Archives: Articles

Recently in a poetic recital on T.V. in Saudi Arabia a Muslim poetess Hissas Hilal burst out against the strict control regime for women in her country. It was voice of protest and very bold protest at that, perhaps unthinkable in her regimented society. It was of course in verses of her poem. She said through veiled face about Islamic preachers, “who sit in the position of power”, but are “frightening” people with their fatwas and “preying like a wolf “ on those seeking peace.

This may not be the condition in all Islamic countries but traditional Muslim societies impose several restrictions and still are not ready to relax. the kind of hijab many Muslim women wear covering their faces and looking at the world only through two eye holes remains controversial among Muslim scholars, theologians and modern intellectuals. Question is what is to be done.

No one can deny the fast pace of change in the globalised world and it is becoming increasingly challenging to retain present controls exercised on women in traditional societies. This controversy has been going on ever since modernity asserted itself since 19th century. Many reforms took place in Muslim countries and women could win a degree of liberation.

However, later part of twentieth and beginning of twenty-first century saw re-emergence of traditional Islam, particularly salafi Islam. No society registers linear progress and progressive measures, in turn bring more challenges. Reasons, not to be discussed here are both economic and political, apart from social and cultural. This complex nature of tension between tradition and modernity is both challenge and opportunity.

What is important in this debate, which is often ignored in these debates, is that what we practice in the name of Islam is more cultural than religious or scriptural and also that we depend too much on tradition while defending or opposing the restrictions applied on women. A good example of this is a recent book published from Pakistan on “Chehre ka parda wajib ya ghair wajib” (Face Veil – Compulsory or Not) compiled by Prof. Khurshid Alam. It is a very scholarly debate between two learned scholar one defending and the other opposing face veil.

However, the book depends entirely on contradictory traditions of the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions cited by various medieval scholars. You find in abundance both kinds of traditions (hadith) insisting on face veil or thinking it unnecessary and both the scholars use these traditions to strengthen their position. This approach only reinforces traditional cultural Islam.

We should not ignore the fact that the most of the traditions (except those on moral, ethical or pertaining to ibadat (matters of worship) reflect Arab culture on one hand, and medieval west Asian or central Asian culture, on the other. The jurists have also maintained that Arab Adat (customs and traditions) could become part of Shari’ah law and many Shari’ah laws incorporate the Arab ‘adat.

In the book I am referring to, there is very little direct approach to the Qur’an or fresh reflections on the relevant Qur’anic verses. Let Muslim jurists and scholars realize that Arab ‘adat are far from divine and should not necessarily form the basic structure of the Shari’ah law. Today we must change this cultural base through direct reflections and fresh understanding of the Qur’anic verses relevant to women. This attempt would establish individual dignity and freedom of choice for women. Freedom of conscience is an important doctrine of the Qur’an and so is the individual dignity. Qur’an is far more in harmony with human dignity and freedom that the traditional medieval cultural practices.

This approach will. In no way, injure the divine nature of Shari’ah law and also would liberate it from its traditional cultural basis incorporating patriarchal values of Arab culture rather than the divine spirit of the Qur’an. This would liberate Muslim women and give them sense of dignity and freedom reducing tension between tradition and modernity. This opportunity should not be lost causing more agony to women and creating dilemma of choice for them. Most of the Muslim women want to follow their religion and also enjoy certain benefits of modernity. The Muslim scholars and jurists should end this agony.

Asghar Ali Engineer

If we were to study carefully the evolution of events that took place over the past 6,000 years of recorded history, we will discover that most of the world’s problems stemmed out from politics of one kind or another. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language describes “politics” as “the science of government; that part of ethics which relates to the regulation for the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity.”

Meaning of Politics

Also, politics is derived from the Greek word “polis” meaning city, which consists of citizens that make up the state or the nation. Those who become involved in the government of a nation are normally viewed as politicians. Needless to say, politicians are human beings that may be good or bad, beneficial or detrimental, and generous or egoistic. The people of a nation always tend to benefit when their politicians are highly concerned with their human needs.

At the same time, people in general always tend to suffer in many ways when their politicians carry agendas that are beneficial to a selected few but detrimental to many others. These kinds of politicians are viewed as abusive and the greatest problem people are faced with in this regard lies in how to get rid of them fast and smooth, peacefully and effectively. Since politicians differ from each other enormously it is somewhat difficult and confusing to have them classified by political or religious affiliation or other devised categories.

The Romans had a proverb, aliud est theoria aliud est practica – one thing is theory and other thing is practice. On the whole, people all over the world seem to share at least one thing in common about politicians. This was pointed out by well-known writer George Orwell who said: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.” This statement cannot be taken lightly because it has been verified to be true century after century to this very same day.

Let us examine carefully George Orwell’s words. Suppose we come to know that the food we are about to share with many of our friends is poisonous, what would we do? Shall we proceed to consume it knowing that all of us afterwards will be sick, if not dead? Or shall we have it discarded and seek for a remedy to this problem? If we were to tell the people that this food is very good and tasty and they believe us, they will surely proceed to eat it only to face the tragic consequences that will follow.

Deceitful Politics in Operation

Is it possible that in the world of politics we manage to reach a point as to find it necessary to reduce the sacred lives of many to merely a piece of furniture?! Moreover, to turn an insult into an injury, the US later insisted that the Iraqis were better off now, following the American invasion, than they were before under Saddam Hussein. Quite a few humanitarian and non-governmental organizations visited Iraq to see for themselves what was going on there. They asked little children between the ages of nine and twelve the following question: “What would like to do when you grow up?

We were told that some 80% of the Iraqi children said without hesitation: “Killing Americans!” Those that raised the question in the first place were very much surprised with this reply. So they proceeded to ask: “Why do you want to do that?” Each of these children gave more or less the same answer: “Because Americans killed my father, they killed my mother and they killed or maimed my brothers, sisters and friends.”

Others added saying: “Americans destroyed our homes and schools and all of our belongings and now we are all homeless.” When the Iraqi adults were asked: “Don’t you feel better that the US troops removed Saddam Hussein from office?” They all said unanimously: “We were much better before the invasion of Americans because then we still had our houses and schools, our spouses were alive and well and all of us enjoyed seeing our children playing and growing up. Now a number of them are gone and others are maimed and ruined for life.”

Ironically, the United States views itself as a nation of democracy that is “ruled by the people who elect their representatives to serve them as senators and congressmen.” Well, the vast majority of the American people proved to be against the US invasion of Iraq. Moreover, after such an invasion the American people, as a whole, continued to say loud and clear that the US government should pull out all US troops from Iraq without further delay. We had even US presidential candidates, one of whom was Dennis Kucinich, who vowed to pull out all American troops out of Iraq without further delay, if elected.

