Archives: Articles

(BELFAST / Florida) – On 25 June 2012, Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire issued the call for ‘NO to War in Syria’ and for an all inclusive dialogue to solve the conflict.

Her history proves “that a peaceful and just society can be achieved only through nonviolent means and that the path to peace lies in each of our hearts.”

A Little History of Mairead Corrigan Maguire:

In 1976, in Belfast, thousands of ordinary people throughout Northern Ireland, led by mostly women, demonstrated for an end to the killings known as “The Troubles” which began in 1969. By 1998, over thirty-four hundred people were killed in the crossfire of a brutal war against British colonial interests, revolutionary republicanism, and a revolt against the age-old, oppressive bigotry and fanaticism of religious ideologies.

On August 10, 1976, Máiread Corrigan Maguire’s two nephews and one of her nieces, all little children, were killed on a Belfast street corner.

“A British army patrol shot and killed an IRA gunman, Danny Lennon, whose car then plowed into the sidewalk, killing the children, and severely injuring Mairead’s sister Anne, who died several years later. In a land soaked with blood, their deaths came as a severe shock. Suddenly, thousands of people began to say, “Enough is enough. The killing and violence have to stop.”

Máiread, Betty Williams and Ciaran McKeown, organized weekly peace marches and demonstrations were attended by over half a million people throughout Ireland and England.

Máiread understands “that a peaceful and just society can be achieved only through nonviolent means and that the path to peace lies in each of our hearts.”

Fueled by her faith, Maried, a lone voice of wisdom, compassion and common sense stood on the streets of Belfast and said “No — No to the IRA, No to the UDA and LVF (the Ulster Defence Association and the Loyalist Volunteer Force, unionist/ loyalist paramilitaries), No to the British government’s emergency laws and interrogation centers and human rights abuses, No to injustice, bigotry, discrimination, No to any desecration of human life and dignity.’

In Belfast during the 1980’s and early 90’s, Máiread’s vision of non-violence was dismissed, ridiculed, and ignored, while those who called for retaliatory vengeance and violence were applauded. From the start, Maried understood that her dream had to reach beyond the narrow boundaries of North Ireland to embrace a non-violent future for all humanity.

After a year of political negotiations, a breakthrough settlement was reached on Good Friday 1998, bringing Northern Ireland to an Easter dawn of peace.

Maried and Betty were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 for what had once been unimaginable became reality and Maried continues to envision the unimaginable: justice and peace in Israel Palestine.

It was during my November 2008 trip to Israel Palestine when I met Mairead Maguire:

Mairead Maguire’s 25 June 2012 statement:

People around the world are deeply concerned about the ongoing crisis in Syria.

While we are being presented with some perspective of what is occurring on the ground to the people of Syria, the door seems closed to others.

We search for voices we can trust, voices which point to a peaceful, lasting solution to the conflict. We search for truth because it is truth which will set the Syrian people free.

Truth is difficult to find, so through the haze of conflicting narratives we must inevitably hear the voices and wisdom of men and women of peace in Syria.

Many may believe that there is a fight going on in Syria for ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’.

We can be seduced into thinking there is a magic wand or instant formula to mix that will create a democratic country, but there are none.

If it is a democracy a people want they must strive for it in their own way.

It is said the Greek idea of democracy was that people would be equally valued.

This is something every society has to strive for at every point in its history; it itself is a ‘revolutionary’ concept and a nonviolent revolutionary action.

Strive to value everyone equally. It is an idea, a motivation for a better world that doesn’t require blood; it requires the hard work of people and the nurturing of a community spirit; a constant growing of peace and it starts within each human heart.

Who are the voices of peace in regard to the crisis in Syria?

Many of them we cannot hear from where we are standing. They are the mothers and father and children who want to leave their homes to walk to market or to school without fear. They are the people, who have been working hard for Syria, for the idea of Syria as a secular and modern country.

There are some Syrian voices that have been heard consistently since the beginning of the crisis. Many of them are anonymous and they speak to us about injustices and atrocities. Numbers are given and fingers are pointed. The blame may be apportioned correctly or it may not.

Everything is happening too quickly; commentators and politicians are making decisions with haste and looking only in one corner for support for their certainty. But in the heat of the madness of violent ethnic/political conflict we must listen and ask questions and hear and speak with some uncertainty because it is certainty that can take a people and a country in a rush to war.

The face of the Mufti of Syria is hardly known in the western world, but if we have learned anything from past conflict, it is the importance of all inclusive dialogue. He and many other Syrians who have peace in their hearts should be invited to sit with a council of elders from other countries, to tell of their stories and proposals for ways forward for the Syrian people.

The United Nations was not set up to provide an arena for the voices and games of the powerful; rather it should be a forum for such Syrian voices to be heard.

We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the Syrian people and find peaceful ways forward in order to stop this mad rush towards a war the mothers and fathers and children of Syria do not want and do not deserve.

We all know there are Imams, priests and nuns, fathers, mother, young people all over Syria crying out for peace and when the women in hijabs shout to the world after a bombing or a massacre in Syria ‘haram, haram’ let us hear and listen to them.

We are sure there are many heroes in Syria among them, Christian Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, and religious.

A modern hero of peace, one whose name we do know and whose voice we have heard is Mother Agnes Mariam*.

In her community her voice has been clear, pure and loud. And it should be so in the West. Like many people in Syria she has been placed in life threatening situations, but for the sake of peace she has chosen to risk her own existence for the safety and security of others. She has spoken out against the lack of truth in our media regarding Syria and about the terror and chaos which a ‘third force’ seems to be spreading across the country.

Her words confront and challenge us because they do not mirror the picture of events in Syria we have built up in our minds over many months of reading our newspapers and watching the news on our televisions.

Much of the terror has been imported, we learn from her.

She can tell us about the thousands of Christian refugees, forced to flee their homes by an imported Islamist extreme. But Mother Agnes Mariam’s concerns, irrespective of religion, are for all the victims of the terror and conflict, as ours must be.

In all our hearts we know War is not the answer for Syria (Nor for Iran).

Intervention in Syria would only make things worse.

I believe all sides are committing war crimes and the provision of arms will only results in further death. The US/UK/NATO and all foreign governments should stay out of Syria and keep their funding and troops out of Syria.

We should support those Syrians who work for peace in Syria and who seek a way of helping the 22 million or so people of Syria to resolve their own conflict without furthering the chaos or violence.

*Mother Agnes Miriam of the Cross is a greek-Catholic (Melkite) nun of Lebanese / Palestinian descent and has lived and worked in Syria for 18 years. She restored the ancient ruined monastery of St. James the Mutilated at Qara, in Homs province where she founded an order which serves the local and wider community. In 2010 the monastery welcomed 25,000 visitors both Syrian and international. http://www.maryakub.org/index_en.html

-Mairead Maguire

The Peace People, 224 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 6GE, Northern IrelandPhone: 0044 (0) 28 9066 346 Email: info@peacepeople.com

www.peacepeople.com

By Eileen Fleming

28 June, 2012
wearewideawake.org

Eileen Fleming, Citizen of CONSCIENCE for House of Representatives 2012

Founder of WeAreWideAwake.org
Staff Member of Salem-news.com , A Feature Correspondent for Arabisto.com and Columnist forVeteranstoday.com

Producer “30 Minutes with Vanunu” and “13 Minutes with Vanunu”

Author of “Keep Hope Alive” and “Memoirs of a Nice Irish American ‘Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory” andBEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s ouster this week was more than merely a significant development for national politics, it was an unequivocal message to the people of Pakistan that ineptness, subservience, and corruption will not go unpunished. Though it is fashionable to conclude that Gilani was dismissed because of his failure to investigate charges against President Zardari – undoubtedly a major part of this story – the reality is that his ineffectiveness in dealing with a range of issues from energy policy to bilateral relations with the United States is what cost him the premiership.

Political power in Pakistan – always a complex issue – is now up for grabs.  The ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the people while other parties struggle to establish a significant base of support. In the background, the military leadership, which has, since the early days of Pakistan’s independence, played a dominant role in the political establishment, grows ever stronger. With such doubt surrounding the nation’s political future, and Pakistan at the center of some of the most pressing global issues of our time, the one thing that is certain is that the eyes of the world are watching Islamabad closely.

Corruption and Contempt

The event, which directly precipitated Gilani’s ouster, was the contempt of court charge in relation to his refusal to investigate his close ally, President Zardari, and the outstanding corruption charges against him. Despite being ordered by the court to lead a probe into allegations of money laundering through Swiss bank accounts, Gilani refused and continued in his role as Prime Minister, thumbing his nose at the order issued by the Supreme Court. This week, this brazen disregard for the judiciary finally caught up with the Prime Minister.

Although Gilani defied the court order, this was not his only judicial transgression. As Pakistani journalist Atif K. Butt noted in an interview for StopImperialism.com, “Gilani and other members of the PPP continuously ridiculed the court publicly, in gatherings and on television.” This sort of blatant disrespect undoubtedly angered the Supreme Court Justices and fueled their desire to remove the Prime Minister.

Despite the personal animosity that exists between the PPP and the judiciary, this was merely the legal explanation for the Prime Minister’s removal.  The series of mistakes and sheer ineptitude of the PPP in dealing with the energy crisis, maintaining productive relations with the United States while protecting Pakistani sovereignty, and addressing the growing unrest in Balochistan and elsewhere, caused the people of Pakistan to be fed up with Gilani and, possibly, made the political decision a “no brainer” for the court.

