Archives: Articles

CIA agents have been deployed to Turkey to organize the arming of the so-called rebels in Syria seeking the overthrow of the government of President Bashar al-Assad, the New York Times reported Thursday.

The report, citing information provided by senior US officials as well as Arab intelligence officers, states that the CIA operatives are directing a massive smuggling operation through which “automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries, including the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and paid for by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.”

The day before the publication of the Times piece, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland reiterated the Obama administration’s public line. “We have repeatedly said that we are not in the business of arming in Syria.” She went on to describe Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar al-Jaafari as “deluded” for charging that major foreign powers were backing “armed terrorist groups” in his country and trying to escalate Syria’s crisis into an “explosion” in order to bring about “regime change.”

The Times article only confirms earlier press reports and provides further detail in exposing the same, barely covert, operation directed at fomenting and arming a sectarian civil war in Syria.

Last month, the Washington Post reported that the so-called rebels had “begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States.” The Post, in its May 16 article, also stated that US operatives had “expanded contacts with opposition forces to provide the gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure.”

And last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that “the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department—working with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and other allies—are helping the opposition Free Syrian Army develop logistical routes for moving supplies into Syria and providing communications training.”

The result of this operation has been a sharp escalation in the armed violence in Syria, with a spike in the number of Syrian soldiers killed and wounded and a proliferation of terrorist attacks.

The Obama administration’s pretense that it is not arming the Syrian militias for the purpose of toppling the Assad government has been thoroughly exposed. Its claim is based on the fiction that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, none of which would carry out such an operation without Washington’s approval, are doing the arming, and the CIA agents are merely “vetting” the Syrian rebels to assure that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

The Times report quotes one unnamed senior American official as claiming that the CIA is working on the Syrian-Turkish border “to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.”

Such claims are absurd. The reality is that the operation being mounted by the CIA against Syria bears a striking resemblance to the one it carried out in the 1980s along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, when Saudi Arabia also provided much of the funding for arms and Al Qaeda was born as an ally and instrument of US imperialist policy.

There is increasing evidence that Islamist elements from within Syria and from surrounding Arab countries are the backbone of the imperialist-backed insurgency seeking regime change in Damascus. The Associated Press Thursday carried a lengthy report on Tunisian jihadis flocking to Syria. It reports that fundamentalist Islamic clerics are urging youth to make their way to Syria to topple the “unbeliever” regime.

According to an earlier report in the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung “at least 3,000 fighters” from Libya have reached Syria, most of them through Turkey. Other similar forces have crossed the border from Iraq to prosecute a sectarian conflict similar to the one that unleashed a bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites in that country under American occupation.

The result, as the AP reports, is that “Al-Qaida-style suicide bombings have become increasingly common in Syria, and Western officials say there is little doubt that Islamist extremists, some associated with the terror network, have made inroads in Syria as instability has spread.”

On the one hand, Washington and its regional proxies—Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey—are lavishing arms and funding on the so-rebels, while, on the other hand, the major powers are seeking to quarantine the Syrian regime and starve it of resources by means of ever-tightening sanctions and international pressure.

While covertly pouring weapons into the country, US officials have denounced Russia for maintaining ties to Syria, Moscow’s sole remaining ally in the Middle East and the site of its Mediterranean naval base at Tartus. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unleashed a propaganda campaign against Moscow, charging falsely that it was supplying Damascus with new Russian attack helicopters.

Russia responded that there were no new helicopters, but rather it was sending back old aircraft that Syria had bought decades earlier and had been sent to Russia for repairs. The ship carrying the refurbished helicopters, the Curacao-registered MV Alaed, was forced to turn back to the Russian port of Murmansk on Thursday after the British government compelled a London-based insurance company to withdraw its coverage of the vessel. According to press reports, the British government had considered using military force to board the ship.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denounced the British move as an attempt to impose unilateral sanctions on other countries. “The EU sanctions aren’t part of the international law,” he said, vowing that the cargo would be reloaded on a Russian-flagged ship and sent to Syria.

“This is a very slippery slope,” Lavrov told Russia Today television. “This means that anyone—any country or any company—who is not violating any international rules, who is not violating any UN Security Council resolutions, might be subject to extra-territorial application of somebody else’s unilateral sanctions.”

Perhaps of greater concern than the Soviet-era helicopters to Britain and the other major imperialist powers, the ship that was compelled to curtail its voyage was also carrying what was described as a new and advanced air defense system. Such a system could prove an obstacle to an attempt by the US and its NATO allies to reprise the kind of bombing campaign used to topple Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

By Bill Van Auken

22 June, 2012
WSWS.org

Prominent Christian Egyptians snubbed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday because they feel the U.S. administration favors Islamist parties over secular and liberal forces in society at the expense of Egypt’s 8 million Christians.

The critical theme was repeated by others Sunday in Cairo and Alexandria despite Clinton denying U.S. interference in Egyptian elections.

The politicians, businessmen and clerics who snubbed Clinton were supposed to take part in meetings between Clinton and influential members of civil society.

Coptic Christian businessman and politician Naguib Sawiris and three other Coptic politicians said in a statement they were objecting to Clinton’s policies in solidarity with the mainstream Egyptian.

They also said that since the revolution, the U.S. administration and Clinton have paid many visits in support of Islamic political currents in society while ignoring other civil movements.

The four prominent Copts consider the meeting with the Islamist parties a form of external pressure to push the Islamists to power and ignore other civil movements. They blamed the U.S. for even showing a preference for an Islamist presidential candidate.

Egypt, a nation of nearly 84 million, is 90 percent Muslim, 9 percent Coptic and 1 percent other Christian denominations.

Two church leaders also turned their back on Clinton.

Coptic Bishop Morcos and Evangelical church leader Safwat al Bayadi refused to meet with Clinton because of what they characterized as interference in Egyptian internal affairs and U.S. support for Islamists while ignoring the majority of Egyptians.

A few hundred protesters chanted the same message in front of the Garden City Four Seasons hotel where Clinton overnighted.

Clinton sought to dispel the idea.

“She wanted, in very, very clear terms, particularly with the Christian group this morning, to dispel that notion and to make clear that only Egyptians can choose their leaders, that we have not supported any candidate, any party, and we will not,” a senior U.S. official told reporters on Sunday.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets with newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, a scene that no one would have believed just 18 months ago. NBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin reports.

Rights for all

At a Sunday meeting of prominent women, Clinton emphasized rights for all Egyptians, not their choices.

“I came to Cairo, in part, to send a very clear message that the United States supports the rights, the universal rights of all people,” she said. “We support democracy. But democracy has to be more than just elections. It has to mean that the majority will be protecting the rights of the minority.”

The United States will “look to any elected government to support inclusivity, to make sure that the talents of every Egyptian can be put to work in building a new future for this ancient and incredibly important country,” Clinton told a group of prominent women.

Alexandria protesters chant ‘Monica’

Later in Alexandria, Clinton presided over a ceremony to reopen the U.S. consulate in Alexandria, which was closed in 1993 to save money.

Brendan Smialowski / AFP – Getty Images

Protesters gather on an Alexendria, Egypt, street Sunday as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attends a flag-raising ceremony for the reopening of the U.S. consulate in the mediterranean port city.

The ceremony was moved inside as protesters grew vocal outside the consulate.

In her speech, Clinton said, “I want to be clear that the United States is not in the business, in Egypt, of choosing winners and losers, even if we could, which, of course, we cannot.”

Protesters threw tomatoes, shoes and a water bottle as members of the press accompanying Clinton walked to their vans.

A tomato hit an Egyptian official in the face.

The protesters also chanted “Monica, Monica, Monica,” a reference to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who was the focus of a sex scandal with her husband, then-President Bill Clinton.

By NBC’s Charlene Gubash and news services

15 Juky 2012

@ NBC News.com

As the conflict in Syria continues without a resolution, and government and rebel forces are locked in fierce battles across several cities, Christians in the besieged city of Homs were evacuated with the help of a priest on Wednesday.

For months, Christians have been trapped in the crossfire with scarce access to basic necessities such as food, water and medical help, but yesterday Maximos al-Jamal, a Greek Orthodox priest, revealed that he was part of evacuation efforts that saved 63 people.

“Gunmen have told the besieged people that if you go out of these areas, we will die,” al-Jamal shared with The Associated Press.

Christians in the warring Middle East nation make up around 10 per cent of the largely Muslim population, but with little government support and the difficulty foreign aid workers have had gaining access to besieged areas, they have had to rely only on themselves and their church.