Orwell’s Saying at Work

Unfortunately, like George Orwell well pointed out, the US government succeeded to make the tremendous amount of civilian killings in Iraq look respectable, “a necessity to safeguard the freedom, democracy and security of the United States” as some leading politicians said over and over again in the US news-media. By the way, in the last US presidential elections Barack Obama was elected as the next US President primarily because he promised to end the war in Iraq and bring all US troops back home, even though as of now his promise has not yet been fulfilled.

Also, the American people elected Barack Obama as their US President because he promised that he would resort to solve political problems through healthy dialogues and strong diplomacy and not through struggles and wars. This peaceful approach in the sphere of world politics that he promised enabled him to win the Nobel Peace Prize as well. Of course, this new US President has still time to prove his sincere promises in replacing struggles and wars with harmony and peace everywhere. However, when he escalated the war in Afghanistan many Americans felt highly disappointed.

Besides, due to the fact that the United States is deeply immersed in a culture of war mentality, the unjust struggle in the Middle East is still on. The way to bring politics under control is for the people in the world to see to it that those that represent them in the government give top priority on people’s health care and education rather than on continued struggles and wars which lead to nowhere except to the eventual bankruptcy of the national economy. The time has arrived when the people should bring politics under their full control.

Anything that politicians say which is not conducive to the welfare of all people without exception should be viewed as dangerous and should never get our support. Anything that politicians say which is beneficial to welfare of people from every walk of life and procession should receive our wholehearted support. To this end, we must keep good politicians and get rid of the bad ones.

There is not one single group in the world that could claim to be perfect, an ideal source of inspiration. In other words, it is not wise for us to make it a habit to elect politicians because of their affiliation with a specific political party or with a religion of one kind or another. It would reveal a great lack of wisdom on our part if we were to view blindly things the way politicians would want us to see them in order to control us.

Political Meaning of “Pro-Life”

Let us illustrate this by some practical example. In the United States people are notably influenced by the name the political party carries: Republican versus Democrat, or the politician’s religious affiliation. In this latter one, Americans feel often trapped in a political dilemma, especially when they are faced by self-proclaimed “pro-life” politicians versus self-proclaimed “pro-choice” politicians. These divisions or classifications are nothing but meaningless and deceitful frames people choose to put in their mind.

It will help us understand better where we stand in politics if we were to illustrate what has just been stated with some evidences that bring into proper focus the contradictions found in politics. Republicans claim to be “pro-life.” This certainly pleases many clergymen especially when Republicans stress that “the sacredness of life starts from the moment of conception.” Like George Orwell well stated, this political statement is “designated to make lies sound truthful.” In fact, we need here to raise one serious question.

If the sacredness of life starts from the first moment of conception then does this sacredness of life end with the moment of birth? This is a very relevant question since Republicans always tend to solve virtually all political problems at the global level with all sorts of struggles and wars. This is revealed in their putting more money in the manufacture and sales of weapons, in the building of hundreds of US military bases around the world and in their instigation of more struggles and wars where millions of innocent people are killed, including pregnant women!

We all know that actions speak louder than words. Since struggles and wars could only be waged by people, is it possible that Republicans and those who claim to be “pro-life” may have ulterior motives? Are they “pro-life” as to make sure more humans are born to be used later as instruments to massacre millions of innocent people? Republicans, with other politicians that support US belligerent foreign policies, succeed to make “murder appear to be respectable,” as George Orwell remarked. Many US politicians state that “wars cannot be avoided when the freedom, democracy and security of the USA is involved!”

If that is the case, then we need to define well the meaning of freedom democracy and security, otherwise we will continue to misuse such words to the detriment of the American nation and, as a matter of fact, of every other single nation in the world. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines these three stated terms as follows.

Freedom, Democracy and Security

Freedom is described as “the state of being free; exemption from slavery, confinement, or constraint; liberty; independence; openness; outspokenness.” Each time the United States invades other countries, and interferes with their internal affairs does it make sense to say that this was to preserve American freedom?! What about if Russia and China were to invade the USA under the guise of preserving Russian and Chinese freedom?

Democracy is described as “that form of government in which the supreme power rests with the people, ruling themselves either directly or through representatives. It’s a government, as Abraham Lincoln put it that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The United States has no right whatsoever to impose its form of government on other nations by military force, under the guise of “preserving” its so called democracy.

Security is described as “the state of being secure; freedom from apprehension; freedom from danger or risk; something that secures against pecuniary loss.” How does the manufacture and sales of weapons to anyone that gives the right price, the eventual US military invasion of a nation along with the forming of so called military alliances bring security to the American nation that takes the initiative to attack other nations?

We are all familiar with the saying that “what goes around comes around,” and with the Master Teacher’s firm warning to “put the sword away for he who kills by the sword will die by the sword.” In view of what has been stated, it is quite obvious that many politicians in quite a number of countries have eventually emerged to be very dangerous to their respective nation’s people. People everywhere need to become fully aware of this tangible reality and do something about it, the sooner the better.

Let us all face our greatest challenge courageously keeping in mind that “when there is a will there is a way.” In the social sphere, the people exist to control politics and not the other way round. Politicians who resort to dialogues and diplomacy rather than struggles and wars, should receive our full support since they prove to be very beneficial to all people without exception.

by Charles Mercieca, Ph.D. 

“They will not criminalize us, rob us of our true identity, steal our individualism, depoliticize us, churn us out as systemized, institutionalized, decent law-abiding robots. We refuse to lie here in dishonor!”

– Bobby Sands, Provisional Irish Republican Army

Deir Yassin, Palestine, Live from Palestine, 9 April 2010 : It’s as if the very moment I passed by Bab al-Amud or Damascus Gate in Jerusalem’s Old City, I was transported back in time to a forbidden place, a place I was forced to feel as though I was illegally trespassing through just by gazing at it, a place now belonging to others. “This place you talk about no longer exists. It’s been long gone.” That’s what they continue to say with such impunity and disregard, but those sentiments of deterrence wouldn’t stop me. They never had before, and they wouldn’t stand a chance now. I was determined to go back, to see it all again with my own eyes, to capture every sight so the memories would be engraved in my head forever, despite any and all pretentious constructions that would be made without our permission. Despite all the renovations and reconstructions to make it “their own,” it would always be Deir Yassin to me.

“Deir Yassin,” she says with a sadness, a sense of loss in her eyes each time she speaks of the atrocious day she lost her home. “Deir Yassin,” she says with a childlike innocence in her voice as she recalls sweet memories before her entire world was completely denatured by evil. “Deir Yassin,” the imperishable words of my grandmother continue to resonate with me each day for she made me promise to never forget, and that’s a promise I intend to keep to her.