PPP Loses the People

The recent rioting throughout the Punjab province is in direct response to the continued policies of “load-shedding” which are the result of Gilani and Zardari’s failure to address the energy crisis effectively. Pakistan, which suffers from a severe energy deficit, has been clamoring for practical solutions to the crisis while the PPP could only offer load-shedding – the policy of shutting off power for hours at a time – as a temporary solution. The people began to take to the streets and, as one might imagine, protests turned to riots in many cities. This sort of unrest on the streets contributed to the climate of anger and frustration directed toward the PPP for which, it seems, Gilani became the scapegoat and sacrificial lamb.

Although the energy crisis formed the immediate backdrop, perhaps the most critical issue for which the PPP was blamed is the continued degeneration of relations with the United States. In the wake of the repeated violations by the US of Pakistan’s sovereignty, the people held the ruling party responsible for having ineffectively dealt with the Americans. The raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, the NATO air strike that killed 24 Pakistani military officers and subsequent NATO supply route closures, created tremendous animosity within the population. However, the indignation was not merely directed toward Washington. Instead, the people looked at the lack of leadership in Islamabad – the government’s inability to take a hardline position with the Obama administration – as a sign of both weakness and ineptitude. Journalist Atif K. Butt notes that, “The people of Pakistan want to have positive relations with the United States however they feel that, without taking a tough stance on the provocations, the PPP’s weakness only emboldened Washington and contributed to the breakdown of diplomatic relations.”

The mismanagement of the relationship with the US, in light of the fact that Pakistan has sacrificed more than any other country to actively contribute to the so-called War on Terror, was too much for the people to bear.  This feeling of distrust, coupled with the anger caused by the continued energy crisis, likely played a significant role in motivating the judiciary to act and to remove Gilani now, rather than later. As in the United States and elsewhere, everything in Pakistan is political and, like any other politicians, the Supreme Court acted in their own political interests and ousted Gilani.

Who Will Lead?

The question of Pakistan’s political future is a complex one. There are some who see this moment as the opportunity for yet another military takeover of the government as has happened numerous times in the country’s history. There are other analysts who believe that there will be new elections held and that another party may emerge to lead the formation of a coalition government. Regardless of who rises to take the reins of leadership, they will face a very difficult challenge.

The demise of the PPP has opened the door for other parties to establish themselves as significant players on the political scene. Among these parties are the conservative Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and the fast-growing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) led by national sports hero turned politician Imran Khan. The PTI, which is still in the infant stages of development into a major political force, represents a possible change on the political horizon. As a party representing a progressive agenda, Khan and his allies might be poised to win a significant proportion of seats in the parliament and establish themselves as legitimate political force.

Despite the range of options in terms of the civilian government, there is always the looming possibility of a military takeover. Army General Kayani leads a military faction that wields considerable power both in terms of the people of Pakistan and foreign policy and diplomacy. They are very close with the Chinese, generally distrustful of the United States, and much more rigidly represent what could be called a hardline approach to diplomacy. For these reasons, their reputation among the people is generally positive and, though most Pakistanis do not want a return of military rule, there is a significant portion of the population that would not see it as an entirely negative development.

The Challenges of the Future

However the next government is constituted, it will undoubtedly face very complex challenges the moment it takes over. The energy crisis looms large in the public mind, as does the issue of Pakistani-US and Pakistani-Chinese relations. In addition, the myriad development projects and other forms of economic investment both nationally and internationally will have to be evaluated along with addressing the unrest in Balochistan and militancy along the border with Afghanistan.

Pakistan finds itself facing a severe energy deficit that must be dealt with by the incoming government. A number of international investments, some in progress with others still in the planning stages, are designed to address this. The most significant, both economically and geopolitically, is the controversial Iran-Pakistan pipeline. This project, designed to provide Pakistan with immense amounts of energy from neighboring Iran, has undergone intense scrutiny in light of the economic warfare in the form of sanctions and other extreme measures initiated against Iran by the United States. This pipeline, dubbed the “Peace Pipeline,” is an essential part of any long-term solution to Pakistan’s energy woes. In addition to this project, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline is also a critical artery for the energy future of the country. Likewise, the CASA-1000 will bring significant amounts of electricity to Pakistan from the former Soviet republics of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. All of these projects represent a viable economic and energy future for the nation, the kind of future that seems to have become impossible with PPP at the helm.

Aside from energy-related issues, the new government faces difficult challenges with regard to relations with both the United States and China. While the US relationship seems to become more adversarial by the day, Pakistan’s ties with China, though strong as ever, also face significant obstacles. China looks to Islamabad to develop the infrastructure connecting the Chinese-funded Port of Gwadar to the rest of the country, thereby allowing the Chinese to utilize the port to its full potential, providing a critical land-based entry point for Chinese imports coming from Africa and the Middle East. There is, of course, the potential too that some of the pipeline projects could, in the future, be extended into China, completely altering the face of the Asian economic region. In addition, China and Pakistan must cooperate on eradicating the terrorist group known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), also referred to as the “Chinese Taliban” which uses the Waziri region as a base of operations. For these reasons, along with desire of Islamabad to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the new government must be quick to establish a positive working relationship with China while, on the other hand, working to mend fences with the Americans.

Domestic security concerns will also dominate the agenda. The new government must address the militant separatist movement in Balochistan, which seeks to destabilize Pakistan through terrorism, kidnapping, and other means. This conflict is understood as being fomented by outside intelligence agencies and will require a very delicate touch. Separately, the new government must work to carve out its place in a post-occupation Afghanistan – a nation that will be vital to Pakistan and the region’s future.

The ouster of PM Gilani and the fall of the PPP create more questions than answers. Pakistan’s future depends on a recognition of the failures of elected officials and the inadequacies of Pakistani development. However, at the same time, Pakistan is a nation of potential prosperity. If the new government can reconcile a broken political system with the tremendous economic, political and diplomatic potential, Pakistan is poised to become a regional power able to exercise leadership and promote peace on the world stage.

By Eric Draitser

Myanmar has been gripped by abhorrent ethnic violence in recent weeks – violence which has begun to cast doubt on the democratic future of the country. The sectarian and religious bloodletting between the Buddhist Rakhine people and the Muslim minority known as the Rohingya, has led to an international outcry and a swift military response from the government. This sort of violence, something which is not entirely new in the region, threatens to tarnish the reforms made by the nation in the last twelve months.

However, with the eyes of the world focused on the Southeast Asian country, a much more significant and covert war is taking shape: a proxy war in which the United States and its allies use a variety of violent and non-violent means in their quest to block Chinese economic investment and development in Myanmar.  It is against this backdrop that the recent changes, ranging from the ascension of Aung San Suu Kyi to the current ethnic strife in Sittwe, must be understood.

Violent Conflict and Chinese Interests

The armed conflicts in Myanmar correspond directly to large-scale Chinese development projects throughout the country.  Essentially, long-standing ethnic and sectarian conflicts are being fomented by international forces, which seek to destabilize the country, thereby loosening the grip of Chinese economic investment in the region. This is not to say that the conflicts are entirely fabricated but, as in Syria, Libya, and countless other examples around the world, the issue is spun by corporate-controlled media to obscure the reality that the issue is being manipulated from behind the scenes by the forces of Western imperialism.

The violence that has erupted among the Rakhine and Rohingya groups has shocked the world. However, seen from a more objective, less emotional perspective, the recent violence serves a vital geopolitical function for the United States. The center of the recent violence has been the city of Sittwe, capital of the Rakhine State on the northwestern coast of the country. This city is at the center of one of China’s most crucial international investments, the Sittwe port and pipeline project. This project, a twin oil and gas pipeline, which would traverse Myanmar to link China’s southwestern Yunnan province with the Indian Ocean would, consequently, provide the Chinese land-based access to energy imports from Africa and the Middle East. Because of US naval dominance, not being completely reliant on commercial shipping is an integral aspect of the overall Chinese strategy.

The pipeline itself is not the only issue for the Chinese. Sittwe is the site of the major Chinese-funded port, which, aside from being the starting point of the pipeline, is a vital access point to Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Imports such as minerals and other raw materials from Africa as well as oil from the Middle East would be shipped through this port (along with the Pakistani port of Gwadar) for sale on the Chinese market. It is for this reason that Sittwe is of crucial significance to Chinese economic development. Naturally, as Sittwe and the rest of the Rakhine state descends into chaos and the international community clamors for some form of intervention, the port, pipeline and other projects cannot continue as planned.

Sittwe and the Rakhine region are not the only flashpoint in this proxy war against Chinese economic development. The Kachin province in northern Myanmar has seen its own share of violent conflict. The Kachin rebels, fighting the central government, have only recently stepped up their guerilla war against the government. This increased violence is understood to be a serious threat to the stability of the region and, consequently, the viability and security of the Chinese pipeline which must travel through Kachin before terminating in Southwest China. In fact, the Chinese are reportedly paying Burmese soldiers in the North to provide additional security for the project in light of the recent violence. This fact indicates not only the strategic necessity of the project for the Chinese but also their understanding that the violence in the region is aimed as much at them as it is at the government of Myanmar.