“I stayed inside Hamidiyeh to protect the churches from looting. I saved 14 icons from the St George church which has been destroyed,” shared one Homs resident, Jihad Akhras, who was among the rescued. After negotiations, a deal was made between rebels and troops that allowed 24 civilians to escape on Tuesday, followed by a further 39 on Wednesday.

Homs, the third largest city in Syria, has been hit particularly hard by government bombings and crossfire between Islamic rebels and government forces. The AP reported that Christians have been leaning more toward President Bashar Assad’s regime despite the current dire situation, if only due to fears of further persecution they might face if more radical Islamic extremists take control of Syria.

Back in February, a Christian priest in Homs shared of how dire the situation was getting in the city.

“The armed Islamist Opposition in Syria has murdered more than 200 Christians in the city of Homs, including entire families with young children. These Islamic gangs kidnapped Christians and demanded high ransoms. In two cases, after the ransoms were paid, the men’s bodies were found,” Barnabas Aid, a charity organisation helping persecuted Christians around the world quoted him as saying.

“Christians are being forced to flee the city to the safety of government controlled areas. Muslim rebel fighters and their families are taking over their homes. We need your prayers and we need them urgently,” he added.

By Stoyan Zaimov

14 July 2012

@ Christian Today

StatCounter – Free Web Tracker and Counter StatCounter – Free Web Tracker and Counter

With the rise of China as an economic superpower, its past and often subdued approach to diplomatic relations have seen changes. China now boasts a more decisive role in international decision-making, especially in dealing with concerns in the Middle East.

The use of China’s veto over the Syrian crisis demonstrates that it no longer needs to sit on the fence on such international issues. In other words, there is no ambivalence on China’s part; it is decisive in its actions and no longer desires to either please everyone or to provoke anyone. China had previously maintained diplomatic relationships with smaller countries in order to gain support against Taiwan at the United Nations, or more generally to defend China against criticism of its human rights record. China is now recognised as an emerging international power especially after it asserted itself as a major economic force. Its strategic interests have changed and with that its relations with other major powers. These developments have effected a change in its policies and diplomatic conduct.

China is now on the threshold of a new phase of geopolitical and strategic transformation and it has put into place new rules for its dealings with other major powers. It has also affirmed its presence on the regional and international stage, especially in the Middle East which includes the entire Arab region and Iran, from China’s perspective.

China’s strategy in the ‘Middle East’

China has tended to use the term ‘West Asia and North Africa’ as an alternative to the term ‘Middle East’ in its definition of the region. In accordance with this geographical division it has a structure of involved, partisan, governmental establishments to manage its relations with the many states in the region. It is known that the Chinese generally – including some party and government officials – do not differentiate much between nationalities, people, small minorities and sects in the Middle East. Usually many of them confuse Islam (as a religion) and Arabism (as an identity or nationalism). They consider Iran an Arab state and its differences with its regional neighbours are, as a whole, differences with religious roots.

Despite the deeply-rooted historical relations that date back centuries, the Middle East was never as central to China’s foreign policy strategy as it is today. Similarly, the countries of the region for their part did not consider China to be a global player that could be relied upon. China’s role remained limited and marginal, confined to trade and cultural exchanges. Beijing did not seek to establish a physical or political presence in the region similar to other international forces.

China has always looked at the Middle East in terms of its resources and strategic location, yet as a region entangled in a raging and sustained conflict between competing international forces and their respective spheres of influence in the region.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China’s interest in the Middle East focused on the search for legitimacy and diplomatic recognition in a region where the majority of countries recognised the legitimacy of Taiwan. For this reason China’s diplomacy at the beginning concentrated on attempting to enter the region by supporting the national liberation movements and to prevent the overwhelming hegemony of foreign forces in the region. Chinese conduct has continued to be based on the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence’, launched by its late leader Chuan Lai. Beijing remained committed to the belief that ‘the problems of the Middle East must be resolved by the people of the region and not by any foreign interference.’

The understanding of Chinese national security has not, until recently, included protection of its political or economic interests outside of China. For many decades, since the founding of the Republic, it abided by a deep-rooted belief which was limited to protecting its borders. China calls this the theory of the ‘Great Wall of China’, a metaphor to indicate that China has remained confined within its borders and had withdrawn from playing any vital role outside its walls. But with recent developments it seems that China has begun to expand its definition of the concept of national security, taking into account the rapid growth of its economy and the expansion of the terrain of Chinese interests abroad. Another development is the emergence of energy security – which guarantees that the wheel of the Chinese economy keeps spinning – as one of the most important aspects of national security. It appears that China’s interest in the Middle East will be greater than it has been in the past but without its active involvement in the political issues of the region, taking into account the foundations that govern its foreign policy. Its interest is based on the fact that the Middle East is the most important source of energy in the world just as it is one of the most important consumer markets. It is now possible to say that, from the standpoint of the Chinese, the balance of trade exchange with any country is the only measure of the level of relations required. Economic relations dominated most of China’s movements and its diplomatic conduct in the Middle East thus far, affirmed by the priorities of the country’s decision-makers.

Whenever Beijing was compelled under stressful regional and international pressure to define a clear position, it did do so either through prudent steps or through a combination of concern and confusion. China has on many occasions invited concerned parties in a crisis to engage in dialogue and negotiation without going into any details or presenting any initiatives itself. The region – according to China’s vision – was filled with religious and ethnic contradictions and was a dangerous centre of international conflict and competition. Any engagement with this region was fraught with challenges which necessitated many political, military, security, economic, cultural and media resources that Beijing did not have and even if Beijing possessed some of them it would not have known how to employ them skilfully enough in the context.

China and America: Partners

As mentioned earlier, China did not, at any point in time, attempt to compete with the major players in the region. It recognised the limitations of its role and evaded the issue. Yes, it tried at different periods to block the influence of some of the international powers in the region. Interestingly, it was more robust in preventing Soviet influence than in resisting American influence. That was at the height of revolutionary fervour until China began weaving relations with more regimes hostile to communism and closer to Washington. It had distinct relations with the regime of the Shah of Iran, Numeiri in Sudan, Siad Barre in Somalia and with North Yemen in its confrontation with South Yemen which was aligned to the Soviets. China’s relations extended as far as Sadat, the national hero who liberated Egypt from foreign influence when he decided to expel the Soviets and open up to Washington.

Here one must point out an important observation that is sometimes overlooked: there is a lack of significant difference between the USA and China’s vision regarding regional issues in the Middle East. China was and still remains on Washington’s side in its war on so-called terrorism. It did not strongly oppose the US occupation of Iraq and immediately acknowledged its findings and subsequent outcomes. China also contributed to a great extent to reconstruction projects in Iraq.

In the Arab-Israeli conflict China believes that negotiation is the only solution that will result in a settlement that will satisfy all the parties concerned. China refused to sign the document that regarded Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state during the Sino-Arab Cooperation Conference in Tianjin in 2010. This was considered an abdication of its previous positions. It also refused to recognise the Hamas government after it had won the elections and was quick to contribute by sending troops to the Gulf of Aden to combat piracy. China’s position on the Iranian nuclear issue is compatible in principle with that of Washington, which wants to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Beijing recently responded – relatively obediently – to American pressure by reducing its dependence on Iranian oil and increasing its imports from the Gulf.

In short, Beijing’s policy toward the Middle East in the past has been directed at cooperating with Washington and avoiding a clash or competition. Indeed many of its positions did not go beyond this tactical framework nor did they fall within China’s broader strategic framework.

Chinese concern for Washington

Subsequently, China directly sought to increase and prolong American involvement in the Middle East as much as possible to gain more time to build its own capacities and spheres of influence away from the ‘vexing Americans and their interference in its internal affairs.’

However, President Obama’s decision to withdraw from Iraq and the announcement of his new strategy to shift focus to the Asia-Pacific region as one of the top priorities of US foreign policy has aroused deep apprehension in Beijing. This has upset China’s calculations and imposed on it the need to review its strategies and to adapt its strategic vision, which partly involves its partner on the international stage, Moscow.

