the only example of democracy in the world: many observers romanticize India as “the largest democracy in the world today.” How democratic is India? Hypothetically I have always felt that the caste system and democratic values don’t go together. Let us see how it has worked in practice: In 1951, when India declared holding of an election for a legislative assembly in Kashmir, based on a UN resolution the world body reminded that “the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.” Yet the Indian authorities went ahead to hold what they called a democratic election. It was a total sham: With blessings from Delhi, Sheikh Abdullah’s party won 73 seats out of a total of 75. All seats were won uncontested because the Election Commission refused to accept opposition candidates. According to opposition sources, all subsequent elections in Kashmir were heavily rigged since then. In this contest India’s incorporation of Sikkim in 1974/75 and current attempts to “democratically” absorb Bangladesh are also relevant. Whenever I see slums in large Indian cities, naked poverty in rural areas, and the victim of loan sharks committing suicide, I tell myself these Indians must be convinced of their “sins” in their “previous life.”

 

Role of the Media

 

Prime Minister Erdugan of Turkey has accused the international media of lying and exaggerating protests marches in his country. The international media on its part has accused the Turkish media of ignoring the early days of protest marches in Taksim Square. While Erdugan has held the foreign media of conspiring to destabilize his government, the international media continues to accuse the Turkish government of intimidating the national media in support of the government.

 

An examination of the media needs some reflections on demands of the protesters and government’s response to those demands and how they have been covered by various formal and informal news outlets. While demands of Occupy Wall Street Movement are relatively clearer; they are not as clear for Taksim Square occupants where many different groups have converged. Interestingly although the government has been repeating about the planned project that there is no design on the table to build any shopping mall or expensive residential structure, there is very little coverage of that in the media. In fact the government is claiming that there will be more green spaces in the area than before and the main idea behind the reconstruction is to revive Turkey’s rich heritage and take most communication facilities underground. The original environmentalists seem to have agreed to discuss the plan with the government, but the movement seems to have gone out of their hands. The protesters do not seem to have any other demand than seeking resignation of the prime minister. However, the government on its part has declared a referendum on the issue and also pointed out the scheduled city election due early next year. Yet neither do the protesters nor do the media see any merit in these commitments. They seem to have forgotten that democracy demands another election to bring down a democratically elected government.

 

Interestingly the international media paid almost no attention to another protest uprising, which was brutally suppressed at the beginning of May in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The main difference between the two protest marches in Bangladesh and in Turkey was that the former, was staged by a group called Hefazat-i-Islam which demanded strict Islamic law in the country. According to activists, the authorities in Bangladesh killed thousands of their supporter using live bullets after midnight of May 5 by means of creating electricity blackout. The method in which the Turkish Taksim Square movement has been covered by the international media only suggests their Islamophobic approach in covering news.  In this there is no difference between Socialistworker.org and The New York Times, CNN, BBC: all mainstream news channels ignored Hefazat-i-Islam’s peaceful protests and their consequences.

 

What is more interesting is that there is new information about the so-called miracle girl saved after 17 days from the garment factory disaster that happened a few days before the Hefazat-i-Islam crackdown. According to a new investigation, the story was a staged one. In order to divert public attention from the brutal action against Hefazat-i-Islam activists the government staged this story. Sadly the international media has paid no attention to this new investigation.

 

The international media has turned a “Standing Man” into an icon of protest in Taksim Square. I remember standing in front of Topkapi Palace some years ago for more than five minutes to observe the standing guard whether he was a real man or a statue. It was only his eye blinking that convinced me that he was a real human being.

 

Taksim Protest and Turkey’s Image

 

Although the protesters have not succeeded in destabilizing the government in Turkey, they have succeeded in tarnishing Turkey’s international image. This seems to have been the objective of the international media and, I think, they have succeeded. During the past decade Turkey had emerged as a financial giant by ending IMF/ World Bank loans, by tripling its GDP and bringing millions out of poverty. Many international observers were citing Turkey’s success story as a model for development in the 21^st century. This seemed to have become an eyesore many islamophobic elements all over the world.

 

Prime Minster Erdugan has reacted sharply to this attempt of tarnishing of Turkish image and has accused Turkey’s foreign enemies of conspiring against his country through Taksim uprising. Is there anything new in this allegation? Is economic progress and good governance enough to neutralize conspiracies? Were there no conspiracies against the prophet of Islam?

 

Many observers have raised questions about PM Erdugan’s approach in handling this crisis. Apparently he feels this as a challenge to his person. As opposed to his approach one may note those of Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc and President Abdullah Gul. I am not a member of the ruling AKP of Turkey, nor am I a Turkish citizen of the country. I don’t think I am in any position to comment on which approach is better to handle this situation. However I strongly believe that institutions should be based on principles not individuals. The Qur’an has taught us not to depend even on the personality of the prophet when it comes to one’s mission and responsibility: It says: Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many were the apostle that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude (3:144).