Aside from the pipeline, the Chinese are heavily invested in a number of hydroelectric dam projects, none bigger or more economically significant than the Myitsone Dam Project, a large scale investment estimated at upwards of $4 billion. The dam, which would provide power primarily for Southwest China but also for Myanmar to a lesser extent, is part of a development plan by the Chinese to address the vital issue of energy generation, particularly for interior China. However, due to the violence in the region as well as environmental concerns raised by local residents (as well as the possibility of Western arm-twisting), the project was recently put on hold. Naturally, this is a source of tremendous irritation for Beijing, which sees this as yet another example of Western meddling in the affairs of Chinese economic development.

The armed conflicts throughout the country have made the investment climate in Myanmar very difficult for the Chinese. In spite of this however, the Chinese are still determined to reassert their influence. They remain close allies of the government, which, despite recent overtures to the United States and the West more generally, still remains somewhat skeptical of the motivations of Washington.

Western “Soft Power” to Block the Chinese

One might ask how the United States actually fits into these various conflicts in Myanmar. It is true that there are no “boots on the ground” as far as anyone knows’, nor is Washington directly intervening in the country. Instead, as with so many other strategically crucial regions of the world, the US employs soft power to achieve its strategic aims. One prime example of this sort of power-projection comes in the form of NGOs operating inside Myanmar with funding from the US government. Additionally, we see India, and other nations traditionally at odds with China, being used as a wedge to pry Myanmar out of the Chinese sphere of influence. However, there is no better example of the use of soft power in Myanmar than the rise of Aung San Suu Kyi to international superstardom.

It would not be fair to argue that Aung San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy movement in Myanmar is entirely a tool of the West. It certainly has merits and has evolved out of a genuine desire of much of the population to see democratic reforms and the liberalization of their country. However, it would be intellectually dishonest not to point out the obvious connections between the policies of the US State Department, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the pro-democracy movement embodied by the Nobel Prize winner and darling of the West, Suu Kyi.

For more than a decade, the National Endowment for Democracy has been active inside the country, ostensibly supporting the pro-democracy movement. However, considering the fact that that the NED and its various subsidiary organizations are directly funded by the US State Department, it is logical, and indeed correct, to conclude that the groups receiving their funding and support are aligned with US interests. In fact, we’ve seen this as recently as this week, when Suu Kyi made her public remarks warning against investment with Chinese firms while supporting dealing with Western oil companies such as Chevron and Total. This is a prime example of the way in which Suu Kyi and her supporters represent the interests of the United States as much as they represent those of the people of Myanmar.

Beyond just Suu Kyi and her political influence in the country, the National Endowment for Democracy has a strong grassroots presence in the country, helping to shape discourse by funding dozens of “educational institutions”; naturally these institutions are amenable to US interests in the country. Additionally, the NED uses innocuous phrases such as “freedom of Information”, “transparency”, and “NGO strengthening” to describe the multitude of activities in which it is engaged. Here, it should be noted that I am not arguing that all of these initiatives are bad. On the contrary, some of them empower local people in various fields or help raise important issues. However, the overall scope of the engagement illustrates not just an interest in the future of Myanmar, but an active participation in shaping the next generation of leaders who will look away from China and towards Washington.

It is important to note that the NED has been active in the Rakhine region for years, working precisely with the Rohingya population now embroiled in this violent conflict. In fact, in a 2006 report funded by the NED, we see clearly the way in which the United States uses the cover of human rights and the rights of children to undermine and otherwise subvert the government.  This should not be taken as suggesting that this ethnic minority is irrelevant or that their struggle is without some merit.  Rather, it is simply to point out the way in which the US, under the auspices of human rights and children, is able to entrench itself inside the country and its institutions.

As Myanmar undergoes the transition to a more open, democratic society, so too does it open itself to the dangers and fruits of international engagement. While the country has the opportunity to enrich itself and bring economic and social benefits to the people, it also runs the risk of allowing itself to be part of the global strategy of the United States to contain China and prevent its economic expansion. As its geographical location indicates, Myanmar finds itself at the center of a geopolitical and economic proxy war. As the imperialist ruling class of the West desperately clings to power in hopes of extending their hegemony for another century, so too does China seek to gain the status of superpower on the world stage. For Myanmar, this could be an economic boom: the chance for wealth and prosperity for a people who have suffered under the yoke of imperialist domination for the last three centuries. However, equally important, will be the decisions made in the next few years, which will have serious implications for Myanmar’s present and its future.

By Eric Draitser

As public interest in African affairs briefly found a place in mainstream talking points following a controversial viral video campaign about Ugandan rebel group, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), both the United States and the African Union are mobilizing military forces to Central Africa to counter further threats to civilian safety posed by the group. Following the US deployment of one hundred military personnel to Uganda in 2011, the African Union has recently deployed a 5,000-solider brigade to LRA affected areas, tasked with pursuing the group and its leader, Joseph Kony. In the United States, a new bill co-authored by U.S. Representative Edward Royce has been introduced to the Congress calling for the further expansion of regional military forces into the nations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic and the newly formed South Sudan.

Although the Lord’s Resistance Army has been accused of recruiting child soldiers and conducting crimes against humanity throughout its two-decade campaign for greater autonomy against the Ugandan government, the group is presently comprised of less than two hundred soldiers and remains a questionable threat. Meanwhile, China’s deepening economic engagement in Africa and its crucial role in developing the mining and industrial sectors of several nations is reportedly creating “deep nervousness” in the West, according to David Shinn, former US ambassador to Burkina Faso and Ethiopia. As the Obama administration claims to welcome the peaceful rise of China on the world stage, recent policy shifts toward an increased US military presence in several alleged LRA hotspots threaten deepening Chinese commercial activity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, widely considered the world’s most resource rich nation.

As China maintains its record of consistently strong economic performance, Washington is crusading against China’s export restrictions on minerals that are crucial components in the production of consumer electronics such as flat-screen televisions, smart phones, laptop batteries, and a host of other products. As the United States, European Union and Japan project international pressure on the World Trade Organization and the World Bank to block financing for China’s extensive mining projects, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s irresponsible accusations of China perpetuating a creeping “new colonialism” of the African continent remain rather telling. As China is predicted to formally emerge as the world’s largest economy in 2016, the successful aggregation of African resources remains a key component to its ongoing rivalry with the United States.

The villainous branding of Joseph Kony may well be deserved, however it cannot be overstated that the LRA threat is wholly misrepresented in recent pro-intervention US legislation. The vast majority of LRA attacks have reportedly taken place in the northeastern Bangadi region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, located on the foot of a tri-border expanse between the Central African Republic and South Sudan. However, the small number of deaths reported by official sources in recent times relies on unconfirmed reports, where LRA activity is “presumed” and “suspected”. Considering the Congo’s extreme instability after decades of foreign invasion, falsely crediting the LRA with the region’s longstanding cases of violence for political gain becomes relatively simple for those looking to gain enormous contracts for Congolese resources.

In a 2010 white paper entitled “Critical Raw Materials for the EU,” the European Commission cites the immediate need for reserve supplies of tantalum, cobalt, niobium, and tungsten among others; the US Department of Energy 2010 white paper “Critical Mineral Strategy” also acknowledged the strategic importance of these key components. In 1980, Pentagon experts acknowledged dire shortages of cobalt, titanium, chromium, tantalum, beryllium, and nickel, eluding that rebel insurgencies in the Congo inflated the cost of such materials. Additionally, the US Congressional Budget Office’s 1982 report “Cobalt: Policy Options for a Strategic Mineral” notes that cobalt alloys are critical to the aerospace and weapons industries and that 64% of the world’s cobalt reserves lay in the Katanga Copper Belt, running from southeastern Congo into northern Zambia.

During the Congo Wars of the 1996 to 2003, the United States provided training and arms to Tutsi Rwandan and Ugandan militias who later invaded the Congo’s mineral rich eastern provinces to pursue extremist Hutu militias following the Rwandan genocide. Although over six million deaths were attributed to the conflict in the Congo, findings of the United Nations suggest that neighboring regimes in Ugandan, Rwanda and Burundi benefitted immensely from illegally harvested conflict minerals, later sold to various multinational corporations for use in consumer goods. The US defense industry relies on high quality metallic alloys indigenous to the region, used primarily in the construction of high-performance jet engines. The sole piece of legislation authored by President Obama during his time as a Senator was S.B. 2125, the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006; Section 201(6) of the bill specifically calls for the protection of natural resources in the troubled regions of eastern Congo.

The Congo maintains the second lowest GDP per capita despite having an estimated $24 trillion in untapped raw minerals deposits; it holds more than 30% of the world’s diamond reserves and 80% of the world’s coltan, the majority of which is exported to China for processing into electronic-grade tantalum powder and wiring. The control of strategic resources in the eastern Congo is a vital element of the ongoing US-China rivalry, as Chinese commercial activities in the DRC continue to increase in the fields of mining and telecommunications. The Congo exported $1.4 billion worth of cobalt to China between 2007 and 2008, while the majority of Congolese raw materials like cobalt, copper ore and a variety of hard woods are exported to China for further processing; 90% of the processing plants in resource rich southeastern Katanga province are owned by Chinese nationals.

In 2008, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) blocked a trade deal between a consortium of Chinese companies, who were granted the rights to mining operations in Katanga in exchange for US$6 billion in infrastructure investments, including the construction of two hospitals, four universities and a hydroelectric power project. The framework of the deal allocated an additional $3 million to develop cobalt and copper mining operations in Katanga, but the IMF argued that the agreement between China and the DRC violated the foreign debt relief program for so-called HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) nations. The marginalization of China by financial regulatory bodies is a strong indication of its throttling rivalry with American and European corporate communities, many of who fear being diluted in China’s increasing economic orbit.