I followed the imperiously-placed road signs leading to Givat Shaul until the memories began flooding back, one by one. With no place to park, I took the chance of leaving the yellow-plated car on the side of the road, near the abandoned blue fence so I would be able to step back in time on foot. In the cool breeze of that afternoon, standing on the ledge overlooking the Har HaMenuchot cemetery in scenic view of the Jewish Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, I inhaled deeply and digested the view of what was now known as Givat Shaul. As I stood there taking in the surreal surroundings of Mount Herzl and Yad Vashem, I was overcome by emotions as the tales of my grandmother soon came to life right before my very eyes.

“See right there,” she pointed behind me, “that was my father’s stone quarry, and there’s the grain mill.” For as long as I live, I’ll never forget the look on her face, the way her lips quivered, the way she tapped her tired fingers on her chest with such pride, and the high pitch in her voice as she spoke with such nostalgia. As a little girl, she played house with her friends at the nearby monastery surrounded by fig, almond and apple trees, just as any child would do, oblivious to the tragedy that awaited them. At eight years old though, her childhood was no longer one free of trauma and injustice. In less than a day, she was forced to leave everything she had ever known behind, taking nothing with her but the clothes on her back. Sixty-two years ago, she had once called this place home. This was home, and without her knowledge, her permission, or her right, it was all taken away. Someone else callously decided it was no longer hers to claim. The thought of that still makes me feel as though I’ve been kicked repeatedly in the stomach.

It’s difficult to return to Deir Yassin without suddenly becoming transfixed by the blatant ethnic cleansing and hypocrisy lying on the very ground once belonging to the native Palestinians who called this very ground home less than seven decades ago. Chilling tales and memories have allowed Deir Yassin to live on in the hearts and minds of countless worldwide, allowing it to be deemed as so much more than just a name associated with death, destruction and pillaging. Deir Yassin will continue to resonate as a lesson of resilience and determination to never forget.

Before walking back to the car and bidding my farewell to Deir Yassin once again, I stood on the ledge overlooking Mount Herzl with the hope of trying to absorb and digest all that I had seen that day. Standing there captivated by all that I had taken notice of this time, I couldn’t help but feel as though my blood began to boil. Looking onto the grand, monumental view of Yad Vashem erected to honor those who so unjustly lost their lives in the Holocaust, I stood on the land where my own family too lost their livelihoods and lives so unjustly without so much as a marker to honor them. A mile away from Deir Yassin sits a memorial to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, to remind the world of the inhumanity that took place with such impunity. Today, it continues to remind the world of the atrocities that took place with a timeless, ubiquitous message of “never to forget man’s inhumanity to man.”

I can’t help but feel as though the overwhelming irony is shamelessly mocking me as I stand there on the other side of Yad Vashem in Deir Yassin, where a massacre took place 62 years ago. I stood there honoring those whose names don’t appear in a museum, whose voices are rarely, if ever, heard in the media, and whose legacies are insolently ignored and omitted from textbooks and classrooms, rendering them invisible to so many in the world. Standing there, I wonder if those who visit the museum look over to the other side and even know what occurred there some 60 years ago, whether or not they question what happened, and whether or not they feel any sympathy like they do for their own. Deir Yassin carries with it such magnitude, for it is not just the story of a massacre, but the story of two peoples — the victims and the victims of those victims — whose fates allowed them to be conjoined on stolen land.

Wiped off the post-1948 maps of Israel, Deir Yassin can never and will never be wiped out of the minds of Palestinians worldwide, those under occupation and those in the diaspora. No matter how the maps and signs are altered, I will always find a way back to Deir Yassin, because it is my moral responsibility to return and keep its legacy alive. This is where I come from. This is where my family, who are still alive and well to remember, suffered. This is where injustice took place, and I will never forget. After all, it was Simon Wiesenthal who said that “hope lives when people remember,” when observing the suffering of the Jews at the hands of injustice. Likewise, the suffering of the Palestinians deserves to be dignified as well. As any people who have been subjugated and oppressed, Palestinians too will hold on to their relentless refusal to concede and forget.

Despite all the agony, anguish and traumatizing memories that have echoed with her throughout her life, my grandmother’s eyes still light up just at the sound of hearing Deir Yassin. Today, this place that’s been associated with such pain and suffering to so many continues to instill such pride and joy in her. I’ve never known such strength and resilience, but I hope to learn from it every single day.

So, today, I commemorate the 62nd anniversary of the Deir Yassin Massacre. Commemorating Deir Yassin is not to create a sadistic exploitation of the suffering of a people. It is a reminder to us all that injustice did take place there, and that it is our responsibility to remember that the atrocities and intolerance we see and hear about today had their inception with Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin, which catapulted the Nakba, our catastrophe, is an undeniable marker of unabashed injustice, and it will continue to deter any prevarication and the notion that “ignorance is bliss.” Deir Yassin signifies that Palestinians existed and still exist, and we will never give up without a fight.

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was mistaken when he arrogantly asserted that “the old will die and the young will forget,” for he underestimated the indomitable will of the Palestinian people. Despite heartache, pain and suffering, we will never relinquish a dream so imbedded in our hearts and minds. Yes, the old may die, but the young will never able to forget, and to paraphrase Bobby Sands, “our revenge will be the laughter of our children,” those who will carry on this dream and fight for justice. This dream will live on in the hearts of generation after generation; it is an inextinguishable fire burning inside our hearts, and what we say today will be our lifelong commitment to it.

By Dina Elmuti

Dina Elmuti is a graduate student in the Masters in Social Work program at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

A novelist and former prisoner of Saddam Hussein’s regime gives her reaction to the Wikileaks Iraq video

I know the area where this massacre was committed. It is a crowded working-class area, a place where it is safe for children to play outdoors. It is near where my two aunts and their extended families lived, where I played as a child with my cousins Ali, Khalid, Ferial and Mohammed. Their offspring still live there.

The Reuters photographer we see being killed so casually in the film, Namir Noor-Eldeen, did not live there, but went to cover a story, risking his life at a time when most western journalists were imbedded with the military. Noor-Eldeen was 22 (he must have felt extremely proud to be working for Reuters) and single. His driver Saeed Chmagh, who is also seen being killed, was 40 and married. He left behind a widow and four children, adding to the millions of Iraqi widows and orphans.

Witnesses to the slaughter reported the harrowing details in 2007, but they had to wait for a western whistleblower to hand over a video before anyone listened. Watching the video, my first impression was, I have no impression. But the total numbness gradually grows into a now familiar anger. I listen to the excited voices of death coming from the sky, enjoying the chase and killing. I whisper: do they think they are God?

“Light ’em all up!” one shooter says.

“Ah, yeah, look at those dead bastards. Nice,” says another.

“Well, it’s their fault bringing their kids into the battle,” one says when ground troops discover two children among the wounded.

In their Apache helicopter, with their sophisticated killing machinery, US soldiers seem superhuman. The Iraqis, on the ground, appear only as nameless bastards, Hajjis, sandniggers. They seem subhuman – and stripping them of their humanity makes killing them easy.