This comes at a time when there is an increasing and unprecedented stranglehold on Beijing within its own region. China’s relations with most of its neighbouring countries are at their worst in decades. This includes relations with Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Australia, South Korea and Thailand and even with traditional allies like Burma. This is aside from the abrupt departure of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il. Furthermore, tension has returned to areas like the disputed islands in the South East China Sea in light of calls for the creation of an international mechanism to resolve the issue of the disputed Spratly Islands. This is not to mention the security and social stability challenges China faces domestically where there has been an increase in the number of demonstrations and protests. During the last year more than a 100 000 cases have been recorded, the latest being the bloody events in the town of Wu Kang in the Guangdong province in south China. The protests were against the lack of social justice, rampant corruption, unemployment and the widening gap between rich and poor, in addition to ethnic tensions in several regions like Tibet and Xinjiang (East Turkistan).

All these issues constitute real challenges for China at a critical and delicate juncture. China is on the threshold of transferring power to a new generation whose leadership is characterised by intense conflict between the centres of power and influence within the ruling party. This will continue until it is resolved at the General Conference of the Party in October. All these reasons combined have resulted in pressure on Beijing essentially with its back against the wall. They have imposed on Beijing the search for new horizons, as well as made it line-up alongside the major powers, share common concerns and agree on tactics even if these differed with its own strategy. This probably explains China aligning itself to Moscow in the Security Council regarding Moscow’s geopolitical and strategic importance with respect to the Syrian issue, in the hope that Moscow will return the favour and stand with Beijing equally on issues that enjoy geopolitical and strategic importance for China. These issues are urgent and inevitable, and perhaps will materialise in the near future.

Iran’s strategy in China

The written history on Sino-Iranian (Persian) relations goes back about 2 500 years and specifically to the second century BC. These relations continued to grow within the commercial and cultural framework through two paths – the silk route and at sea. The relations between these two Asian cultural powers did not witness any military confrontation throughout their history and are considered to be among the most established, stable and consistent relations. Similarly they have neither influenced nor have they been affected by each other’s intellectual or cultural influence, possibly due to the strong nationalism that each country displays, in addition to the natural geographical distance between them.

With the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the country maintained good relations with the Shah’s regime. Beijing was preparing to welcome him on his historic visit to inaugurate the massive Persian-style embassy, especially constructed to coincide with the Shah’s visit had it not been for the Khomeini revolution (1979) that toppled his regime and cancelled the visit. It is worth mentioning that China at the time took a position which seemed closer to the Shah and was opposed to the revolution which it considered to be ‘disturbances and acts of sabotage driven by black external hands’. This position is similar to a large extent to the positions of present-day China towards the revolutions of the Arab Spring. However, as soon as possible, Beijing moved beyond its negative attitude and resumed good relations with the revolutionary regime. This it did in spite of the ideological and doctrinal differences between the two sides and, interestingly, China is trying to repeat the same scenario with the new regimes that have emerged and continue to emerge from the current Arab revolutions.

In any case, Tehran, which adopted the slogan ‘neither East nor West’ (East being the first option and West being the second option), found it necessary to open-up to China, an opportunity the latter optimised. In return, Beijing chose to open its doors to the nascent Iranian revolution although it (Beijing) was in opposition to the hegemony of the two superpowers at the time (the Soviet Union and the United States) with respect to the areas of engagement and influence between them. One of these areas was the Middle East which, according to China’s vision, was the most prominent. These ties strengthened the bond between the two sides on the basis of the considerable similarity of their psychological, formative and shared circumstances. Both countries work with intense secrecy, absolute confidentiality, unlimited patience (both manufacture carpets, miniatures, intricate handicrafts); both do not have confidence in their environment, have a permanent sense of being targeted and plotted against by others and have a strong sense of nationalism. They are independently products of two radical revolutions and have a high degree of sensitivity to the West, resulting from decades of occupation, sanctions, blockades and interference in their internal affairs. In addition, they have a tendency to revive their ‘glorious’ past.

With the outbreak of the Iraq-Iran war, relations between Beijing and Tehran quickly witnessed accelerated growth and China formed an important and essential source of arms for Tehran in its war with Baghdad which lasted eight years. Arms sales are considered to be an important element in the relations between them. It has been estimated that the arms deal with China and its ally, North Korea, at the end of the 1980s constituted about 70 per cent of Iran’s needs. This led to Saddam Hussein ending diplomatic ties with Pyongyang. At the same time Beijing tried – through its official declared position on the war – to appear, as usual, to sit on the fence and equally distant from the sides involved in the conflict. It demanded both the sides to stop the war and to settle their disputes through dialogue and negotiation. China also announced its opposition to any intervention by the major international powers and to the expansion of the conflict which threatened the security and stability of the Gulf region.

At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of 1990s, Iraq succumbed under years of international embargo and wars in the Gulf region. During that period and its concomitant circumstances imposed by shared interest, the suffering of both China and Iran from political isolation and international sanctions constituted a golden opportunity for the unprecedented development and prosperity of relations between them. This was accompanied by the significant entry of Chinese companies into Iran to participate in the reconstruction required after much of the infrastructure had been destroyed by the war. Likewise in rebuilding and developing its military industries.

At that time Beijing was subject to international political isolation and to European and American sanctions in the aftermath of the events of Tiananmen Square in 1989. Up until that time Beijing had not established diplomatic relations with most of the Gulf States. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was the last Gulf country that recognised China and established diplomatic relations with it in 1990. Until then, oil was not yet a priority and of great importance in China’s international relations.

Nuclear cooperation formed a new element – among other elements – of cooperation between the two sides in the 1990s and Beijing was considered Tehran’s main nuclear partner in 1997. But, very quickly Beijing abandoned Tehran because of American pressure. Iran’s cooperation moved to Pyongyang, under the watchful eyes of China. But Beijing remained committed to defending Iran’s nuclear program at the Security Council and with international organisations as long as Tehran confirmed the programme’s peaceful purpose and that it (Tehran) would remain bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Beijing succeeded several times to prevent the referral of the matter to the Security Council and to keep it within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), without having to use its veto.

With the growing geo-strategic importance of Central Asian states Moscow and Beijing sought to establish the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and very soon, in 2005, Iran became an observer member. However, sanctions imposed on Tehran prevented its accession to full membership, in accordance with the constitution of the organisation. In all cases, China sees the growth in the role and influence of Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia as a useful intersection for its security, economic and geo-political agenda.

With escalating international pressure on Iran, economic sanctions – particularly against Iran’s Central Bank – began to make an impact. The Iranian currency has lost a large percentage of its value. The suffering of the Chinese companies has increased because of the inclusion of some of them in those sanctions and other companies that have been forced to freeze their projects or to withdraw. Likewise China has been forced to reduce its imports of Iranian oil by approximately 290 000 thousand barrels per day – during last January alone. The Chinese and Iranian sides have entered into a dispute over oil pricing and how to pay the huge past bills.

Iranian statements about closing the Strait of Hormuz have stirred Chinese panic. This caused Beijing to swiftly send its deputy foreign minister to Tehran to warn it against taking such a step.

China’s vision and current shifts

The shifts in the international scene and the increasing intensity of the competition between world powers, on the one hand, and the complexity of their relationships and their intricacies, on the other, demand consideration. Similarly, in light of international, regional and internal challenges facing China, the wait for a new Chinese leadership, the great changes that the revolutions of the Arab Spring produced in the region, the position of China regarding the emergence of political Islam as an important force and the resulting growing concern in Beijing (which has been expressed by most of the Chinese media), all these factors will still not likely lead to radical and essential changes in China’s policy towards the region and its issues. But China will certainly need to reformulate its political discourse so that its position becomes clearer. Sometimes Beijing may be forced to step out of the ‘grey area’ depending on current developments. The time when Beijing used to measure its positions and its understanding of the overall issues of the region under the umbrella of the Egyptian position, or the position of what used to be called the ‘countries of moderation’, has changed or is in the process of changing.

Energy security with respect to sources and supply routes will remain the main driver of China’s policy toward the region, and therefore it cannot completely abandon Iran’s oil and put all its eggs in the basket of the Gulf States. This is mainly because it has discerned that the Gulf States will most likely succumb to American demands when circumstances warrant it. Likewise China cannot rely completely on Russian oil even if it succeeded to extend the pipelines between the two sides – and also for strategic reasons.

China may seek to strengthen its presence in oil productive sectors in different parts of the world depending on their competitive prices and acceptable conditions, which ought to be better than that of Western companies. It is also expected that China will continue to strive for more of a military presence by increasing its participating forces in peacekeeping operations or in combating piracy. At the same time it will seek to establish military bases to protect its oil supplies. It has already started negotiations with Pakistan and with the Seychelles* while at a same time developing its marine capabilities and building an aircraft carrier.