While subtle economic warfare rages between partnered superpowers, the increasing western military presence in the Congo is part of a larger program to expand AFRICOM, the United States Africa Command, through a proposed archipelago of American military bases in the region. In 2007, US State Department advisor Dr. J. Peter Pham offered the following on AFRICOM and its strategic objectives of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance, a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.” The push into Africa has more to do with destabilizing the deeply troubled Democratic Republic of the Congo and capturing its strategic reserves of cobalt, tantalum, gold and diamonds. More accurately, the US is poised to employ a scorched-earth policy by creating dangerous war-like conditions in the Congo, prompting the mass exodus of Chinese investors. Similarly to the Libyan conflict, the Chinese returned after the fall of Gaddafi to find a proxy government only willing to do business with the western nations who helped it into power. The European Union’s recently offered contribution of $12 million to joint military operations against the ailing Lord’s Resistance Army suggests signs of a coming resource war in Central Africa.

By Nile Bowie

The United States and its European NATO allies along with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and of course Israel, are now in a state of undeclared war against Syria, as part of their ultimate goal of containing Iran. That is, until they gather more coalition partners to take on Russia and China. The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has unsubtly weighed in on the side of the NATO aggressors following the failure of the Security Council resolution for sanctions against Damascus.

War, and the resultant anguish it brings on all sides, is therefore the tragic destiny of the Syrian people, just as it was of the Libyan people last year; of the Iraqi people for a decade, of the Afghan people… This seems almost certain to continue until the old colonial West succeeds in bringing the whole world into a new united slavery.

But the war has only just been joined, and as the Syrian regime gears up to fight back, it will try to extract a heavy price from the fragile western economies, which could yet fall prey to the classic phenomenon of imperial overreach. Iran, which needs Syria to check Israel in the Levant, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah which is heavily dependent upon Syria, have reiterated support for Assad. Moscow needs the access Syria provides to the Mediterranean Sea, and Beijing is reluctant to let Washington acquire unbridled dominance over every strategic territory and sea or ocean that it covets.

Meanwhile, it is undeniable that the NATO-Sunni Arab sponsored civil war has badly hurt the ruling dynasty. On July 18, Defense Minister Daoud Rajha (an Orthodox Christian), deputy defence minister Assef Shawkat (President’s brother-in-law), deputy vice president Hassan Turkomani (Assad’s chief of crisis management), were assassinated at a cabinet meeting at the National Security building in Damascus. The several injured included Hisham Ikhtiar, director of the National Security Bureau (who died Friday, 20 July), and interior minister Mohammad Ibrahim al-Shaar.

Preliminary reports suggest that a bodyguard of the President’s inner circle turned suicide bomber [some reports say an IED was planted in the room, and hint at a Mossad hand]. Whatever the truth, the attack, the boldest in the 16-month turmoil that has already taken 14,000 lives, indicates a high level security breach in the top echelons of the Assad regime. It so excited the regime’s enemies that both the rebel Free Syrian Army and an obscure Islamist group (Lord of the Martyrs Brigade) claimed credit.

Washington and its allies swiftly backed a British resolution at the UN Security Council for sanctions against Syria, which was repulsed by Russia and China. Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, accused the West of thinking only of “its own geopolitical interests, which have nothing in common with those of the Syrian people.”

The resolution mooted non-military sanctions against the Syrian regime if it fails to withdraw heavy weapons and troops from urban areas within 10 days, and is linked to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which provides for use of force to end the escalating conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this year vowed not to allow a repeat of the “Libya scenario” which ended in the ouster and murder of Muammar Gaddafi after a NATO military campaign. Russia has emphasized that adoption of the West’s resolution would be tantamount to “direct support” for rebel forces who claim to have launched the final battle for control of the capital. But Russian analysts predicted that the West would now openly arm the rebels, along with its Arab allies, to topple Basher Assad by force.

In a repeat of the unfortunate trend of India ditching traditional allies under the auspices of the Sonia Gandhi-led UPA regime, New Delhi voted in favor of this scandalous resolution. Worse, though the resolution clearly invoked Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, New Delhi justified its vote on the specious plea that it was intended “to facilitate a united action by the Security Council in support of the efforts of the Joint Special Envoy [Kofi Annan].”

New Delhi has thus committed India to the NATO agenda of “regime change” in Syria, violating our principled stand against foreign intervention in sovereign nations. Pakistan, like South Africa, made a principled abstention. Diplomatic and strategic experts worry that with India making active enemies of traditional friends, what goodwill and support can it call upon the day Western redesigning of the world map demands an independent Kashmir as per the original British plan? This can happen sooner than expected, say, around the time the US decides to implement the plan for an independent Balochistan.

How long can the world go along with the subterfuge of nations advocating Democracy in one breath and then using acts of terrorism to force regime change on nations? Democracy is only one form of government, and by no means the best if we truthfully assess the state of democracies today. Ironically, the ‘dictatorships’ recently overthrown by Western military intervention – Iraq, Libya – were nations that provided the best social support to their people in terms of free education, medicare, civic amenities, etc, and now Syria which gives its people the same standard of life is on the hit list. Surely there is a message here that the world needs to read and understand.

Syria is the only remaining independent state in the Arab world. The ruling Baath party has popular support, is secular and anti-Imperialist, and integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze people. It supports the Palestinian cause and is thus at odds with Israel.

So how authentic is the opposition to this regime? Barely 16 months ago, the Syrian opposition was weak, fragmented, and poor; government forces successfully routed the rebels from strongholds in Homs and other northern towns. But from the time the Kofi Annan peace plan was announced in mid-April, the military capability of the rebels has vastly improved. At a meeting of the Friends of Syria in Istanbul on 1 April, $100 million was pledged to the armed opposition groups.

Washington planned its moves carefully, beginning with the appointment of Robert S. Ford as US envoy to Damascus in late January 2011. Ford was ‘Number Two’ at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) under Ambassador John D. Negroponte; he played a key role in the Pentagon’s ‘Iraq Salvador Option’ which supported Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modelled on the experience of Central America.

Michel Chossudovsky notes that currently America is involved in four distinct war theaters – Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya. An attack on Syria would result in the integration of these theaters and eventually lead to a broader Middle East-Central Asian war.

Charlie Skelton of the UK Guardian has made a detailed and brilliant analysis of the persons claiming to represent the Syrian people, specifically representatives of the Syrian National Council (SNC) which is projected in the West as the ‘the main opposition coalition’. What is true is that the SNC is deeply embedded with the West and was among the first voices to call for foreign intervention in the country.

Skelton’s list is an eye opener, a strong warning about the use of Diaspora dissidents to destabilize regimes targeted by the West.

Take, for instance, the Syrian National Council’s most senior spokesperson, the Paris-based Syrian academic Bassma Kodmani, member of the council’s executive bureau and head of foreign affairs. Just days before the Security Council resolution, she demanded “a resolution under Chapter VII, which allows for the use of all legitimate means, coercive means, embargo on arms, as well as the use of force to oblige the regime to comply.” And she has been invited to the secretive Bilderberg conclave twice, once in 2008 and again in 2012. At the 2008 conference, she was listed as French, but in 2012, she became ‘international’ (whatever that means).

In 2005, Kodmani worked for the Ford Foundation in Cairo, as director of governance and international co-operation programme. This was the time US-Syrian ties collapsed and President Bush recalled his ambassador from Damascus. Many Syrian opposition projects began in this period, according to the Washington Post.

By September 2005, Kodmani was executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI), a research programme launched by the powerful US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It was mentored by an international board chaired by General (Ret.) Brent Scowcroft.

Brent Scowcroft is a former national security adviser to the US president; he succeeded Henry Kissinger. His colleagues on the Arab Reform Initiative board include geo-strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security adviser) and Peter Sutherland, chairman of Goldman Sachs International. And in 2005 itself, the Council on Foreign Relations gave ‘financial oversight’ of the project to the Centre for European Reform (CER). Enter the British.

The Centre for European Reform (CER) is overseen by Lord Kerr, deputy chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, former head of the diplomatic service and senior adviser at Chatham House, the most important UK think tank. Daily operations are run by Charles Grant, former defence editor of the Economist, and member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a ‘pan-European think tank’ packed with diplomats, industrialists, professors and prime ministers. Members include Bassma Kodmani (France/Syria), Executive Director, Arab Reform Initiative.

The Centre for European Reform includes George Soros, one of the main financiers of the European Council on Foreign Relations. See how the worlds of banking, diplomacy, industry, intelligence and various policy institutes and foundations mesh together. Kodmani – in the midst of it all – is also research director, Académie Diplomatique Internationale, ‘an independent and neutral institution dedicated to promoting modern diplomacy’. The Académie is headed by Jean-Claude Cousseran, a former head of the DGSE or French foreign intelligence service.

Then there is Radwan Ziadeh, director of foreign relations, Syrian National Council. Ziadeh is a senior fellow at the federally-funded Washington think tank, the US Institute of Peace, where the Board of Directors is packed with alumni of the defence department and national security council. The president is Richard Solomon, former adviser to Kissinger at the NSC. Ziadeh has powerful connection in Washington and London. In 2009 he was Fellow at Chatham House.