As I watch, I feel the anger calcify in my heart alongside the rage I still feel over other Anglo-American massacres: Haditha (which has been compared to the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war); Ishaqi (where 11 Iraqi civilians were killed in June 2006); Falluja; the rape and killing of A’beer al-Janaby and her family; the British Camp Breadbasket scandal.

We often hear of the traumas US soldiers suffer when they lose one of their ranks, and their eagerness to even the score. We seldom hear from people like the Iraqi widow whose husband was shot, who looked me in the eye last summer, and said: “But we didn’t invade their country.” Unlike this video, the injustice she feels will not fade with time. It is engraved in the collective memory of people, and will be until justice is done.

By Haifa Zangana

10 April, 2010

Guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

April 10, 2010 — We are deeply concerned over the current situation in Thailand where military-backed Prime Minister Ahbisit Vejjajiva has declared a state of emergency and started a bloody crackdown amidst escalating protests calling for a fresh election.

 The situation is worrying as the Thai government has closed down all opposition media and given sweeping new powers to the security forces to prepare for a violent crackdown on the Red Shirt protesters. Thai troops are using excessive force including tanks and live ammunition, against pro-democracy demonstrators in Bangkok.

 The United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), or better known as the “Red Shirts”, has relaunched massive protests against the military-installed, unelected Ahbisit government since last March. This pro-democracy movement is comprised of rural and urban poor, who are standing up against the military-backed, oligarchic rule.

 The current crisis unfolded in September 2006, when the military staged a coup against the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, scrapped the 1997 popular constitution and replaced it with a military-sanctioned constitution. The royalist Yellow Shirts started to organise fascistic demonstrations when the pro-Thaksin party won in the 2007 election. The current Ahbisit government was installed by the military after the fascistic mobilisations by the Yellow Shirts and a coup by the court.

 The government, the army and the Yellow Shirts are afraid to face real democratic elections, as they know that they would lose since the majority of the poor support the Red Shirts. Ahbisit and the ruling elite are refusing the call for elections and are trying to buy time and even preparing for a violent crackdown. It is becoming clear that Ahbisit and the old elite are bringing the country towards a fascist dictatorship.

 Thailand has entered a new phase of class war. The old ruling elite with the backing of the military are using all means to scrap democracy in Thailand. The pro-democracy Red Shirts comprised of the majority of the working class, peasantry and poor, have shown their real popularity and mobilising strength which has definitely shaken the royalists and the military. With the broadening of the masses’ support for the Red Shirts, it could be a new and important step in the struggle of the ordinary people in Thailand for the restoration of democracy and social justice.

 *We call for:*

 the immediate resignation of the military-installed Ahbisit government and the holding of fresh democratic elections;

 * a halt to all forms of violent crackdown against Red Shirt

protesters. Respect the right of the people to organise, to

protest and to strike;

 * a halt to the suppression of democratic rights and clampdown on

the media;

 * the Thai government to not resort to any military coup.

 The current crisis in Thailand only can be resolved through genuine democracy and people’s power. We extend our support and solidarity to all workers, peasants and poor in Thailand who are struggling against the anti-democratic government and for the restoration of real democracy.

By *Socialist Party of Malaysia* (PSM), *Working People’s Association*

(PRP) of Indonesia, *People’s Democratic Party* (PRD) of Indonesia, *Turn Left Thailand*, *Socialist Alliance* of Australia

If we were to study carefully the evolution of events that took place  over the past 6,000 years of recorded history, we will discover that most  of  the  world’s  problems  stemmed  out from politics of one kind or another.  The  New  Webster  Dictionary  of  the English Language describes “politics” as “the science of government; that part of ethics which relates to   the  regulation  for  the  preservation  of  its  safety,  peace,  and prosperity.”

 Meaning of Politics

 Also,  politics  is derived from the Greek word “polis” meaning city,  which  consists  of  citizens  that make up the state or the nation. Those who become involved in the government of a nation are normally viewed as  politicians.  Needless to say, politicians are human beings that may be good  or  bad,  beneficial  or  detrimental,  and generous or egoistic. The people of a nation always tend to benefit when their politicians are highly concerned with their human needs.

 At  the  same  time, people in general always tend to suffer in many  ways  when  their  politicians carry agendas that are beneficial to a selected few but detrimental to many others. These kinds of politicians are viewed  as  abusive  and the greatest problem people are faced with in this regard  lies  in  how  to  get  rid of them fast and smooth, peacefully and effectively.  Since  politicians  differ  from  each other enormously it is somewhat  difficult  and  confusing to have them classified by political or religious affiliation or other devised categories.

 The  Romans had a proverb, aliud est theoria aliud est practica – one thing is theory and other thing is practice. On the whole, people all over  the  world  seem  to  share  at  least  one  thing  in  common  about politicians.  This  was  pointed out by well-known writer George Orwell who said:  “Political  language  is  designed  to  make lies sound truthful and murder  respectable,  and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.” This  statement  cannot be taken lightly because it has been verified to be true century after century to this very same day.

 Let us examine carefully George Orwell’s words. Suppose we come to  know  that  the  food we are about to share with many of our friends is poisonous,  what  would  we do? Shall we proceed to consume it knowing that all  of  us  afterwards  will  be  sick,  if  not dead? Or shall we have it discarded  and  seek  for  a remedy to this problem? If we were to tell the people that this food is very good and tasty and they believe us, they will surely  proceed  to  eat  it only to face the tragic consequences that will follow.

 Deceitful Politics in Operation

Contrary  to  the  admonition  of the United Nations, Pope John Paul  II,  Nelson  Mandela and Desmond Tutu of South Africa, Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and many outstanding world figures, the United States proceeded to invade Iraq. The political language designed by the US government consisted of lies that were  made  to  sound truthful. Not only that, but as George Orwell pointed out,  the  US government and its European allies made the murder of tens of thousands  of  innocent  Iraqi  people viewed as respectable. This needless massacre  was  referred  to  by  some  US military officials as “collateral damage!”

 Is it possible that in the world of politics we manage to reach a  point  as  to  find  it  necessary to reduce the sacred lives of many to merely  a  piece of furniture?! Moreover, to turn an insult into an injury, the  US  later  insisted that the Iraqis were better off now, following the American  invasion, than they were before under Saddam Hussein. Quite a few humanitarian  and  non-governmental  organizations  visited Iraq to see for themselves  what was going on there. They asked little children between the ages of nine and twelve the following question: “What would like to do when you grow up?

 We were told that some 80% of the Iraqi children said without hesitation:  “Killing  Americans!”  Those that raised the question in the first place were very much surprised with this reply. So they proceeded to ask: “Why do you want to do that?” Each of these children gave more or less the same answer: “Because Americans killed my father, they killed my mother and they killed or maimed my brothers, sisters and friends.”