As far as Iran is concerned, it is expected that China will attempt to apply continuous pressure on Tehran to show greater flexibility in its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It will also engage in further coordination and rapprochement with Moscow to prevent the occurrence of a catastrophic war, or to delay its occurrence and limit it if it should happen.

Perhaps a comparison of Beijing’s relationship with Tehran to its relationship with Islamabad will clearly reveal in a substantial way Iran’s position in China’s strategic vision. Relations between China and Iran did not reach the degree of an alliance or even to the point where they can be considered as a ‘spring in all seasons’, as Sino–Pakistan relations have been described. That is an objective issue imposed by many reasons, including the fact that China’s diplomacy continues to reject the principle of alliances in its international relations except in the case of relations that are considered “above normal” with some countries, which relations are dictated by geographical, historical and strategic necessities such as the relationship with North Korea, and similarly but to a lesser extent with Pakistan. In addition, Iran has no common border with China, as is the case with Pakistan.

Iran is also in a confrontation with the United States, the international community and its region, while Pakistan is in a confrontation with India, China’s traditional rival. Likewise each of these two countries have different neighbouring regions; India’s neighbours look to China as a regional balance while Iran’s neighbours are the Arab countries. This aspect is not contained in the calculations of the Arab countries in that they do not see in Iran a regional balancing power because they have strong relations with Washington.

Therefore, China’s relationship with Iran will remain, regardless of how close they become, merely a bargaining chip and will not become in any way a strategic relationship at least in the foreseeable future. As for China’s relationship with the region as a whole, in spite of the growing importance of the region with respect to China, it will not accept any threat to its relationship with major powers.

By Izzat Shahrour

July 2012

@ AMEC

Izzat Shahrour is a specialist in Chinese affairs and director of Al Jazeera’s bureau in Beijing

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warns Newsmax.TV that a confrontation with Iran would be disastrous for the United States, lasting for years and possibly devastating America’s economy.

“A war in the Middle East, in the present context, may last for years,” Brzezinski, who served in the Carter White House, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “And the economic consequences of it are going to be devastating for the average American.

“High inflation. Instability. Insecurity. Probably significant isolation for the United States in the world scene,” Brzezinski says. “Can you name me any significant country that’s going to be in that war together on our side?

“That’s something no one can afford to ignore,” Brzezinski adds.

Brzezinski’s warning comes as Iran apparently is ramping up tensions in the region. On Wednesday, a bus carrying Israeli youth exploded in a Bulgarian resort, killing at least six people and wounding 27, police and hospital officials said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it “an Iranian terror attack” and promised a tough response.

Syria, meanwhile, a close ally of Iran’s, appears on the brink of collapse as fighting engulfs Damascus. On Monday, a bomb killed the chief of its security operations — a devastating strike that indicates a serious weakening in the security around President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

As the U.S. fortifies its presence in the Persian Gulf in preparation for a possible showdown with Tehran over its nuclear arsenal and its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, Brzezinski paints a frightening picture of how the U.S. would be affected by yet another war in the Middle East.

“Rushing to war is not a wise course of action,” he says. “You can always start a war, and you know pretty much what happens when you start it. But you don’t know how long it will last, what its consequences will be – and they will be certainly very costly for the United States.”

Iran recently renewed its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz unless sanctions against it were revoked. Tehran has repeatedly threatened to close the vital oil-shipping channel, through which 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil exports travel, in retaliation for sanctions placed on its oil exports by Western nations.

“We would open it by force — and we have the power to do it, and I’m fairly confident we would do it,” says Brzezinski, who now is Robert Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C.. His latest book, released in January, is Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power.

“But let’s not be simple-minded about it. We can open it up, but you can be absolutely certain that the costs of oil will skyrocket because it will still be a dangerous passage.

“In effect, the American taxpayer should be ready to pay $5 to $10 a gallon for the pleasure of having a war in the Strait of Hormuz,” Brzezinski explains. “This is another reason why it’s a wise course of action to be prudent and patient. Time’s on our side.”

He concurs with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that Iran probably will not have a nuclear weapon for “at least three years or so” — but, regardless, a Tehran with such arsenals is a major game-changer in the region.

“I think some concern is justified, but hysteria and exaggeration are not. Certainly, a nuclear-armed Iran introduces a whole new destabilizing reality into the Middle East.

“On the other hand, several years are several years. A lot can change in several years, including the regime which, if there is no confrontation with the West, is likely to be much more vulnerable to internal pressures for change.

“So we have to take this into account and not rush to war,” he says.

While many world leaders express concerns privately that Iran could make pre-emptive strikes against Israel and the U.S., Brzezinski said the chances of that, right now, are “close to zero.”

“First, their delivery systems are very inefficient — and probably most of them vulnerable to elimination in the course of any attack. And, secondly, one thing you can say about the Iranian regime, it’s not very attractive.”

Then, in a suggestive nod at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Brzezinski adds: “It shoots its mouth off. It says extreme things, which are actually costly to Iran, but it’s not suicidal.”

Diplomacy is clearly the best weapon of choice now, Brzezinski says.

“A great deal depends on how accommodating the Iranians are in the negotiations — but a great deal also depends on how intelligent we are in the negotiations,” he says. “If the negotiations are designed to humiliate Iran and to put it in some sort of separate box, confining it to a status totally different from all the other signatories of the nonproliferation treaty, then we probably will not get an agreement.”

And he says he would urge President Barack Obama to continue down this road.

“I will advise him to stay on course. Not to be intimidated. Not to be rushed. Time is on our side.

“We don’t have to reach an agreement by some finite date,” Brzezinski adds. “We can take a few months. That’s better than going to war.”

Brzezinski also says in his exclusive Newsmax interview:

Any international response to Iran would, essentially, fall to the United States. “Let’s not kid ourselves. When people talk about taking on Iran by force, they really mean the United States.”

As U.S. involvement in Iraq nears its 10th year, Brzezinski still opposes it. “We have now an Iraq which is much more vulnerable to Iranian pressure. Saddam Hussein was an odious dictator, but he was also a very effective opponent of Iran. He was also a very effective opponent of al-Qaida. We now have an Iraq that’s unstable.”

Despite the “War on Terror,” al-Qaida remains a world threat: “We have managed to decimate its leadership. We have deprived it of an open and secure base, which it had in Afghanistan. We have fragmented it. But at the same time, it is still a dangerous and painful reality that segments of al-Qaida, cells of al-Qaida now operate in different parts of the world.”

The United States, and other countries, remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack. “We have had nine years or more, 10 years since 9/11. Not one significant terrorist act in the United States. We have had terrorist acts in Great Britain. We have had it in other parts of the world — Spain, certainly the Middle East — not in the United States.”

The United States must take another approach in Syria, rather than demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down to end the bloodshed there. “Let’s stop sort of waving the sword and making these threats unless we’re prepared to deliver. I don’t approve of the notion that we should be announcing who should step down from the position of a head of a state unless we are seriously prepared to remove that person. But if we are not, if we are being prudent and careful, then let’s also be careful with how we talk.”

By: Todd Beamon and Kathleen Walter

18 July 2012

@ Newsmax.com

Brazil has provided a vote of confidence in China’s efforts to promote the renminbi as a reserve currency by becoming the biggest economy yet to agree a swap deal with Beijing.

Brazil and China announced the R$60bn ($30bn) local currency swap after a bilateral meeting between Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, and Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s president, on the sidelines of the Rio+20 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro.

“It is a measure that reinforces the economies of both countries,” Guido Mantega, Brazil’s finance minister, said late on Thursday night.

China has launched an aggressive campaign of “currency swap diplomacy”, signing about 20 such agreements over the past four years with countries ranging from Argentina toAustralia and the United Arab Emirates.

While these have been largely symbolic – only Hong Kong so far has had to activate its swap line after a shortage of renminbi in the territory in 2010 – they are seen as helping the long march of the internationalisation of the Chinese currency.

Last week at the Group of 20 meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, the so-called Brics nations, which aside from Brazil and China also include India and Russia, discussed establishing more local currency swap agreements among themselves. Thursday’s measure was the first bilateral swap announced since those discussions.

“The two leaders announced a decision to establish a bilateral swap agreement between the two central banks, with a maximum value of R$60bn/Rmb190bn, and instructed the central banks to rapidly implement the agreement,” Brazil said.