SNC member Najib Ghadbian, a University of Arkansas political scientist, became a link between the US government and the Syrian opposition in exile way back in 2005. He is now on the advisory board of a Washington-based policy body called the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS), which is co-founded by Ziadeh.

Ziadeh has spent years in such networking. In 2008, he participated in a meeting of opposition figures in a Washington government building called ‘Syria In-Transition’, which was co-sponsored by a US-based body called the Democracy Council and a UK-based body called the Movement for Justice and Development (MJD). The MJD website said: “The conference saw an exceptional turn out as the allocated hall was packed with guests from the House of Representatives and the Senate, representatives of studies centres, journalists and Syrian expatriats [sic] in the USA.”

MJD’s public relations director, Ausama Monajed, was present at this meeting. The Guardian report says that the SNC includes the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2008, Monajed was invited to lunch with George W Bush, along with a few of other favoured dissidents; the guests included Condoleezza Rice.

The MJD, according to a Washington Post story picked up from WikiLeaks, was amongst the recipients of huge money from the US state department. Monajed’s Barada TV, a London-based network of Syrian exiles, received as much as $6m since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria.

And there are so many others, all ready to sell their motherland for a fistful of silver. At this moment, the money is flowing faster than flood waters…

By Sandhya Jain

22 Jul 2012

@ www.vijayvaani.com

The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

The newly elected President of the Republic of Egypt, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, has pledged to establish a democratic, constitutional state based upon the rule of law and the will of the people. The greatest challenge that he faces in realising this goal is the leadership of the nation’s Armed Forces.

Even before Morsi’s wafer-thin victory — 52 per cent of the vote as against 48 per cent for his opponent, Ahmed Shafiq— the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had conducted what analysts have described as a “power grab.” On 14 June 2012, Egypt’s High Constitutional Court (HCC), which like the elite in the Armed Forces, comprises Mubarak loyalists, dissolved the democratically elected Parliament and curbed the powers of the President especially in relation to security, defence and foreign policy. 75 per cent of the parliamentary seats are in the hands of Islamic parties, led by the Ikhwanul Muslimin (the Muslim Brotherhood). The military elite also has the right to object to any article in the yet to be drafted national constitution and exercises authority over the national budget.

Why the military is keen to retain control over the nation’s finances, it is not difficult to fathom. The military “controls a multi-billion dollar business empire that trades in products not normally associated with men in uniform: olive oil, fertilizer, televisions, laptops, cigarettes, mineral water, poultry, bread and underwear… Estimates suggest that military-connected enterprises account for 10% to 40% of the Egyptian economy. It is an opaque realm of foreign investments, inside deals and privilege that has grown quietly for decades, employing thousands of workers and operating parallel to the army’s defence industries.”

To dismantle such a complex structure of economic power fused with political power and military might is not an easy task.  Morsi will do well to remember that there is hardly a single instance of a military deeply entrenched in power transferring its authority in a smooth and easy manner to civilian rulers. In Algeria in January 1992, we witnessed the ugly spectacle of a military junta usurping power after the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) had won the first round of elections resulting in a long and bloody civil war which claimed tens of thousands of lives. The military in Myanmar continues to hold the trump card, elections notwithstanding.  Pakistan’s civilian rulers are very much aware of the powerful presence of the military partly because of the series of coups it had staged in the course of the last 50 years.  This is also true to a great extent of Thailand. In Indonesia and Turkey, the military appears to have withdrawn to the barracks but it remains a strong undercurrent in the politics of the two states.

For Morsi to establish a functioning democratic system, he must not only persevere and be principled but also possess superb negotiating skills and clever strategies.  His greatest ally in this tussle with military power will be the citizenry of Egypt. Since almost half of the voting population did not endorse his presidency, Morsi will have to redouble his efforts to reach out to all segments of society. Apart from women and Christians which the media has highlighted, he should also seek the support of other Islamic groups, secular and liberal Egyptians, and socialists. In a nutshell, his approach to politics and policies should be inclusive and all-embracing. By resigning from the Ikhwan, and projecting himself as the President of all Egyptians, Morsi has taken the first step in that direction.

A truly inclusive President will accord priority to the long neglected, huge underclass in Egyptian society. These are the millions —- 40% of the population live in poverty—- struggling to eke out a living.  25% of Egypt’s youth, according to some estimates, are unemployed. The paucity of decent housing is a chronic problem that has plagued Cairo for decades. It has forced some 1.5 million poor Egyptians to scour for shelter in the cemeteries of the rich outside the capital. The lack of clean water and frequent power outages are some of the other colossal burdens that this congested city of 19 million bears.

How will Morsi and his policy-makers and planners address these challenges?  If they are going to pursue more liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation — as the Ikhwan’s economic programme Al-Nahda seems to suggest — then they are adopting the wrong approach. Such an approach will not help to transform the lives of the disenfranchised and the downtrodden. Neither does the solution lie with the IMF— from whom the Ikhwan hopes to secure a loan soon— with its austerity programme and subsidy cutbacks.

A reformed, de-bureaucratised, corruption free public sector will have to take the lead. It will have to raise incomes of the lower echelons of society; emphasise public housing for the homeless; invest in small and medium sized enterprises; focus upon human resource development. People’s cooperatives will have to be established which will help to break existing monopolies in the production and distribution of goods and services. Public entities will have to be re-organised to manage water and energy supply and distribution. Infrastructure development which benefits the poor directly will be given priority. In this and other areas, a socially responsible private sector channelling domestic and foreign capital in accordance with the nation’s goals, will have a key role to play.

Analysts have asked if vested interests within and without Egypt will allow such an egalitarian, justice driven economic policy to take root.  It is revealing that both Morsi and Shafiq put forward economic ideas which in essence sought to assure the wealthy in Egypt and international capital that their interests would be safeguarded. It was only the candidate who emerged a close third in the first round of the Presidential Election, Hamdeen Sabahy, who offered a genuine alternative that privileged the economically marginalised. It was obvious why the mainstream Western media downplayed his economic agenda.

It is not just on the economy that Morsi appears to have adopted a certain stance. On an important foreign policy issue, namely, US military bases in the region and the upgrading of facilities for the US’ 5^th Fleet in Bahrain, Morsi and the Ikhwan have been rather quiet. And what is even more critical, the centres of power in the West will watch him closely on his position on Syria and on Egypt’s relations with Iran.

But more than anything else, it is on the question of Israel that Washington, its European allies, and Israel itself, will judge Morsi. Morsi has promised all of them that he will respect all international treaties that Egypt has entered into— which would of course include the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. However, they are not sure if Morsi will at some point in the future, succumb to pressure from the masses to review and rescind the Treaty, especially since Egyptian public opinion has never been in favour of the Treaty. Because Morsi presides over a democracy, he cannot — unlike Mubarak the dictator— afford to ignore popular sentiments. Besides, he himself had campaigned in the election as a staunch defender of the Palestinian cause.

How will Morsi’s commitment to Palestine manifest itself now that he is President? Will the new Egyptian President lead the campaign for a just peace for the Palestinians— a peace that will ensure the return of Palestinian refugees to their land, as provided for in international law, a peace that recognises East Jerusalem as the capital of a new, viable  Palestinian state with its own army, navy and air force?  Since a just peace of this sort is anathema to Israeli leaders and most Zionists and Christian Zionists in the US, what will Morsi do? Will he abandon these fundamental demands of the Palestinian struggle? What will be the consequences if he does? Or will he stand up to the Israeli elite and their patrons and protectors in the West? Again, what will be the ramifications?

It is because Israel and Western powers are worried about how a democratically elected President in the Arab world’s most important state may move the pieces on the Israel-Palestine/Arab chessboard that they would like the military, with its close ties to Israel and the West,  to maintain a grip upon Egyptian politics.  That is why these so-called champions of democracy have been somewhat reticent about the military’s undemocratic dissolution of Parliament and its shackling of the Presidency. This should not surprise us. After all, haven’t they always placed their own hegemonic interests above democratic principles?

Chandra Muzaffar

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Malaysia.

2 July 2012.

The newly elected President of the Republic of Egypt, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, has pledged to establish a democratic, constitutional state based upon the rule of law and the will of the people. The greatest challenge that he faces in realising this goal is the leadership of the nation’s Armed Forces.

Even before Morsi’s wafer-thin victory — 52 per cent of the vote as against 48 per cent for his opponent, Ahmed Shafiq— the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had conducted what analysts have described as a “power grab.” On 14 June 2012, Egypt’s High Constitutional Court (HCC), which like the elite in the Armed Forces, comprises Mubarak loyalists, dissolved the democratically elected Parliament and curbed the powers of the President especially in relation to security, defence and foreign policy. 75 per cent of the parliamentary seats are in the hands of Islamic parties, led by the Ikhwanul Muslimin (the Muslim Brotherhood). The military elite also has the right to object to any article in the yet to be drafted national constitution and exercises authority over the national budget.

Why the military is keen to retain control over the nation’s finances, it is not difficult to fathom. The military “controls a multi-billion dollar business empire that trades in products not normally associated with men in uniform: olive oil, fertilizer, televisions, laptops, cigarettes, mineral water, poultry, bread and underwear… Estimates suggest that military-connected enterprises account for 10% to 40% of the Egyptian economy. It is an opaque realm of foreign investments, inside deals and privilege that has grown quietly for decades, employing thousands of workers and operating parallel to the army’s defence industries.”