 

Dr. Abdullah al-Ahsan is the Vice President of JUST.

 

By Countercurrents.org

30 June, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Artists and intellectuals in Egypt are heroically struggling against “brotherhoodization” of Egypt ‘s culture. It has turned out as their daily struggle. They are joining the June 30 protest in Tahrir Square .

Since Morsi’s appointment as president of Egypt in June 2012, his policies have triggered discontent in the arts and culture community in the country. The following timeline prepared by Ahram Online on June 27, 2013 points to the main developments in Egypt ‘s arts and culture scene in the last 12 months. The incidents show the continuing struggle within the society.

During the year of his rule, several protests have been staged by the cultural community, opposing the government’s attacks on the Egyptian cultural identity, as perceived by the artists.

The appointment of Alaa Abdel-Aziz as the new Minister of Culture has only additionally fuelled the enraged cultural scene.

2012

September 1

Sheikh Abdallah Badr says on El-Hafez television channel that actress “Elham Shahin is cursed and she will never enter heaven.” Shahin later files a case against the conservative sheikh who criticized her several times.

September 2

Hundreds of Egyptian writers and artists stage a protest in front of the Shura Council (parliament’s upper house) building to protest the first leaked drafts of the constitution that was being written by the Constituent Assembly.

Protesters demanded the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, which they described as “illegitimate.” Protesters argued that the members of the current Assembly were not elected and do not represent the wide range of Egyptian society. They said that the Assembly is part of the ‘Brotherhoodisation’ of the country, as its members only reflect the views of the Muslim Brotherhood.

September 6

President Morsi meets a group of prominent artists and intellectuals to discuss the future of art and creativity in Egypt . A number of the artists invited, however, refused to attend the event. According to the attendees, the president expressed that he appreciates ‘meaningful’ arts, yet did not discuss any clear plans for the culture field. He condemned the attack on actress Elham Shahin by a Salafi sheikh.

October 28

A concert that was to be held in Minya to affirm the unity of Muslims and Copts during Eid Al-Adha (the Muslim feast of sacrifice) is cancelled. Entitled “From the Heart of Egypt, Hand in Hand,” the concert included performances by several alternative bands; it was reportedly stopped by a group of Salafists and other Islamists who stood at the entrance to the concert, preventing people from going in after the event had already begun.

November 9

Underground musicians stage a protest outside of El-Sawy Culturewheel centre in Cairo to press for a resolution of the pending issues between the syndicate and independent musicians.

November 17

A Cairo misdemeanor court sentenced Islamic preacher Abdullah Badr to a year in jail and set bail at LE20,000 for insulting known actress Elham Shahin on El-Hafez television channel.

November 27

Anti-Morsi opposition march by several hundred artists moves from the grounds near the Cairo Opera House to Tahrir Square . The crowd included members of the music and film syndicates, among many others.

December 13

Several cultural coalitions, along with independent artists and intellectuals march to Tahrir Square in support of freedom of expression and against the referendum on Egypt ‘s constitution.

Artists march to Tahrir for freedom of expression on 13 December 2012 (Photo: Rowan El Shimi)

2013

May 7

President Morsi’s cabinet reshuffle includes the appointment of Alaa Abdel-Aziz as Egypt ‘s sixth minister of culture since January 2011 Tahrir Square uprising.

Following the appointment, Abdel-Aziz was rejected by the community of artists and intellectuals, on grounds of allegedly attempting to ‘Brotherhoodise’ the Egyptian arts scene. Days after his appointment, Abdel-Aziz placed five members of the Freedom and Justice Party inside the Ministry of Culture. One of them took charge of all external communication of the ministry, according to the employees at the Ministry of Culture.

May 12

Culture Minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz sacks the head of the General Egyptian Book Organization (GEBO) Ahmed Megahed without explanation, outraging intellectuals and writers. Writer and journalist Osama Afifi resigned from his post as the Chief Editor of Al-Majalla cultural magazine, published by the GEBO in protest for sacking Megahed.

May 13

An old dispute between Arts academy director Sameh Mahran and the Culture Minister Abdel-Aziz surfaces quicker than expected, taking a scandalous bend. The Egyptian Academy of Arts hosted a conference to protest President Morsi’s appointment.

May 14

Members of artists and intellectuals community march from Cairo Opera House to newly-appointed minister’s office to protest alleged ‘Brotherhoodisation’ of Egyptian culture.

May 27

The minister dismisses Salah El-Meligy, head of the Fine Arts Sector.

May 29

Minister of Culture fires Ines Abdel Dayem, chairperson of the Cairo Opera House.