 Others  added saying: “Americans destroyed our homes and schools and all of our  belongings  and  now  we are all homeless.” When the Iraqi adults were asked:  “Don’t  you  feel  better that the US troops removed Saddam Hussein from  office?”  They  all said unanimously: “We were much better before the invasion of Americans because then we still had our houses and schools, our spouses  were  alive  and  well  and  all of us enjoyed seeing our children playing and growing up. Now a number of them are gone and others are maimed and ruined for life.”

 Ironically, the United States views itself as a nation of democracy that is “ruled  by  the  people  who  elect  their representatives to serve them as senators  and  congressmen.” Well, the vast majority of the American people proved  to  be  against  the  US  invasion of Iraq. Moreover, after such an invasion  the  American people, as a whole, continued to say loud and clear that  the  US  government  should  pull out all US troops from Iraq without further  delay.  We  had  even  US presidential candidates, one of whom was Dennis  Kucinich,  who  vowed  to  pull out all American troops out of Iraq without further delay, if elected.

 Orwell’s Saying at Work

 Unfortunately,  like  George  Orwell  well  pointed out, the US government  succeeded to make the tremendous amount of civilian killings in Iraq look respectable, “a necessity to safeguard the freedom, democracy and security  of  the  United States” as some leading politicians said over and over  again  in  the US news-media. By the way, in the last US presidential elections  Barack  Obama  was  elected  as  the next US President primarily because  he  promised  to  end the war in Iraq and bring all US troops back home, even though as of now his promise has not yet been fulfilled.

 Also,  the  American  people  elected  Barack Obama as their US President  because  he  promised  that  he  would resort to solve political problems  through  healthy  dialogues  and strong diplomacy and not through struggles  and wars. This peaceful approach in the sphere of world politics that  he  promised  enabled  him  to  win the Nobel Peace Prize as well. Of course,  this new US President has still time to prove his sincere promises in replacing struggles and wars with harmony and peace everywhere. However, when  he  escalated  the  war  in  Afghanistan  many  Americans felt highly disappointed.

 Besides,  due  to  the  fact  that  the United States is deeply immersed  in  a culture of war mentality, the unjust struggle in the Middle East is still on. The way to bring politics under control is for the people in  the world to see to it that those that represent them in the government give  top  priority  on  people’s  health care and education rather than on continued  struggles  and wars which lead to nowhere except to the eventual bankruptcy  of  the  national economy. The time has arrived when the people should bring politics under their full control.

 Anything  that  politicians  say  which is not conducive to the welfare  of  all people without exception should be viewed as dangerous and should  never  get  our  support.  Anything  that  politicians say which is beneficial  to  welfare  of  people  from every walk of life and procession should  receive  our  wholehearted  support. To this end, we must keep good politicians and get rid of the bad ones.

 There  is not one single group in the world that could claim to be  perfect, an ideal source of inspiration. In other words, it is not wise for us to make it a habit to elect politicians because of their affiliation with  a specific political party or with a religion of one kind or another. It  would  reveal  a  great  lack  of wisdom on our part if we were to view blindly  things  the  way politicians would want us to see them in order to control us.

 Political Meaning of “Pro-Life”

 Let us illustrate this by some practical example. In the United States  people  are  notably  influenced  by  the  name the political party carries:   Republican   versus  Democrat,  or  the  politician’s  religious affiliation.  In  this  latter  one,  Americans  feel  often  trapped  in a political  dilemma,  especially  when  they  are  faced  by self-proclaimed “pro-life”  politicians  versus  self-proclaimed  “pro-choice” politicians. These   divisions  or  classifications  are  nothing  but  meaningless  and deceitful frames people choose to put in their mind.

 It will help us understand better where we stand in politics if we  were  to  illustrate what has just been stated with some evidences that bring  into  proper focus the contradictions found in politics. Republicans claim  to  be  “pro-life.” This certainly pleases many clergymen especially when Republicans stress that “the sacredness of life starts from the moment of conception.” Like George Orwell well stated, this political statement is “designated  to  make  lies sound truthful.” In fact, we need here to raise one serious question.

 If  the  sacredness  of  life  starts  from the first moment of conception  then does this sacredness of life end with the moment of birth? This  is  a  very  relevant question since Republicans always tend to solve virtually  all  political  problems  at  the global level with all sorts of struggles  and  wars.  This  is revealed in their putting more money in the manufacture  and  sales  of  weapons,  in  the  building  of hundreds of US military  bases around the world and in their instigation of more struggles and  wars  where millions of innocent people are killed, including pregnant women!

 We  all know that actions speak louder than words. Since struggles and wars could  only  be  waged by people, is it possible that Republicans and those who  claim  to be “pro-life” may have ulterior motives? Are they “pro-life” as  to  make  sure  more humans are born to be used later as instruments to massacre  millions  of innocent people? Republicans, with other politicians that  support  US  belligerent  foreign  policies,  succeed to make “murder appear  to  be respectable,” as George Orwell remarked. Many US politicians state that “wars cannot be avoided when the freedom, democracy and security of the USA is involved!”

 If  that  is  the  case, then we need to define well the meaning of freedom democracy  and security, otherwise we will continue to misuse such words to the  detriment  of  the  American nation and, as a matter of fact, of every other single nation in the world. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines these three stated terms as follows.

 Freedom, Democracy and Security

 Freedom  is  described  as  “the state of being free; exemption from  slavery, confinement, or constraint; liberty; independence; openness; outspokenness.”  Each  time  the United States invades other countries, and interferes  with their internal affairs does it make sense to say that this was  to  preserve American freedom?! What about if Russia and China were to invade the USA under the guise of preserving Russian and Chinese freedom?

 Democracy is described as “that form of government in which the supreme  power  rests with the people, ruling themselves either directly or through  representatives. It’s a government, as Abraham Lincoln put it that is  “of  the  people, by the people, and for the people.” The United States has  no  right whatsoever to impose its form of government on other nations by military force, under the guise of “preserving” its so called democracy.

 Security  is  described  as “the state of being secure; freedom from  apprehension;  freedom  from  danger  or risk; something that secures against  pecuniary  loss.” How does the manufacture and sales of weapons to anyone  that  gives the right price, the eventual US military invasion of a nation  along  with  the  forming  of  so  called  military alliances bring security  to  the American nation that takes the initiative to attack other nations?

 We  are  all  familiar  with  the saying that “what goes around comes around,” and with the Master Teacher’s firm warning to “put the sword away  for he who kills by the sword will die by the sword.” In view of what has  been  stated,  it  is  quite  obvious that many politicians in quite a number  of  countries have eventually emerged to be very dangerous to their respective nation’s people. People everywhere need to become fully aware of this tangible reality and do something about it, the sooner the better.