To dismantle such a complex structure of economic power fused with political power and military might is not an easy task.  Morsi will do well to remember that there is hardly a single instance of a military deeply entrenched in power transferring its authority in a smooth and easy manner to civilian rulers. In Algeria in January 1992, we witnessed the ugly spectacle of a military junta usurping power after the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) had won the first round of elections resulting in a long and bloody civil war which claimed tens of thousands of lives. The military in Myanmar continues to hold the trump card, elections notwithstanding.  Pakistan’s civilian rulers are very much aware of the powerful presence of the military partly because of the series of coups it had staged in the course of the last 50 years.  This is also true to a great extent of Thailand. In Indonesia and Turkey, the military appears to have withdrawn to the barracks but it remains a strong undercurrent in the politics of the two states.

For Morsi to establish a functioning democratic system, he must not only persevere and be principled but also possess superb negotiating skills and clever strategies.  His greatest ally in this tussle with military power will be the citizenry of Egypt. Since almost half of the voting population did not endorse his presidency, Morsi will have to redouble his efforts to reach out to all segments of society. Apart from women and Christians which the media has highlighted, he should also seek the support of other Islamic groups, secular and liberal Egyptians, and socialists. In a nutshell, his approach to politics and policies should be inclusive and all-embracing. By resigning from the Ikhwan, and projecting himself as the President of all Egyptians, Morsi has taken the first step in that direction.

A truly inclusive President will accord priority to the long neglected, huge underclass in Egyptian society. These are the millions —- 40% of the population live in poverty—- struggling to eke out a living.  25% of Egypt’s youth, according to some estimates, are unemployed. The paucity of decent housing is a chronic problem that has plagued Cairo for decades. It has forced some 1.5 million poor Egyptians to scour for shelter in the cemeteries of the rich outside the capital. The lack of clean water and frequent power outages are some of the other colossal burdens that this congested city of 19 million bears.

How will Morsi and his policy-makers and planners address these challenges?  If they are going to pursue more liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation — as the Ikhwan’s economic programme Al-Nahda seems to suggest — then they are adopting the wrong approach. Such an approach will not help to transform the lives of the disenfranchised and the downtrodden. Neither does the solution lie with the IMF— from whom the Ikhwan hopes to secure a loan soon— with its austerity programme and subsidy cutbacks.

A reformed, de-bureaucratised, corruption free public sector will have to take the lead. It will have to raise incomes of the lower echelons of society; emphasise public housing for the homeless; invest in small and medium sized enterprises; focus upon human resource development. People’s cooperatives will have to be established which will help to break existing monopolies in the production and distribution of goods and services. Public entities will have to be re-organised to manage water and energy supply and distribution. Infrastructure development which benefits the poor directly will be given priority. In this and other areas, a socially responsible private sector channelling domestic and foreign capital in accordance with the nation’s goals, will have a key role to play.

Analysts have asked if vested interests within and without Egypt will allow such an egalitarian, justice driven economic policy to take root.  It is revealing that both Morsi and Shafiq put forward economic ideas which in essence sought to assure the wealthy in Egypt and international capital that their interests would be safeguarded. It was only the candidate who emerged a close third in the first round of the Presidential Election, Hamdeen Sabahy, who offered a genuine alternative that privileged the economically marginalised. It was obvious why the mainstream Western media downplayed his economic agenda.

It is not just on the economy that Morsi appears to have adopted a certain stance. On an important foreign policy issue, namely, US military bases in the region and the upgrading of facilities for the US’ 5^th Fleet in Bahrain, Morsi and the Ikhwan have been rather quiet. And what is even more critical, the centres of power in the West will watch him closely on his position on Syria and on Egypt’s relations with Iran.

But more than anything else, it is on the question of Israel that Washington, its European allies, and Israel itself, will judge Morsi. Morsi has promised all of them that he will respect all international treaties that Egypt has entered into— which would of course include the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. However, they are not sure if Morsi will at some point in the future, succumb to pressure from the masses to review and rescind the Treaty, especially since Egyptian public opinion has never been in favour of the Treaty. Because Morsi presides over a democracy, he cannot — unlike Mubarak the dictator— afford to ignore popular sentiments. Besides, he himself had campaigned in the election as a staunch defender of the Palestinian cause.

How will Morsi’s commitment to Palestine manifest itself now that he is President? Will the new Egyptian President lead the campaign for a just peace for the Palestinians— a peace that will ensure the return of Palestinian refugees to their land, as provided for in international law, a peace that recognises East Jerusalem as the capital of a new, viable  Palestinian state with its own army, navy and air force?  Since a just peace of this sort is anathema to Israeli leaders and most Zionists and Christian Zionists in the US, what will Morsi do? Will he abandon these fundamental demands of the Palestinian struggle? What will be the consequences if he does? Or will he stand up to the Israeli elite and their patrons and protectors in the West? Again, what will be the ramifications?

It is because Israel and Western powers are worried about how a democratically elected President in the Arab world’s most important state may move the pieces on the Israel-Palestine/Arab chessboard that they would like the military, with its close ties to Israel and the West,  to maintain a grip upon Egyptian politics.  That is why these so-called champions of democracy have been somewhat reticent about the military’s undemocratic dissolution of Parliament and its shackling of the Presidency. This should not surprise us. After all, haven’t they always placed their own hegemonic interests above democratic principles?

Chandra Muzaffar

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Malaysia.

2 July 2012.

Mali is engulfed in a tragic conflict that pits rural tribes and groups against each other. These is very little background information in the mainstream media on Mali and its history to enable readers to understand what is going on. This profile on Mali is a modest attempt to fill that gap – editor.

A chronology of key events:

11th century – Empire of Mali becomes dominant force in the upper Niger basin, its period of greatness beginning under King Sundiata in 1235 and peaking under Mansa Musa who ruled between 1312 and 1337 and extended empire to the Atlantic.

14th-15th centuries – Decline of the Empire of Mali, which loses dominance of the gold trade to the Songhai Empire, which makes its base in Timbuktu – historically important as a focal point of Islamic culture and a trading post on the trans-Saharan caravan route.

Late 16th century – Moroccans defeat the Songhai, make Timbuktu their capital and rule until their decline in the 18th century.

19th century – French colonial advance, and Islamic religious wars which lead to creation of theocratic states.

1898 – France completes conquest of Mali, then called French Sudan.

1959 – Mali and Senegal form the Mali Federation, which splits a year later.

Independence

1960 – Mali becomes independent with Modibo Keita as president. It becomes a one-party, socialist state and withdraws from the Franc zone.

1968 – Keita ousted in coup led by Lieutenant Moussa Traore.

1977 – Protests erupt following Keita’s death in prison.

1979 – New constitution provides for elections; Traore re-elected president.

1985 – Mali and Burkina Faso engage in border fighting.

1991 – Traore deposed in coup and replaced by transitional committee.

Democracy

1992 – Alpha Konare wins multiparty elections to become Mali’s first democratically-elected president.

1995 – Peace agreement with Tuareg tribes leads to return of thousands of refugees.

1999 – Former President Moussa Traore sentenced to death on corruption charges, but has his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by President Konare.

1999 October – Several people killed in fighting in the north between members of the Kunta tribe and an Arab community over local disputes.

2000 February – Konare appoints former International Monetary Fund official Mande Sidibe prime minister.

2001 December – Manantali dam in southwest produces its first megawatt of hydro-electricity, 13 years after it was completed.

Amadou Toure

2002 April – Amadou Toumani Toure elected president by landslide. Poll is marred by allegations of fraud.

2002 September – France says it will cancel 40% of debts owed to it by Mali, amounting to some 80m euros ($79m, £51m).

2002 October – Government resigns, without public explanation. New “government of national unity” is unveiled.

2003 August – Clashes between rival Muslim groups in west kill at least 10 people.

2004 April – Prime Minister Mohamed Ag Amani resigns and is replaced by Ousmane Issoufi Maiga.

2004 September – Agriculture minister says severe locust plague has cut cereal harvest by up to 45%.

2005 June – World Food Programme warns of severe food shortages, the result of drought and locust infestations in 2004.

2006 June – The government signs an Algerian-brokered peace deal with Tuareg rebels seeking greater autonomy for their northern desert region. The rebels looted weapons in the town of Kidal in May, raising fears of a new rebellion.

2007 April – President Toure wins a second five-year term in elections.

2007 July – The ruling coalition, Alliance for Democracy and Progress (ADP), strengthens its hold on parliament in elections.

Rebel activity

2007 August – Suspected Tuareg rebels abduct government soldiers in separate incidents near the Niger and Algerian borders.

2008 May – Tuareg rebels kill 17 soldiers in attack on an army post in the northeast, despite a ceasefire agreed a month earlier.

2008 December – At least 20 people are killed and several taken hostage in an attack by Tuareg rebels on a military base in northern Mali.

2009 February – Government says the army has taken control of all the bases of the most active Tuareg rebel group. A week later, 700 rebels surrender their weapons in ceremony marking their return to the peace process.

2009 May – Algeria begins sending military equipment to Mali in preparation for a joint operation against Islamic militants linked to al-Qaeda.

2009 August – New law boosts women’s rights, prompts some protests.

2010 January – Annual music event – Festival in the Desert – is moved from a desert oasis to Timbuktu because of security fears.