The agreement comes amid efforts by Brazil and China to deepen their economic partnership, with Brasília concerned that while it was exporting mostly unprocessed commodities to Asia, it was facing a growing flood of cheap, mostly Chinese, manufactured imports from the region.

In a hint at their bilateral tensions, the two leaders underlined the importance of increasing the value-added component of their exports to each other.

Brazil has taken several measures to curb cheap imports, particularly by taxing overseas goods, such as cars and motorbikes, more heavily than domestically produced items.

“The leaders underlined the importance that bilateral investment flows contribute to the aggregation of value in the production chains of the recipient country,” Brazil said. “They reiterated their promise to resolve trade questions through consultation and friendly dialogue through established institutional channels and condemned any recourse to trade protectionist measures.”

It said China had agreed to allow the local assembly of Brazilian Embraer jets in a sign that a long-running dispute over Beijing’s barring of the aircraft was nearing a resolution. It also said that the Brazilian bus maker Marco Polo was nearing a conclusion of a proposed vehicle joint venture with Chinese producer SG Automotive Group.

Mr Mantega said Brazil and China had agreed to elevate their relationship to the level of a “global strategic partnership” and announced a “10-year plan of co-operation” covering areas from education to space technology that will take effect between 2012 and 2021.

Among the education agreements, China will grant scholarships to 200 Brazilian students a year and the two countries will promote the instruction of their languages in each other’s universities.

They will also open cultural centres and will launch a “Brazil month” and “China month” in each other’s countries starting in 2013.

By Joe Leahy in Rio de Janeiro

The corporate media write lies on the American public’s consciousness with impunity, as if it were a blank slate incapable of understanding or remembering anything.

The power of the corporate media to deceive the people is simply astonishing, but, mind you, it depends on an already distracted, ignorant, semi-passive multitude whose marching values have been carefully cultivated.

In 2003 we went into Iraq under scandalously false pretexts, guns blazing–bragging about our ability to deliver “shock and awe” with impunity (the mark of the bully)–and with one goal in mind: to rob and rape that country blind of its riches. The official excuse was that Iraq and Saddam were mortal threats that had to be neutralized.

Within a matter of weeks if not days, the official line–adopted without missing a beat by the entire punditocracy–was that we had gone in “to save Iraq”, “make it a democracy,” and all the rest of the self-serving claptrap we use over and over again to justify our uber-criminal behavior. With a straight face the official voices declared that those who had the audacity to resist our criminal violence were ingrates. Don’t believe it? You may be forgiven: it is rather unbelievable.

Not too long after that, another somersault in logic and truth took place. This time the contortion was of Olympian quality, as we saw the same pundits–a great many of them liberals–talking with a straight face (as did the man in the White House and other administration flacks) that if the Iraqis continued to “misbehave”, continued attacking our troops, imagine that, “we’d leave”–yeah, that’s right, their punishment would be that we, the self-annointed saviors, would leave!

Buwahahahahahahah! Isn’t that a threat to soil your pants? The criminals and tormentors were actually threatening to leave, pull up stakes, if the country failed to behave in a gracious and grateful manner. Never mind that most Iraqis to this day never saw us as liberators!

Reality quiz

What would you do if you were the victim of a brutal home invasion; if the home invaders raped your wife and daughter, killed your animals, beat the s**t out of you, and robbed you blind, to boot–oh, and reduced your house to rubble–and then they declared with a straight face that if you were not grateful for all that, if you didn’t beg them to stay “they’d leave? How’s that for the mother of all Orwellian nonsense? How’s that for off-the-charts cynical audacity?

It’s fairly obvious that if a country 1000 if not a million times more powerful and advanced than the US invaded this nation under false pretenses, reduced our infrastructure to rubble, subjected the population to the rigors of a harsh, often criminal occupation, plunged most of the inhabitants into the hell and uncertainties of constant warfare, privation, and unemployment, most of the population would be resentful if not mad enough to take the first weapon they could find to fight back. What’s so darn difficult to understand? Gratitude? You gotta be kidding.

Yet such perversions of logic are common in the United States. For the utterly confused public is the perfect soil in which to plant such enormous lies. Doubtless only under conditions of almost generalized brainwash can the revolting media creatures that pass for journalists and commentators in the US foist such a huge con on the public mind with nary an audible protest.

Yeah, it’s pathetic alright. And it carries tremendous historical consequences. More importantly, if we don’t do something effective about it, something that goes well beyond mere whining, it will happen again. This time the countries marked to receive America’s beatific generosity, again under all sorts of lies and pretexts, are Syria and Iran–and who knows which other hapless nation will be next.

By Patrice Greanville

19 June, 2012
The Greanville Post

The upheaval in Syria is an enormously difficult subject for Western outsiders to get a handle on. One of the reasons for this is the sheer number of different interests jostling for position and power, from both within and outside the country. Let us start with the regime itself. Can you give us a brief history of where the Al-Assad family came from and the direction they have taken the country since they came to power in 1970?

Following the magnificent peoples’ uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, toppling two entrenched dictators, there developed a tendency not to closely examine the nature of the various forces competing for political power both within the opposition movements and the Arab regimes. Events in Libya and NATO’s intervention there have alerted most people to the dangers of hijacking the peoples’ struggle for freedom by reactionary forces. A brief look at the nature of the Syrian regime and its changing role in the region is crucial in trying to understand the current conflict and the reactionary forces’ success in hijacking the people’s struggle for radical change.

Syria has been run by a ruthless, corrupt regime. Syrian left activists have been on the receiving end of severe repression since Hafiz Assad’s coup in 1970. It was after that coup that Henry Kissinger described Syria as “a factor for stability,” despite Soviet military backing for the regime. Hafiz Assad’s regime, funded by the Saudi medieval dictators, played a leading role in the 1970’s and early 80’s in weakening the Palestinian resistance.  During the 1975-6 civil war in Lebanon Syrian troops sided with pro-Israeli Phalange and other extreme right wing forces. The regime, in return for US promises over the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights and Saudi petro-dollars, also backed the 1991 US-led war over Kuwait.

The Syrian forces’ presence in Lebanon had the full support of the US and Saudi rulers and the tacit support of Israel. It was only after Syria’s gradual foreign policy shift and reversal of roles from enemies to allies of the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements that the US and Saudi rulers shifted their stance. They pursued an aggressive campaign to force a Syrian withdrawal (1985) from Lebanon, particularly after the 2003 occupation of Iraq. US forces even killed some Syrian soldiers on the Iraqi-Syrian borders.

In relation to the media coverage today, it is important to note that, before Syria’s shift the media were silent about the repressive nature of the regime. This is similar to the their silence towards repression by a variety of ruthless dictatorial allies. Today they talk of Sunni Saudi rulers opposed to Alawite-Shia in Syria, but back then, the media did not bother highlighting the fact that the Wahabi-Sunni Saudi rulers were bankrolling the Syrian regime nor did they push their sectarian poison. A similar sectarian coverage unfolded in relation to Saudi-Iranian relations after the 1979 Iranian revolution and the overthrow of the Shah, a favourite US ally.

The opposition to the Syrian regime was not confined to the left, but included the Moslem Brotherhood, who led a popular revolt in 1982 in their stronghold of Hama. The regime crushed the uprising by bombarding the City and killing thousands of people. Nevertheless, Arab nationalism has for a century or more been Syria’s main ideological current, developed in the struggle against Ottoman rule and, much more deeply, against French colonial rule. Syria won its independence from France in 1946.

The Brotherhood today are backed by the Qatari and Saudi dictators, but the media rarely dwell on the irony of these dictators championing democracy in Syria while crushing any opposition to their rule and sending their troops to help crush the people’s uprising in Bahrain.

In 1967 Syria was invaded and a strategic part of its territory, the Golan Heights, was occupied by Israel. Since then, successive regimes legitimised their rule partly by working for or at least appearing to be actively trying to liberate Syria from occupation. However, US promises of rewarding Syria by forcing Israel to pull out of the occupied lands came to nothing despite Syria’s compliant policies.

Concurrently with the failure of the US to deliver on its promises, a number of factors changed Syria’s role. These include the rise of Iran as a formidable anti-US anti–Israeli power, the Palestinian uprisings, the unstoppable rise of the Lebanese resistance, led by Hizbullah, leading to the liberation of southern Lebanon from occupation and defeat of Israeli-Saudi-US backed forces, the arrival of hostile US forces along Syria’s borders with Iraq, and the rise of Iraqi resistance and defeat of US forces in Iraq.