 Let  us all face our greatest challenge courageously keeping in mind  that “when there is a will there is a way.” In the social sphere, the people  exist  to control politics and not the other way round. Politicians who  resort  to  dialogues  and  diplomacy  rather than struggles and wars, should  receive  our full support since they prove to be very beneficial to all people without exception.

4-8-10

Charles Mercieca, Ph.D.

President, International Association of Educators for World Peace

Dedicated to United Nations Goals of Peace Education,

Environmental Protection, Human Rights & Disarmament

Professor Emeritus, Alabama A&M University

The Global Article 9 Campaign is celebrating its fifth anniversary this year! During that time, the Campaign has been successfully promoting peace constitutions and advocating for the abolition of war in Japan and around the world. To commemorate this fifth anniversary, throughout this year we will be looking back on the start of the Global Article 9 Campaign and how it has changed since 2005.

 Below is the excerpt of an interview on the Campaign’s beginnings and evolution with Kawasaki Akira, Executive Committee Member of Peace Boat and Secretary General of the Japan Organizing Committee of Global Article 9 Conference to Abolish War held in May 2008.

 Question: How did the idea of the campaign emerge?

 Kawasaki: The campaign began in 2005, I remember, at the occasion of the global conference of the NGO network the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict. It is an international NGO network starting from 2002 and focusing on how to prevent armed conflict and how to shape the focus in the security debate from reaction of the conflict to prevention of the conflict. In that, global NGOs and Northeast Asian NGOs gathered and discussed ways to prevent armed conflicts, and in that discussion, many groups that participated from outside of Japan recognized the value of the Japanese Article 9 in that character of non-militarism, non-violence, and the action agenda adopted by the network formally recognized the value of Article 9 as the foundation of Asia/Pacific peace. I was part of that process, and we Japanese members were so inspired in the discussion, because usually we thought that Article 9 was a domestic, legal, political issue. But it was a fresh experience for us to hear very positive remarks about our Article 9 from the international and global scope. So, inspired by that, we discussed with colleagues, especially in Northeast Asia, neighboring countries, and NGO groups and launched that campaign.

 Question: Initially, what were the core mission, issues and goals of the Campaign?

 Kawasaki: Very simply: globalizing Article 9. The concept of Article 9 was the core mission. To make Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution known to the people of the world, literally known to the people in the world, was one mission. Also, to share its spirit, for example, peaceful settlement of disputes and peaceful prevention of disputes. And also shifting resource allocation from military to human needs and highlighting the rights to live in peace. And, lastly, creating international peace mechanisms made from non-military ways. Those concepts and spirits we shared and implemented by countries in the world. That’s the core mission.

 Question: How has the Campaign evolved and changed since its inception?

 Kawasaki: I think at the starting point it was a very Asia/Pacific focused initiative. But as time goes by and as it progresses, especially in the process of having the Article 9 conference in 2008, where nearly 200 participants from more than 40 countries gathered, it has become truly global and not limited to an Asia/Pacific focus. In the Asia/Pacific focus, the discussion tends to become how to curb Japanese militarization. It is one very important point. But by having, let’s say Latin American participation or European participation or even African participation, the scope became really diverse and deep and really global.

 Question: Why do you think it is important to focus on peace constitutions?

 Kawasaki: Because it’s getting more and more relevant in the contemporary world. Because we see increasing failures by traditional militaristic approaches to solutions to the world. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. All of those, or the War on Terror. Nearly a decade has passed since the US start of the War on Terror, but we see increases of the terrorism, increases of the violence. So, the people are realizing that this approach is not the best solution and more and more military spending is questionable, especially in light of this serious economic recession. So, as an alternative to this political and economic trend in the first decade of the 21st century, having a peace constitution is important not from a legal perspective but rather for presenting an alternative to the political and economic system of the world.

 Question: When you talk about peace constitutions, what do you mean?

 Kawasaki: It’s a very broad concept, but any constitution that refers to peace can be said to be a peace constitution. Some people in Japan say that the Japanese peace constitution is the peace constitution because, it’s true that the Japanese peace constitution is very strict because it does not allow use of force in general. For example, when we look at the Ecuadorian constitution, it is talking about the ban of foreign military bases, but not its own military base. Its own military base is allowed. Or for example, if we talk about the Italian constitution, Article 11 refers to the non-aggression, and Korean constitution also refers to non-aggression, so it is similar to (Japan’s) Article 9.1, which refers to non-aggression. But we have section 2 of renouncing armed forces. So, some people criticize Italian or Korean’s (as) really limited, but I would say that all of those should be included as peace constitutions and should be diverse versions and all united as, you can say, peace constitutions.

 Question: With that said, do you have an ideal type of peace constitution, and if you do, what is it?

 Kawasaki: My sense is that I don’t want to have such kind of legal approach, because I think the peace constitution process is important. I think each constitution should have some shortages. Maybe the Japanese is very good in the text, but the biggest shortage in the Japanese constitution is the gap with the reality, as you know. So, it’s very easy to criticize the Japanese constitution from that perspective. Even pointing out that gap, I still see the value in the Japanese constitution. How to broaden that class style or compilation of fragmented constitutions where each of them has shortages. Broadening them as an international movement to increase and deepen the peace constitution is very important, so I don’t want to take such an approach to identify or define the best peace constitution.

 Question: Ok, so what should be the minimum traits or characteristics of a peace constitution?

 Kawasaki: The minimum characteristics should be to deny or to seriously doubt militaristic approach(es) to the problems of the country or the problems of the world. That’s the minimum part.

 This interview is part of a series of interviews with leaders, supporters, and conference participants of the Global Article 9 Campaign conducted by former Peace Boat and Global Article 9 Campaign intern Jay Gilliam.

Jay Gilliam is currently carrying out research on the Global Article 9 Campaign and peace constitutions around the world. He is enrolled in a Master’s Program in Peace Studies & Conflict Resolution at International Christian University in Tokyo, Japan.

It is now a matter of public record that immediately after the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld andhis pro-Israeli Neo-Conservative Deputy Paul Wolfowitz began to plot, plan, scheme and conspire to wage a war of aggression against Iraq by manipulating the tragic events of September 11th in order to provide a pretext for doing so.  Of course Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th or supporting Al-Qaeda. But that made no difference to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, their Undersecretary of War Douglas Feith, and the numerous other pro-Israeli Neo-Cons inhabiting the Bush Jr. administration.

These pro-Israeli Neo-Cons had been schooled in the Machiavellian/Hobbist/Nietzschean theories of Professor Leo Strauss who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago in its Department of Political Science for many years. The best exposé of Strauss’s pernicious theories on law, politics, government, for elitism, and against democracy can be found in two scholarly books by the Canadian Professor of Political Philosophy Shadia B. Drury: The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988); Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999).I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago’s Political Science Department by Strauss’s foremost protégé, co-author, and later literary executor Joseph Cropsey.

Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago’s Political Science Department (A.B., 1971, in Political Science), I concur completely with Professor Drury’s devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process that has been inflicted by Chicago’s Straussian Neo-Con cabal.  Strauss was a protégé of Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt, who justified every hideous atrocity that Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on anyone, including the Jews.  Chicago’s Neo-Cons are Neo-Nazis.

The University of Chicago routinely trained me and innumerable other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte Neo-Con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago or towards Chicago Alumni at other universities. Years later, the University of Chicago became the “brains” behind the Bush Jr.

Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree from the Neo-Con University of Chicago Law School in 1967. Many of his lawyers at the Bush Jr. Department of Injustice were members of the right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, elitist, war-mongering, and totalitarian Federalist Society (A.K.A.:”Feddies”), which originated in part at the Neo-Con University of Chicago Law School. There Barack Obama would teach constitutional law.  Feddies wrote the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) I and the draft for USAPA II, which constitute the blueprints for establishing an American Police State.  Meanwhile, the Department of Injustice’s own F.B.I. is still covering up the U.S. governmental origins of the post 11 September 2001 anthrax attacks on Washington D.C. that enabled Ashcroft and his Feddies to stampede the U.S. Congress into passing USAPA I into law.

Integrally related to and overlapping with the Feddies are members of the University of Chicago Law School Movement of “Law-and-Kick-Them-in-the-Groin-Economics,” which in turn was founded upon the Market Fundamentalism of Milton Friedman, now retired but long-time Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Friedman and his “Chicago Boys” have raped, robbed, looted, plundered, and pillaged economies and their respective peoples all over the developing world, especially People of Color, and now here in the United States.  This Chicago gang of academic con-artists and charlatans are proponents of the Nazi Doctrine of “useless eaters” that was condemned by the Nuremberg Judgment (1946). Pursuant to Friedman’s philosophy of Market Fundamentalism, the “privatization” of Iraq and its Oil Industry are already underway for the primary benefit of the U.S. energy companies (e.g., Halliburton, formerly under Bush Jr.’s Vice President Dick Cheney) that had already interpenetrated the Bush Jr. administration as well as the Bush Family itself. Enron.

Although miseducated at Yale and Harvard Business School, the “Ivies” proved to be too liberal for Bush Jr. and his fundamentalist Christian supporters, whose pointman and spearcarrier in the Bush Jr. administration was Ashcroft, a Fundie himself. The Neo-Cons and the Fundies contracted an “unholy alliance” in support of Bush Jr.  For their own different reasons, both gangs also worked hand-in-hand to support Israel’s genocidal Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an internationally acknowledged war criminal.

According to his own public estimate and boast in a 26 February 2003 speech before the American Enterprise Institute (another front-organization for Straussian Neo-Cons), President Bush Jr. hired about 20 Straussians to occupy key positions in his administration, intentionally taking offices where they could push American foreign policy in favor of Israel and against its chosen enemies such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians.  Most of the Straussian Neo-Cons in the Bush Jr. administration and elsewhere were and still are Israel-firsters: What is “good” for Israel is by definition “good” for the United States. Dual loyalties indeed. These same principles hold true for the not-so-closet Neo-Cons in the Obama administration: e.g., Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, Elena Kagan, Dennis Ross, Cass Sunstein, etc.

In addition, it was the Chicago Straussian cabal of pro-Israeli Neo-Cons who set up a special “intelligence” unit within the Pentagon that was responsible for manufacturing many of the bald-faced lies, deceptions, half-truths, and sheer propaganda that the Bush Jr. administration then disseminated to the lap-dog U.S. news media in order to generate public support for a war of aggression against Iraq for the benefit of Israel and in order to steal Iraq’s oil.  To paraphrase advice Machiavelli once rendered to his Prince in Chapter XVIII of that book: Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived.  As I can attest from my personal experience as an alumnus of the University of Chicago Department of Political Science, the Bible of Chicago’s Neo-Con Straussian cabal is Machiavelli’s The Prince. We students had to know our Machiavelli by heart and rote at the University of Chicago.

As for the University of Chicago overall, its New Testament is Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind (1987).  Of course Bloom was another protégé of Strauss (and thus the intellectual grandson of Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt), as well as a mentor to Wolfowitz. In his Bloom-biographical novel Ravelstein (2000) Saul Bellow, longtime member of the University of Chicago Faculty, outed his self-styled friend Bloom as a hedonist, pederast, and most promiscuous homosexual who died of AIDS. All this was common knowledge at the University of Chicago, where Bloom was and is still worshiped on a pedestal and his elitist screed against democratic education in America still revered as gospel truth.

In Ravelstein Wolfowitz appeared as Bloom’s protégé Philip Gorman, leaking national security secrets to his mentor during the Bush Sr. war against Iraq. Strauss hovered around the novel as Bloom’s mentor and guru Professor Davarr. Strauss/Davarr is really the eminence grise of Ravelstein. With friends like Bellow, Bloom did not need enemies. On the basis of Ravelstein alone, Wolfowitz warranted criminal investigation by the F.B.I.

Immediately after the Bush Jr. administration’s wanton aggression against Iraq, the University of Chicago chose the occasion to officially celebrate its Straussian Neo-Con cabal responsible therefore, highlighting Wolfowitz Ph.D. ’72, Ahmad Chalabi, Ph.D. ’69 (the CIA’s Iraqi puppet), Abram Shulsky, A.M. ’68, Ph.D. ’72 (head of the Pentagon’s special “intelligence” unit), Zalmay Khalilzad, Ph.D. ’79 (Bush Jr.’s roving pro-consul for Afghanistan and then Iraq), as well as faculty members Bellow, X ’39, and Bloom, A.B. ’49, A.M. ’53, Ph.D. ’55, together with Strauss. According to the  June 2003 University of Chicago Magazine, Bloom’s rant “helped popularize Straussian ideals of democracy.”  It is correct to assert that Bloom’s book helped to popularize Straussian “ideas,” but they were blatantly anti-democratic, Machiavellian, Hobbist, Nietzschean, and elitist to begin with. Only the University of Chicago would have the unmitigated Orwellian gall to publicly assert that Strauss and Bloom cared one whit about democracy, let alone comprehended the “ideals of democracy.”

Does anyone seriously believe that a pro-Israeli Chicago/Strauss/Bloom product such as Wolfowitz could care less about democracy in the United States let alone in Iraq?  Or for that matter anyone in the Bush Jr. administration? After they stole the 2000 presidential election from the American People in Florida and before the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court, some of whom were/are Feddies? Justice Clarence Thomas is a Straussian to boot.  For eight years the Neo-Cons, Fundies, Feddies, and Con-Artists of the Bush Jr. administration did everything humanly possible to build an American Police State.  So far University of Chicago Constitutional Law Teacher President Barack Obama has failed and refused to deconstruct and dismantle their totalitarian handiwork. To the contrary, the Obama administration has defended and justified in court almost every hideous atrocity that the Bush Jr. administration perpetrated on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

At the behest of its Straussian Neo-Con Political Science Department, in 1979 the entire University of Chicago went out of its way to grant the “first Albert Pick Jr. Award for Outstanding Contributions to International Understanding” to Robert McNamara, who was personally responsible for exterminating 3 million Vietnamese and 58,000 men of my generation.  In other words, the University of Chicago itself maliciously strove to rehabilitate one of the greatest international war criminals in the post-World War II era.  History shall always record that the University of Chicago gratuitously honored Bob “Half-an-Eichmann” McNamara.

Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like Wolfowitz and totalitarians like Ashcroft! The University of Chicago is an intellectual and moral cesspool.  As J.D. Rockefeller, the Original Robber Baron and Funder of the University of Chicago once commented about his progeny:  “It’s the best investment I ever made.”  Still is.

Francis A. Boyle

Law Building

504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.

Champaign, IL 61820 USA

217-333-7954 (Voice)

217-244-1478 (Fax)

(personal comments only)

Yesterday the United States officially introduced their new Nuclear Doctrine. Tomorrow, on April 8, 2010, the long-awaited START III Treaty between Russia and the US is about to be signed in Prague, Czech Republic. On April 12-13 Pres. Obama will host the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. In other words, we can see a massive American anti-nuclear advance.

If we scrutinize the US policy for the last 100 years, we can hardly find a single evidence of sacrificial contribution of the American elites in favor of other nations or mankind as a whole. Can we presume that the political mindset of the US ruling class has changed since Pres. Obama took office last year? In case somebody still believes in it, we are just asking why for example the US is wasting enormous funds for the military preparation. Their expenses are far exceeding those of all other countries of the world summed up. Why does Washington militarize the Outer Space, enhance the deployment of non-nuclear strategic weapons, develop ABM shield and refit the most powerful strategic nuclear submarines of the ‘Ohio’ class to carry cruise missiles instead of ballistic? There are so many ‘whys’ and their sequence serves little to proof American peaceful intentions.

Leonid Ivashov is a Four-star General (rtd), former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. He is currently a vice-President of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Studies and holds Ph.D. in History.

The article was published in Russian at Strategic Culture Foundation web-site on April 7, 2010.

Translation: Oriental Review.

Leonid IVASHOV (Russia)

Wed, Apr 7, 2010

Nuclear Weapons, Third World War, USA, WMD

In early February of 2006, I submitted a book proposal about the wartime relationship between Generals George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower to a group of New York publishers. I had worked on the proposal for nine months and believed it would garner significant interest. Two weeks after the submission, I received my first response – from a senior editor at a major New York publishing firm. He was uncomfortable with the proposal: “Wasn’t Marshall an anti-Semite?” he asked. I’d heard this claim before, but I was still shocked by the question. For me, George Marshall was an icon: the one officer who, more than any other, was responsible for the American victory in World War Two. He was the most important soldier of his generation – and a man of great moral and physical courage.

That Marshall was an anti-Semite has been retailed regularly since 1948 – when it became known that he not only opposed the U.S. stance in favor of the partition of Palestine, but vehemently recommended that the U.S. not recognize the State of Israel that emerged. Harry Truman disagreed and Marshall and Truman clashed in a meeting in the Oval Office, on May 12, 1948. Truman relied on presidential adviser Clark Clifford to make the argument. Clifford faced Marshall: the U.S. had made a moral commitment to the world’s Jews that dated from Britain’s 1919 Balfour Declaration, he argued, and the U.S would be supported by Israel in the Middle East. The Holocaust had made Israel’s creation an imperative and, moreover, Israel would be a democracy. He then added: Jewish-Americans were an important voting bloc and would favor the decision.

Marshall exploded. “Mr. President,” he said, “I thought this meeting was called to consider an important, complicated problem in foreign policy. I don’t even know why Clifford is here.” Truman attempted to calm Marshall, whom he admired – but Marshall was not satisfied. “I do not think that politics should play any role in our decision,” he said. The meeting ended acrimoniously, though Truman attempted to placate Marshall by noting that he was “inclined” to side with him. That wasn’t true – the U.S. voted to recognize Israel and worked to support its emerging statehood. Marshall remained enraged.

When Marshall returned to the State Department from his meeting with Truman, he memorialized the meeting: “I remarked to the president that, speaking objectively, I could not help but think that suggestions made by Mr. Clifford were wrong. I thought that to adopt these suggestions would have precisely the opposite effect from that intended by him. The transparent dodge to win a few votes would not, in fact, achieve this purpose. The great dignity of the office of the president would be seriously damaged. The counsel offered by Mr. Clifford’s advice was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem confronting us was international. I stated bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice, and if I were to vote in the next election, I would vote against the president.” Put more simply, Marshall believed that Truman was sacrificing American security for American votes.

The Truman-Marshall argument over Israel has entered American lore – and been a subject of widespread historical controversy. Was Marshall’s opposition to recognition of Israel a reflection of his, and the American establishment’s, latent anti-Semitism? Or was it a credible reflection of U.S. military worries that the creation of Israel would engage America in a defense of the small country that would drain American resources and lives? In the years since, a gaggle of historians and politicians have weighed in with their own opinions, the most recent being Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Writing in The Washington Post on May 7, 2008, Holbrooke noted that “beneath the surface” of the Truman-Marshall controversy “lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple – oil, numbers and history.”

But that’s only a part of the story. In the period between the end of World War Two and Marshall’s meeting with Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had issued no less than sixteen (by my count) papers on the Palestine issue. The most important of these was issued on March 31, 1948 and entitled “Force Requirements for Palestine.”In that paper, the JCS predicted that “the Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the United States] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.” The JCS speculated that these objectives included: initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine, acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration, the extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine and the expansion of “Eretz Israel” into Transjordan and into portions of Lebanon and Syria. This was not the only time the JCS expressed this worry. In late 1947, the JCS had written that “A decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interests in the Near and Middle East” to the point that “United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force.” That is to say, the concern of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not with the security of Israel- but with the security of American lives.

In the wake of my March 13 article in these pages (‘The Petraeus briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story’) a storm of outrage greeted my claim that Israeli intransigence on the peace process could be costing American lives. One week after that article appeared, I called General Joe Hoar, a former CENTCOM commander and a friend. We talked about the article. “I don’t get it,” he said. “What’s the news here? Hasn’t this been said before?” If history is any guide, the answer is simple: it was said sixty years ago by one of America’s greatest soldiers. George Marshall wasn’t an anti-Semite. But he was prescient.

Mark Perry’s most recent book is Talking To Terrorists. He is also the author of Partners In Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace and Four Stars: The Inside Story of the Battle between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and America’s Civilian Leaders.

Thursday, April 1, 2010