Terror challenge

2010 April – Mali, Algeria, Mauritania and Niger set up joint command to tackle threat of terrorism.

2012 January – Fears of new Tuareg rebellion following attacks on northern towns which prompt civilians to flee into Mauritania.

2012 March – Military officers depose President Toure ahead of the April presidential elections, accusing him of failing to deal effectively with the Tuareg rebellion. African Union suspends Mali.

2012 April – Tuareg rebels seize control of northern Mali, declare independence.

Military hands over to a civilian interim government, led by President Dioncounda Traore.

2012 May – Junta reasserts control after an alleged coup attempt by supporters of ousted President Toure in Bamako.

Pro-junta protesters storm presidential compound and beat Mr Traore unconscious.

The Tuareg MNLA and Islamist Ansar Dine rebel groups merge and declare northern Mali to be an Islamic state. Ansar Dine begins to impose Islamic law in Timbuktu. Al-Qaeda in North Africa endorses the deal.

2012 June-July – Ansar Dine and its Al-Qaeda ally turn on the MNLA and capture the main northern cities of Timbuktu, Kidal and Gao. They begin to destroy many Muslim shrines that offend their puritan views.

28 June, 2012

Source: BBC News Africa

Resorting to blackmail tactics in order to push through a UN resolution allowing the use of external force shows that the US is extremely frustrated that Assad has been able to hold on to power in Syria for so long, activist Brian Becker told RT.

­Moscow said on Monday that Western governments are trying to blackmail Russia into supporting their draft of the Syrian resolution, threatening to end the UN observer mission if a deal is not reached.

The director of the ANSWER anti-war coalition, Brian Becker, told RT that the US wants to intimidate Beijing and Moscow in the international arena so it can do what it wants in order to reach the ultimate goal of overthrowing the Assad government.

RT: Russia says it faced blackmail tactics at the UN Security Council. Is this common when it comes to big politics?

Brian Becker: Well, unfortunately all too common. And I think the Russian foreign minister is in fact being very diplomatic when he says there is “an element” of blackmail or arm-twisting.

The US government, the Clinton-Obama foreign policy, is kind of the way a mafioso works: “If you don’t go our way, if you don’t do what we do, we are going to break your leg, we’ll make it impossible, we’ll threaten you.” Blackmailing and hostage taking is sort of a soft way of putting it, in fact.

The United States hopes to be able to break Russia and China down, to have them intimidated in the international arena so it can do what it wants to do, which is to foment civil war using all available elements of violence, pushing aside the possibility of peace in order to accomplish its main objective – which is to overthrow the Assad government. Not because that government is undemocratic, not because it is anti-humanitarian but because it’s not a proxy for the West, and that’s the real objective of the US in the Middle East, in Syria and elsewhere.

RT: If Russia fails to pass a Western-drafted resolution, which is the most realistic outcome, what will be the next step for the US and its allies?

BB: The US is extremely frustrated right now that the Assad government has been able to hold on in spite of the sustained pressure from Western powers and from Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are arming the opposition. Very frustrated because they expect these smaller countries to fall when the US says “you must fall.” They are expected to be shattered quickly and the Assad government shows great tenacity, a great staying power because – as the Russian foreign minister said it correctly – because there is a big part of the Syrian population that still supports the government.

And so the United States will, if stopped in the diplomatic arena, find another outlet for its unbridled use of violence in this case to overthrow the government. This is not going to stop. This is going to be ended by one side or another having a military victory and the United States is determined to overthrow the regime.

RT: How would that work? Is it possible to launch outside military action bypassing the UN Security Council?

BB: Well, certainly, we’ve seen that in the past. Look what happened in the case of Yugoslavia. There, too, the United States and the Western powers, when they could not get the UN to go along with the break-up of Yugoslavia, they resorted to the use of NATO. The United States can use NATO. Turkey of course is the eastern flank of NATO. It too can invoke NATO treaty obligations to bring in other partners. And it has other regional allies, in this case Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

So, I think we are heading towards foreign military intervention if the Assad government is able to hold on in spite of the extreme pressure it is facing.

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

17 July, 2012

@ RT.com

“The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine”– Yasser Arafat.

30th March is a historic day in the Palestinian history because this day commemorates the Land Day: the first widespread struggle of Palestinians against the Israel. After the establishment of the state of Israel, it was the first common struggle by the Palestinians. Since1976 it is celebrated as the Land Day. On this day Palestinians had organized a general strike and march from Galilee, and the protest spread to the occupied west bank, Gaza and refugee camps in Lebanon to condemn the Israeli plan to confiscate the Palestinian land in order to create a Jewish National Home. In the confrontations with the Israeli army and police, six Palestinian were killed, about 100 wounded, and 100 arrested. Later confidential document called Koenig Memorandum written by Yisrael Koeing (then a member of the ruling party) was leaked in the media which recommended to “ensure the long-term Jewish national interests” it stressed the need to “examine the possibility of diluting existing Arab population concentration”.

This year the land day was marked by Global March to Jerusalem (GMJ). A distinguished group of 400 advisers, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu; Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire and Swami Agnivesh, former member of Indian Parliament promoted the GMJ. The objective of GMJ was to call attention to continuing Judaisation of the Palestinian land, demanding freedom for Jerusalem, its people, and to put an end to the apartheid regime and ethnic cleansing. GMJ had been a courageous and marvelous endeavor to encourage the world’s conscience on Palestine. It was a first time in the World history, people from all over the world came together against such a powerful oppressor. It was a unique effort by the citizens of different nations for the people of Palestine. Individuals from different religions, regions, language, race even Jewish organizations (like Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Independent Jewish Voices) came out to support the campaign. GMJ was an initiative to unite the Arabs, Asians, Europeans, Christians, Muslims, Jews and all peace loving citizens of the world to put an end to the Killing Machine (Israel). Israel has proved that International Laws are not meant for them because of their close alliance with US as they can get away with any war crime. Israel is a living example monarchic system of UN. Keep aside other laws they are not even bound by International Humanitarian Laws. No need to investigate the history to prove Israeli atrocities as Gaza was recently under attack. On 3rd and 4th June 2012 night Israel carried out a series of air raids hitting several areas in the Gaza Strip. One house was struck by four missiles (1) . Governments and Institutions are bounded by their national or vested interests and they cannot afford Israeli rivalry. As ex-prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon rightly said “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it ”.(2) Since UN, US and other governments were tongue-tied subsequently ordinary citizens took charge to lend a hand to Jerusalem and to demonstrate to the Israel that peace loving people of the world are against it.

All over the world different initiatives have been taken by civil societies and public in general against the Israeli state. The GMJ marched as close to the Jerusalem as they could, at the border of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, at the checkpoint of Gaza and in the west bank, also in 32 countries and 54 cities at the Israeli embassies around the world. It was the first time in history that so many people gathered around the Palestine. All the protests were peaceful, keeping in mind Israel’s atrocious reaction on Al Nakba day 2011, when 13 refugees were killed.

GMJ was initiated by Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine (APSP); nearly 150 representatives from 14 Asian countries namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Palestine participated in the convoy. 37 Indian delegates represented the vast diversity of the country and participated in the caravan. The caravan left on 9th March 2012 after a send-off ceremony at Raj Ghat by Zuhair Hamadallah Zaid, Minister/Deputy Chief of Mission (Palestinian Embassy, Delhi) and Ram Vilas Paswan. Indian delegates joined the Pakistani, Indonesian, Filipinos and Malaysian delegation in Karachi.

Caravan faced several difficulties in terms of the Asian land route because of the increasing political intricacy in Syria. Therefore the Asian convoys detoured Syria which generated several problems in terms of the land route and the finance. Caravan covered nearly 15000 kms of distance by bus and ferry in 25 days and more than 30 programs took place in 20 cities of 3 countries in which 10,000 people participated.

No doubt this march was interesting with lot of learning experience but it was not that painless and entertaining as it seemed. Caravan dealt with several troubles ranging from visa problems to lack of sleep and harsh weather. The major problem which caravan confronted with was the detention of 37 Indian, 3 Filipinos and 1 Iraqi delegate for 36 hours in a 426-seater small ship on 28th March at the Beirut port after travelling for more than 10 hours from Tusucu, Turkey. Nobody was allowed to step out from the ship by immigration authorities. There was no supply of drinking water, food and proper sanitation. The food which delegates and ship’s kitchen was carrying got finished. After protesting, authorities provided some food and drinking water and the next day Indian Embassy delivered some fresh food. Lebanese immigration authorities collected all the passports and were not giving any information about the visa procedure. While the Caravan was leaving Turkey for Lebanon, GMJ media group got the information on 23rd March that “Israel issued a warning to the nearby Arab states (Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan , Hamas’ in the West Bank and to the Palestinian authority) if they allowed the global march to take place next Friday 30th March. Israel also stated that if anyone neared their borders, they would be accused of trespassing .(3)” But this news did not deter the morale of the delegates.

Indonesian delegates got their visas after their embassy’s intervention. Iranians, Malaysian and Turkish do not need visa to enter in Lebanon. It was assured that delegates would be issued visa on arrival as per norm. But Indians couldn’t get visas until the intervention of Indian Embassy.