The Syrian armed forces and security apparatus, with its multi-layer pyramids of informers, form the backbone of the regime’s control over Syrian society. Much is made of the sectarian nature of the Syrian regime and its reliance on the Alawite communities. I think this is highly exaggerated and ignores the much wider circles of support that the regime has acquired, whether this support is active, passive or of the ‘better devil you know’ type.

The powerful, mostly Sunni, merchant classes of Syria, particularly in Damascus and Aleppo, have close links with the regime. Indeed, the US-led economic sanctions are partly directed at this merchant class to force it to shift its stance. Sections of the middle and upper middle classes also tacitly support the regime. Syria’s religious minorities, including Christians who form 10% of the population, are fearful of the Moslem Brotherhood’s social and cultural agenda for Syria. They too would rather have the secular regime than a state dominated by a Saud-Qatari backed Brotherhood. Importantly, the Kurdish minority are also fearful of the influence of Turkey on the Muslim Brotherhood and the fact that the Syrian Free Army is headquartered in Turkey, which has a horrific record of killing over 20,000 Kurdish people in Turkey. Millions of women also fear the social programme of the Brotherhood.

In the context of the current conflict, the poor, the unemployed and students who were supportive of the initial, largely spontaneous protest movement are now much more reticent, partly due to regime repression but primarily because of their opposition to the NATO-Saudi-Qatari meddling and the militarisation of the sections of the opposition, particularly the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Free Syrian Army which are dominated by the Brotherhood.

You describe the recent protest movement as ‘largely spontaneous’. This doesn’t mean obviously that grievances weren’t building up over a long period of time, however it does suggest a lack of strong long term organisations of resistance—as was the case in countries like Egypt and Tunisia for example.

Left and progressive opposition to the Syrian regime has been going on for decades, particularly after the 1970 Hafiz Assad coup, which ousted the ‘left’ faction led by Salah Jedid. That faction backed the Palestinian resistance movements based in Jordan against the military onslaught launched by King Hussein’s armed forces in September 1970. Hafiz Assad, who was minister of Defence before the coup, instantly appeased the US and Saudi rulers by siding with King Hussein and starting a crack-down on all left forces in the country.

The left in Syria was for much of the 20th century mostly organised by the Syrian Communist Party. Founded in 1924, the party was subjected to varying degrees of state repression. Since the 1970’s the more militant factions within the party and other left organisations and figures have suffered imprisonment, torture and exile. However, the party leadership’s docile stance towards more militant forms of struggle within Syria, Palestine and Lebanon, and servile support for the Soviet Union’s Middle East policies gradually turned it into a party of sections of the intelligentsia rather than a genuine working class party. Perhaps the latter would have appealed to wider society with a socialist programme that also reflected Syria’s neo-colonial status and being part of the wider struggle in the area against imperialism and Zionism. As it happened the political vacuum was filled by the Islamic and nationalist movements, including the Baath party, who champion the Syrian, Palestinian and wider Arab nationalist causes. A similar process happened in Algeria where Marxists initially advocated the line of the French CP declaring that Algeria would be free once France became socialist!

In the context of the current conflict, all the left forces in Syria supported the initial protest marches that followed the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. The marches, which started in Deraa on the border with Jordan, were also supported by the Moslem Brotherhood. The demands of the protest marches were focused on issues relating to corruption, unemployment and democratic rights. Though large scale marches were held across many cities it was significant that no such marches took place in Syria’s largest two cities, Damascus and Aleppo, where more than half of Syria’s population reside.

It was also noticeable that the more NATO intervened and militarised the protest movement in Libya the smaller mass peaceful protests became in Syria. The marchers shrunk from hundreds to tens of thousands and to thousands and less. Obviously, regime brutality was a factor, but I don’t think that fear played the biggest role. I think the main reason is that most of the democratic opposition in Syria is also staunchly anti-imperialist and naturally fearful of NATO and Israeli plans for Syria. Events in Libya and, above all, the bloodbaths in and destruction of neighbouring Iraq by the US-led forces and the terrorist gangs, played the leading role in making most of the Syrian democratic secular opposition fearful of the consequences of the escalating conflict. They could not fail to notice that while Iraq burned Syria itself became home to a million Iraqi refugees.

On the other hand, the leadership of the Moslem Brotherhood and opposition leaders based in Istanbul, Paris and London have effectively utilised the publicity they enjoyed on all Arab state-controlled media, particularly the Qatari-owned Al-Jazeera. Events have also shown that years of planning had gone into the funding and arming of parts of the Syrian opposition.

Having lost Bin Ali and Mubarak in quick succession, US, Saudi, Qatari and Turkish attention turned to Syria. The massive uprising in Bahrain, headquarters of the US fifth fleet, also sharpened their sense of danger and fear of the people’s uprisings. Saudi and other Gulf sheikdoms sent in their forces to help King Hamad crush the uprising, which is still active.

Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and areas in Iraq became the centres of the counterrevolution in Syria. Arms were smuggled into Syria and the US-created Iraqi militia al-Sahwa backed the armed ‘rebels’ and Libyan fighters were smuggled into the battle zones. Terrorists operating in Iraq also joined the “jihad” against the Syrian regime.

On the other hand, years of repression rendered the Syrian democratic opposition too weak to lead the struggle in the country. As organised forces, they are no match for the counterrevolution’s vast resources. Their only hope was to keep the protests peaceful and sustained. Like in Libya, counter-revolution had other plans.

The left here has to also recognise that the regime does have the support of most of the affluent middle classes, particularly in Damascus and Allepo. The numerous ethnic and religious minorities and large sectors of the female population are also fearful of the socially reactionary nature of the Moslem Brotherhood and the type of regime that they might impose on Syria. Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahir’s call for armed Jihad to overthrow Assad’s regime has also further frightened the population of a sectarian conflict.

This puts us in a difficult situation. As left wing activists we support the rights of people to freedom, equality and self-determination. As activists based in the imperial centres we are opposed to the actions of our governments to deny people these rights. So our support for freedom and equality and our opposition to imperialism tend to go hand in hand. However the picture you are depicting in Syria is tied to the implication that we cannot do both these. Is it possible to support Syria’s democratic struggle AND oppose foreign intervention? Or is this a luxury we cannot afford?

You raise a very important question. Let me make it crystal clear: it is vital for the left to always oppose both imperialism and regimes that repress the masses. This is a matter of principle that should never be abandoned. Movements that abandoned one or other of these inseparable objectives have committed serious and sometimes fatal errors.

The Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) is a good example in this context. Within three decades, it shrunk from being a formidable party of the working class, enjoying the support of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people in 1958-9, to a pathetic grouping that probably received funds from Saudi Arabia in 1991 in return for siding with US-led 1991 Gulf war, and protection-at-a-price from Barzani’s KDP from 1978-9 onwards. In practice, it betrayed brave chapters of struggle against imperialism and domestic reaction with a chapter of shame by serving the US-led occupation authority in 2003. It abandoned the struggle for democratic socialism in 1959 in the name of opposing imperialism and abandoned the fight against imperialism from 1990 onwards in the name of fighting for democracy.

Which of the twin objectives becomes the main focus of the struggle is always in a state of flux. However, within the context of an era of accelerated imperialist aggression and wars, exposing imperialism and its exploitation of the peoples of the world is always at the heart of the work of the left. Imperialism is a manifestation of monopoly capitalism that exploits the masses at home and abroad. The left in the “imperial centres” has the added internationalist duty of firmly upholding this task: to always side with the oppressed peoples’ struggle against imperialism and for self-determination. However, siding with the oppressed masses also means backing them when they rise up against domestic oppressors. These uprisings and struggle for democracy are part and parcel of the struggle against imperialism.

For me the complexity of the problem resolves itself in determining whether the people’s struggle for civil rights and social emancipation are clearly directed against both domestic reaction/repression and imperialism. In Iraq and Libya yesterday and Syria today, imperialism has succeeded in exploiting the struggle for democracy and eclipsing the progressive opposition forces. The left has to face the facts and not sweep inconvenient developments under the carpet. Syria today has NATO-backed armed groups, led by Saudi/Qatari-funded reactionaries. Syria is a major target of US-led imperialism to install a client regime or, failing that objective, to plunge the country into a sectarian blood bath. The duty of the left in Britain is to firmly uphold and raise the banners high: “Hands off Syria”, “Don’t Iraq Syria”, “Don’t Iraq Iran”, “It is for the Syrian people to determine their future”…

Al-Jazeera is a news station that has developed a reputation on the left for covering the Middle East (some would say the news in general) with more sophistication and seriousness than the mainstream media in this country. And yet you say that in relation to Syria and Libya their role has been very insidious. Can you explain how? Can you append to this your impression of the British media’s coverage of Syria?