In response, artists hold a large protest at the Cairo Opera House grounds and freeze performance of the opera Aida with an on-stage strike.

May 29

Said Tawfiq, secretary-general of the Supreme Council for Culture, resigns from his post in protest against the series of dismissals by Alaa Abdel-Aziz and opposing the minister’s alleged ‘Brotherhoodisation’ of the Egyptian culture.

May 30

Bahaa Taher, renowned Egyptian novelist and winner of the International Prize for Arabic Fiction in 2008, resigns from the Supreme Council for Culture, where he was a honorary member. Taher’s resignation came as a protest against the culture minister’s decision to fire a number of key culture officials in recent days, including the head of the opera house.

Egyptian artists and intellectuals protest recent culture ministry decisions and demand dismissal of Morsi-appointed minister.

June 1

Cairo Symphony Orchestra carries out on-stage strike. Artists from the Cairo Symphony Orchestra, supported by the Opera’s musicians and staff, announced their continuation of their strike in place of concert by world-class pianist Ramzi Yassa. Several crucial figures from Egypt ‘s arts and culture scene joined on stage.

June 2

Angry Egyptian artists trap culture minister in ministerial building in Cairo for hours.

June 3

Head of the ministry’s foreign relations sector, Professor Camillia Sobhy resigns. She resigned to add her voice to the protesters that accuse the culture minister of implementing an agenda to destroy and Islamize Egyptian culture, thus changing the national identity to serve the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood.

June 5

Artists storm the Ministry of Culture building in Cairo .

The employees of the Ministry of Culture use the general commotion to expel the members of the Freedom and Justice Party from the ministerial building.

June 6

Artists launch artistic activities on the street in front of the ministry in Cairo as the sit-in inside the ministry continues.

June 9

National Archives head Abdel-Wahed El-Nabawe is sacked by Culture Minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz.

Dancers perform Zorba ballet as part of the protest outside the occupied Ministry of Culture in Cairo .

June 10

The new head of the Egyptian National Library and Archives, Khaled Fahmy, states openly that he has Islamist leanings.

June 11

Muslim Brotherhood supporters try to break up sit-in by artists outside Ministry of Culture in Cairo , several police injured.

June 14

Shababeek Culture Centre in Cairo hosts events to raise awareness on artists’ and intellectuals’ ongoing protests.

June 15

Ongoing protests against newly-appointed culture minister and alleged ‘Brotherhoodisation’ of culture spread to Egypt ‘s second city, Alexandria .

June 17

Following a meeting, Egypt ‘s Supreme Culture Council members declare they do not recognize the Morsi-appointed Culture Minister Abdel-Aziz and will sue him for libel.

June 18

Ahram Online visits sit-in at Beram El-Tonsy theatre in Alexandria as it enters fourth day; artists insist movement bigger than culture minister discontent.

June 21

Joining world celebrations of music, many artists from the Cairo Opera House perform on the street in front of the culture ministry in Cairo where ongoing protests against the minister’s policies enters a third week.

June 24

Unidentified assailants attack a nine-day-old sit-in at Alexandria ‘s Beram El-Tonsy Theatre, injuring several activists.

June 26

Rehearsals for the ballet Zorba, scheduled to run at the Cairo Opera House from July 4 to July 8, continue – despite statements by Shura Council MP calling ballet “art of nudity.”

Artists’ march

A group of Egyptian artists and intellectuals who have been protesting the appointment of a new culture minister since May are joining the June 30, 2013 anti-government protests.

Earlier, Maha Effat, the spokesman for the group of artists and intellectuals who have been occupying parts of the ministry of culture since 5 May, informed of their planned march to Tahrir Square .

The artists were joined by other groups of artists. Then they all marched to Tahrir Square .”

Effat stressed that the occupation of the culture ministry will continue.

Effat said: Artists and intellectuals will not give up until ” Egypt is completely liberated from the current regime.”

“Over the past 25 days of the ministry occupation, we showed the Egyptian people that we are entitled to claim our institutions. Neither ministry of culture, nor any other governmental institution, can be taken by the hands of the current regime,” Effat said, referring to the Muslim Brotherhood. “We have to liberate the whole Egypt from their influence.”

Art performances including concert by renowned musician Ali El-Haggar and performance of parts of the ballet Zorba are being held daily in front of the occupied cultural ministry that.

On June 5, dozens of prominent artists and intellectuals broke into Egypt ‘s ministry of culture, declaring an open-ended sit-in inside the building until minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz is replaced.

The current crisis in Egypt ‘s cultural scene started in May when the culture minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz took office, despite opposition to the relatively unknown figure’s appointment from many within the culture scene. The opposition became more heated when Abdel-Aziz began a series of dismissals of key figures within