Several political leaders intervened in the matter. N. Kiran K. Reddy, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh asked the State Congress Members of Parliament to discuss the issue in Rajya Sabha. Afterwards, MPs of Telugu Desam Party demanded India’s intervention on the issue in Lok Sabha. Mani Shankar Aiyar, Congress MP called the Indian ambassador Ravi Thapar in Lebanon. Somehow Indian government and Ambassador were able to get the visa for Iraqi and Filipinos along with Indians at 12:30 am on 30th March. At last, the delegates from Europe and Asia gathered at the La Opera Suites in Beirut to give the loud and energetic welcome to the Indian, Iraqi and Filipino delegates. It was a happy reunion.

Eventually, on 30th March morning Caravan joined the hundred of Palestinian refugees and Lebanese gathered for demonstration at Al-Shqeif Castle in Southern Lebanon, overlooking the borders with Palestine. People were very enthusiastic and vigorous. Everybody was waving the Palestinian flag, showing photos of their martyrs and wearing Arafat’s Kufiyyah. Old women were crying and hugging us as if we were the warriors, young ladies wanted us to click photos with them and children were trying to touch us. The atmosphere was very moving and poignant. To avoid occurrence of violence, Lebanese and Israeli security were present on both sides of the border. Highlights of the demonstration were the children who sung Palestinian patriotic songs and four Rabbis from anti Zionist group called Neturei Karta like Yisroel David Weiss said “We want the world to know that the Jewish religion does not accept the occupation and the oppression of the Palestinian people. It is against the Torah, the Jewish teaching. It is against the views of Jews around the world who are true to the Torah.” Feroze Mithiborwala from India represented the Asian Caravan.

Similar demonstrations also took place in Syria, Jordon and Palestine on the same day. In Palestine, a 20 years old boy was killed in Beit Hanun by Israeli troops and more than 100 protesters were injured at Qalandiya checkpoint during the protest. The march successfully came to an end and was followed up by felicitation programmes in several participating countries including cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Lucknow and Jaipur in India.

No doubt that Indian Embassy and political leaders helped the delegation during its hard times. But from the beginning it was very evident that Indian delegation was not as supported by Indian government as it should have been because Indo-Israel ties are getting stronger. India has forgotten the Gandhi’s statement “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.”

Our Caravan was a small effort to show Gandhi’s stand on Palestine to the Israel. In the entire Caravan, Indian delegation was the only delegation representing vast diversities. All over the world Palestine issue is considered as a Muslim issue but people were impressed to see that Hindus, Atheists and Seculars are also pro-Palestine. Indian delegation presented a good image of Indian Unity in Diversity but only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches. Now I am revealing the hard realities, why India took a 180 degree turn on Palestine matter; how Israel is sowing seeds of hatred between Hindus and Muslims and how the celebrated slogan unity in diversity has been continuously bombarded with Hindutva’s one nation ideology.

Needless to say that since the year 1948, India is playing a game with Palestine, Indian Muslims and its national unity. In 1988 (and in Sept 2011 as well) India was the first non-Arab country to support Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN. Not only this, India also gifted a piece of land to establish the Palestinian Embassy in Delhi in 1980. At the same time it was also carrying out Pro-Israeli policies from 1950s.

In the beginning, India was keeping Israel at bay and relationship with Palestine was flourishing because of the following reasons: it wanted to secure an access to Arab oil; it relied on money being sent back by Indian migrants working in Arab during the economic crisis in 90s; it wanted to maintain a strong relation with Muslim world so that they would not side Pakistan on Kashmir matter; it had a good relation with the erstwhile American enemy i.e. USSR; and because Israel was a creation of Westerners especially Britain. Automatically it also helped Indian government to gain the trust of Muslim minority. These reasons clogged the open Indo-Israel relations from 1948 to 1992.

Another position from which India was backing Palestine was the fact that its greatest enemy also established its state on the basis of religion and Israel was following its footstep. But contrary to this, in 1971 war with Pakistan, India sought for Israel’s secret weaponry aid which was materialized by Mossad who was maintaining secret relation of exchanging military and intelligence without risking economics and political boycotts and protests by Arab world and Indian Muslims, respectively.

In 1992 India formally established the diplomatic relation with Israel by sacrificing the unity and harmony of the nation. Itzhak Gerberg argues (4) that “Both countries (India and Israel) have adopted similar positions on arms control issues and Islamic radicalism (5) . No doubt, particularly in dealing with minorities as they have adopted similar strategies. First and foremost similarity is calling them terrorists. One can easily state that India has provided a testing ground to Israel to experiment their bigger agendas like demolition of Masjid-e-Aqsa. By some scholars destruction of Babri Masjid in 1992 was viewed as the trial of demolition of Masjid-e-Aqsa, but no one paid any attention to it as this type of news were published in Urdu media. Israel is repeating its heinous crime of so called “state cleansing” in alliance with some Indian fanatical organization. The way Israel hauled Palestinians from their houses and set them on fire, killed women, children and elderly and same pogrom was repeated in Gujarat in 2002.

Their alliance is based on the ideology of ‘Hindutva Nation’ just like the Zionist concept of ‘Jewish Nation’. Bajrang Dal, Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) are close allies of Israel because they both see Islam as their mutual enemy (6) . 12 years ago, an article was published in Indian Express written by Sharad Gupta stating that “Desi Mossad is getting ready at Bajrang Dal’s Ayodhya camp. In that article, when an activist was asked what he did at the camp, he said “I am from the secret service of Bajrang Dal. Israel’s Mossad is my inspiration. I can’t tell you more ”(7) . Now, Bajrang Dal has opened a training camp at the Saraswati Bal Mandir School in West Delhi also. On 19th March 2012, The Hindu reported that Bajrang Dal activists allegedly bullying Christian Fraternity in South Delhi Slum.

Narasimha Rao’s led Congress party government with Man Mohan Singh, then the Finance Minister granted full diplomatic relation to Israel to commence the economic reforms and liberalization, which demanded the changes in foreign policy. Although it was during the BJP rule, Indo-Israel relations reached to its peak. There are people present in Congress and other parties who shares and supports the Hindutva ideology, but Congress always plays on a safe side. On the other, hand Right Wing is very open about it.

Another trick of Israel which is being played here is the negative portrayal of Muslims in media. Mossad has a full fledge department called ‘LAP (Lohamah Psichlogit) ’ (8) to carry out this task of psychological warfare. Under the banner of Exchange of Counter Terrorism Strategies, this is also one of the important skills India is learning. India’s strong anti Muslim attitude has failed to acknowledge the danger posed by Hindu fundamentalists. Media loudly screams on its first page that “Muslim terrorist arrested”. But not a single newspaper called Seemananada a ‘Hindu Terrorist’ or mentioned violence against Christians and Muslims as ‘Hindu Terrorism’. Media intentionally forgets that terrorist is a terrorist, neither a Muslim nor a Hindu.

Now the question arises, why Israel chooses India for all its dreadful activities, it could have chosen western countries which supported (and still supporting) them to establish and expand an illegitimate state. Answer is: apart from strategic and geo-political reasons, one of the vital factor is that no matter how much galaxy of western countries supports Israel in establishing the Jewish state, but Israel is very conscious that western countries has their own vested interests in creation of non-Muslim country at the centre of West Asia. Another factor is, they have not forgotten the hostility and discrimination they faced of being Semitic origin in the western land.

On the other hand, India is the only country where Jews not only enjoyed all equal rights but dominated the commercial life from the beginning and never known to anti-Semitism. This was the fabric of real India; tolerance, cooperation, co-existence and harmony which is now at stake. Jews and Muslim communities lived together peacefully in the same colonies for years. Let alone the present times, even they never confronted with any biasness at the time of Mughals. India is India because of its diversity, different religions, languages, customs, and traditions. As vegetables and fruits keep their identity distinctive, at the same time gets mixed into one bowl and makes a good salad. Just like that India cannot be India by following the ideology of Hindutva. On the Indian flag, if Green would be over-painted by Saffron then it would look like a stain.
It is ridiculous that at international platform lunatic organizations and individuals display themselves as the citizens of the most diverse and tolerant country but at the same time they are trying to paint all India in one color. Indian unity and harmony is on the edge of devastation because of the alliance of Israel and extremist organizations. To save India from Israel is as essential as to save India from neighboring terrorist organization’s infiltration.

1. http://warisacrime.org/content/israeli-attack-gaza-june-3-4-2012

2. Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

3. http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2012/March/24%20n/March%2030,%202012,%20The%
20Global%20March%20to%20Jerusalem%20for%20Freedom%20from%20Zionist%
20Israeli%20Occupation.htm

4. Itzhak Gerberg is a former Consul-General of the State of Israel in Bombay (Mumbai) and former Ambassador to Zimbabwe. He is presently the Ambassador of Israel to Georgia. He holds a PhD in International Politics from the University of South Africa, and his doctoral research focused on India-Israel relations. He was an instructor at the Israel National Defense College (INDC).

5. Gerberg, Itzhak, India-Israel Relations: Strategic Interests, Politics and Diplomatic Pragmatism, Israel National Defense College, IDF, University of Haifa, Israel, Pub. Feb 2010.pp. 54

6. As stated by Gerberg, Itzhak in India-Israel Relations: Strategic Interests, Politics and Diplomatic Pragmatism, Israel National Defense College, IDF, University of Haifa, Israel, Pub. Feb 2010

7. Accessed on 19th June 2012 http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20000630/ifr30005.html

8. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mossad.html

By Iman Tyagi

22 June, 2012
Countercurrents.org

Iman Tyagi is Advocacy and Communication Officer of Social Watch India and was One of the participants of Global March to Jerusalem