With very few and notable exceptions, it really doesn’t take much to provide a more serious and reliable coverage of the Middle East than the mainstream media here. With significant exceptions, the media here echo the line adopted by the Foreign Office on any particular event or country. A complex array of ideological, political, social, economic and commercial factors are at play in the way the media reports on the Middle East and world affairs in general. “British national interests” are perceived by media owners and editors as being expressed by the Foreign Office, which is seen as the neutral depository and slide-rule of the “national interest”. No distinction is made between the genuine interests of the British people and those of the arms manufacturers and oil companies.

Coverage of Israeli policies, Palestinian people’s rights, Mussadaq’s Iran (1953), Nasser’s Egypt (1952-1970), Qassem’s Iraq (1958-1963), the murderous sanctions policies on Iraq, the Iraq War, NATO bombing of Libya and the current covert NATO intervention in Syria are examples of how the mainstream media towed the line advocated by the government of the day. Similarly, the ruthless and socially repressive nature of the Saudi regime is glossed over, because the Saudi medieval rulers are seen as important allies.

As it happens, Al-Jazeera had its own historical link with the media here! The satellite broadcaster was launched in 1996 following the sudden collapse of the BBC Arabic station, which was a joint venture with a leading Saudi prince. The collapse followed Saudi insistence on monitoring all broadcast material, forcing the BBC to pull out. The Qatari rulers seized the moment and launched Al-Jazeera, with scores of the BBC Arabic service staff on board, and with the Qatari ruling family as the owners and political custodians.

The dead hand of the assorted dictatorships in the Arab world made all Arab TV stations be perceived, to varying degrees, as purveyors of state lies, half-truths and, at best, safe-reporting. The advent of satellite stations and the Internet opened the doors for the Al-Jazeera to project itself as the antidote to state censorship.

The more cosmopolitan and less vulnerable Qatari rulers, who were at odds with the Saudi rulers, saw in Al-Jazeera a vehicle for spreading their political influence. They gave Al-Jazeera a free hand to report on the Arab and Muslim world, while maintaining tight control on the Qatari state TV station. But it was of course not allowed to report negatively on the Qatari dictators or to investigate how the current Qatari ruler deposed his father with US blessing. Qatar became the headquarters of US military operations throughout the Middle East, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

One aspect of Al-Jazeera that does not attract much scrutiny is the station’s tendency to negatively report on the Saudi royal family and Saudi princes’ widespread financial and property interests, which are hindering Qatari investments and influence in the Middle East. The friction between the Qatari and Saudi royal families became much more intense after the Qatari rulers started showing keen interest in widening their influence in the Middle East. Occasionally, however, Al-Jazeera’s intrepid reporters on the ground upset US military planners in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In response to Al-Jazeera, the Saudi rulers funded al-Arabiya and other satellite stations.

The uprisings in the Arab world, especially in neighbouring Bahrain, however, threatened all the ruling families of the Gulf region. This prompted the Qatari and Saudi rulers to make common cause in suppressing the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen while backing NATO intervention in Libya and bankrolling sections of the Syrian opposition and working for militarising the conflict in Syria. For they are aware that militarising the conflict will not only facilitate covert and possibly overt NATO intervention but will thwart the progressive anti-imperialist forces’ efforts to lead the people’s struggle for democracy and radical social and economic change.

Al-Jazeera English targets a different audience but still has to compete with other stations, particularly Iranian and Russian satellite stations. But both Al-Jazeera Arabic and English, along with nearly all Arab TV stations, target Iran in a barrage of negative reporting, with a racist and sectarian undertones against “Persian” and “Shia influence” in the region. This aspect of Al-Jazeera’s reporting is becoming increasingly important in the context of possible Israeli or US attacks on Iran.

Permit me here to quote from an article I wrote last year in which I referred to the role of Al-Jazeera within the Arab uprisings:

“Though Al-Jazeera has now become the most influential political tool of counter-revolution in the Arab world, its role in Libya and the impact of the sectarian nature of its coverage of the Bahrain uprising would have been much less lethal had it not been for the massive prestige and authority it had gained at the height of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. […] This [has given it] a unique position to influence events and perceptions, particularly in relation to Libya, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. […]Although Al-Jazeera has always had a sectarian undertone at an editorial level, a marked shift in direction came when the Qatari ruling family […] buried their longstanding conflict with the Saudi ruling family in the wake of the revolutionary tidal wave reaching Bahrain […]
The channel’s silence towards the violent suppression of the protesters in Bahrain, headquarters of the US fifth fleet, was backed up by live interviews with Sheikh Qaradhawi, a very influential Egyptian cleric and a guest of the Qatari ruling family.”

Doing serious damage to the democratic forces in Syria, Al-Jazeera has been trumpeting the Qatari and Saudi rulers’ calls for the militarisation of the conflict. It has given voice to the pro-NATO intervention forces in the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army, who do not represent a majority of the Syrian people and are dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps more damagingly is the way they suppressed the anti-intervention democratic opposition voices in Syria.

How do you see this conflict playing out? Do you see a victory for the reactionary forces as moving us closer to a war with Iran? Is there still a potential for revolutionary change in Syria?

Yes, I think that a victory for the Saudi and Qatari ruling classes, backed by the US, will be a major setback for the people in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and the entire region. It will plunge Syria and the entire region into a sectarian bloodbath, and will strengthen plans to attack Iran.

In an alarming move pointing to future developments, a major US-led military exercise is taking place in Jordan. 12,000 multinational forces from 20 NATO members and Arab states are taking part in Operation Eager Lion 2012, the first of its type in the region. US military sources do not hide the fact that the simulation of amphibious landings and other war manoeuvres were intended to be “noticed” by Syria and Iran.

Syria is of pivotal importance not only due to its historic role and strategic location but also because it is Iran’s only ally in the region. Installing a pro US regime in Damascus, or crippling Syria through severe sanctions, terrorist attacks and sectarian civil war will apply further pressure on Iran to either concede to US demands or be attacked.

I think that Iran’s nuclear energy programme is not the major US concern, especially given that the CIA itself has admitted that there was no evidence that Iran was working on producing nuclear weapons. Iran is a formidable regional power, and one of the world’s largest oil producers, which happens to be implacably opposed to US and Israeli policies. Its policies run counter to US plans and have created problems for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and for Israeli policies in Palestine and Lebanon.

Following the uprisings, the Saudi and Qatari rulers are being encouraged by Washington to strengthen their influence in the Middle East by restoring their lost influence in Syria and Lebanon. In the latter, defeating Hizbullah (and its Christian and left and nationalist allies) is the main objective. They are trying to drag Hizbullah into another Lebanese civil war. Al-Jazeera and Arab states’ media have been conducting a prolonged and intense racist and sectarian campaign against Iran, portraying it as the main enemy and accusing Syria and Hizbullah of being stooges of Iran.

This is not to argue that the counterrevolutionary onslaught will be successful. The people of Syria are overwhelmingly opposed to political and social change in their country that is funded and backed by the dictatorships of Riyadh and Doha. Women, most of whom enjoy vast social rights compared to Saudi women, ethnic and religious minorities and the democratic left in Syria are a formidable force against Saudi-Qatari-funded forces and are opposed to calls for NATO intervention. Militarisation of the conflict and resorting to terrorist attacks are signs of failure of the reactionary forces to gain mass support for their line. However, the struggle of the anti-imperialist left and other democratic forces in Syria, as in Iraq, remain difficult and very complex, due to the brutality of and corruption-ridden regime on the one hand and the intervention of NATO and Saudi-Qatari rulers on the other.

Years of repression by the dictatorships, backed by colonial and imperialist powers for so many decades, has organisationally weakened the left and other democratic forces. It is obvious that with Saudi-Qatari backing, the leaderships of the Brotherhood and Salafi forces are, in the short term, reaping the fruits of the uprisings. These forces have always played a dual role amongst the poorest sections of the population, giving voice for their demands while acting as a lid on the more politically and socially radical demands of the people. At critical times, as in Egypt, Iraq and Syria today, they have played a counter-revolutionary role and were accommodated by imperialist powers.

However, the uprisings in the region have unleashed massive popular energies that bode well for the future.

In the short term I am quite pessimistic about radical democratic transformation in Syria. I think that is no longer possible in the current phase of the struggle, because of the weakness of the left organisations and the foothold gained by the reactionary forces in the country. But longer term the uprisings across the Arab world are laying new foundations for the left to organise and prepare for the protracted battles to come. The masses have flexed their muscles in an unprecedented way. I think their triumphs and setbacks are massive schools for the new generations to develop more effective means and organisations to lead the struggle forward.

By Sami Ramadani, Samuel Grove

12 June 2012

@ New Left Project

Samuel Grove is an independent researcher and journalist.

The campaign—which is being led by New York-based United Against Nuclear Iran, or UANI—could threaten Beirut’s financial sector, traditionally among the Middle East’s most important and vibrant. Lebanon’s banking sector historically accounts for around 35% of the country’s total economic output. The U.S. Treasury also has intensified its scrutiny of Lebanon’s banks in recent months, concerned that Hezbollah is using them to move illicit funds derived from narcotics trafficking.

UANI has sent letters to private-equity firm Blackstone Group LP, mutual-fund firm Fidelity Investments, international bank HSBC Holdings PLC, and Germany’s DekaBank Group in recent months to lobby them to unload their Lebanese holdings.

“UANI calls on you…to divest all such securities…to ensure that you don’t unwittingly support Lebanon’s role as a sovereign money launderer,” UANI’s Chief Executive Mark Wallace wrote.

Three financial firms, Ameriprise Financial Inc., Finland’s Aktia Bank, and Vienna-based Erste-Sparinvest KAG, confirmed that they have divested themselves of their holdings in Lebanese securities in recent months, though they didn’t cite the amounts of their investments.

Ameriprise said its decision was made before receiving correspondence from UANI.

Sparinvest, however, wrote to Mr. Wallace on June 27 to confirm it was pulling its investments because of the concerns raised by the group. “We came to the conclusion to divest our holdings in Lebanese bonds, and, therefore, we will follow your recommendation,” Sparinvest Chief Executive Heinz Bednar wrote.

HSBC and DekaBank both contacted UANI and said they also were investigating the charges raised against Lebanon. Fidelity said it would comply with all U.S. regulations concerning investments in Lebanon. Blackstone said it is reviewing the matter and will respond later.

The effort to target Lebanon’s banking system is just the latest effort in a broader campaign against Iran and its allies by UANI, a group formed in 2008 by former U.S. and international security and foreign-policy officials. In recent months, the organization also has successfully lobbied South Korea’s Hyundai Motor Co., Italy’s Fiat SpA, and the U.K.’s Standard Chartered PLC to end their Iran businesses.

In another initiative, UANI teamed this year with U.S. lawmakers to pressure Belgium’s Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which facilitates financial transfers world-wide, to expel Iran from its network.

UANI also is pushing for the Treasury to designate Lebanon’s financial system as a “money-laundering concern” under a statute of the Patriot Act. Such an action could eventually bar Lebanese financial institutions from participating in the U.S. financial system.

To be sure, Lebanon poses a policy dilemma for the Obama administration. While the Treasury is focused on weakening the finances of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, there also is a concern that Washington’s allies in Lebanon could be harmed if Beirut’s financial position deteriorates. Last year, Hezbollah formed the government in Beirut after ousting pro-Western Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri.

Last week, Treasury officials sanctioned five men for allegedly laundering drug money into Beirut on behalf of an international narcotics network run by a Lebanese national named Ayman Joumaa. The Treasury alleged that some of the funds were sent directly to Hezbollah, via a joint Lebanese-Colombian national, Ali Mohamad Saleh.

“The Joumaa network is a sophisticated multinational money laundering ring, which launders the proceeds of drug trafficking for the benefit of criminals and the terrorist group Hezbollah,” said David Cohen, the Treasury’s under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has denied any role in narcotics smuggling.

The Treasury last year blacklisted Lebanon’s then-eighth-largest bank, the Lebanese Canadian Bank, over charges that it was facilitating the movement of Joumaa drug money and holding accounts for Hezbollah. U.S. officials involved in the investigation said they were alarmed by the sharp increase of U.S. dollar-denominated accounts in Lebanon, which grew by as much as 500% since Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel. These officials said the increases raised suspicions due to the political risk associated with Lebanon and the Beirut government’s high debt load.

UANI wrote Lebanon’s Central Bank governor Riad Salameh in late May and alleged that the large cash infusions mainly were a result of Hezbollah’s smuggling. Mr. Wallace also charged that these funds were being used to artificially prop up Lebanon’s sovereign debt and securities.

“In your role as governor…under the political control of Hezbollah, it may very well be impossible for you to effectively perform your role,” Mr. Wallace wrote.

Mr. Salameh couldn’t be reached for comment. The Lebanese banker repeatedly has said that Beirut’s central bank scrutinizes all Lebanese banks to guard against any illicit funds in coming from Iran or Syria. He also said his government is cooperating closely with the U.S. in investigating the Lebanese Canadian Bank and the charges of Hezbollah’s drug trafficking.

“The central bank of Lebanon does not have any financial relationship with the central bank of Iran,” Mr. Salameh wrote to UANI. “Furthermore, none of the Lebanese banks and financial institutions has financial relationships with Iranian financial institutions.”

By JAY SOLOMON

@ The Wall Street Journal

A version of this article appeared July 3, 2012, on page C3 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Banks Get Pressed on Beirut.

Why should the question be asked in the first place? Hasn’t the Arab link to the Palestinian struggle been consistently strong, regardless of the prevalent form of government in any single Arab country? Rhetorically, at least, the Arab bond to Palestine remained incessantly strong at every significant historical turn.

True, disparity between rhetoric and reality are as old as the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the relatively small divide between words and actions widened enormously following the Arab defeat in the 1967 war, which cemented US-Israeli ties like never before.

The war brought an end to the dilemma of independent Palestinian action. It shifted the focus to the West Bank and Gaza, and allowed the still dominant Fatah party to fortify its position in light of Arab defeat and subsequent division.

The division was highlighted most starkly in the August 1967 Khartoum summit in Sudan, where Arab leaders clashed over priorities and definitions. Should Israel’s territorial gains redefine the status quo? Should Arabs focus on returning to a pre-1948 or pre-1967 situation?

The PLO insisted that the 1967 defeat should not compromise the integrity of the struggle. It also stressed that Palestine – all of Palestine – was still the pressing issue. Then-Egyptian President Jamal Abdel Nasser’s messages seemed, for once, befuddled, although he continued to advocate conventional military confrontation with Israel. Syria, on the other hand, didn’t attend the summit.

International response to the war was not promising either. The United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 242 on Nov. 22, 1967, reflecting the US’ wish to capitalize on the new status quo (Israeli withdrawal “from occupied territories” in exchange for normalization with Israel). The new language of the immediate post-1967 period alarmed Palestinians, who realized that any future political settlement was likely to ignore the situation that had existed prior to the war, and would only attempt to remedy current grievances. Then, the boundaries of the conflict permanently changed. For some, Palestine and its conflict became more of a burden than a shared responsibility. Official Arab solidarity with Palestinians become a form of everyday politics – essential to claim relevance to greater Arab causes, but extraneous in terms of substance and application.

Present-day Palestinian leaderships – since there are several bodies that claim to represent Palestinians “everywhere” – also learned how to stage-manage official Arab manipulation of Palestine. They often did so out of desperation, as they urgently needed a physical base and sources of financial support.

Over time, it became clear that official Arab solidarity with Palestine was mostly – although not entirely – a farce. The solidarity they speak of is either entirely nonexistent, or grossly misrepresented. Palestinian communities in various Arab countries are treated with suspicion at best. Those who never tired of publicly calling for freedom for Jerusalem failed to treat Palestinian refugees with respect. They refused entry to stateless Palestinians and denied Palestinians work and permanent residence. Many Palestinians surely concluded that one must learn to differentiate between Arab peoples and Arab governments. Since the latter mostly dominate the former without legitimate mandate, it was foolish to expect official Arab institutions to lead any substantive action to end the subjugation of Palestinians.

That is, until several Arab nations revolted. The more genuine and inclusive the revolt, the more representative the outcome has been. A sudden surge in popular solidarity with Palestine in Tunisia replaced bashful but real attempts by the former Tunisian regime to normalize relations with Israel.

Per Israeli calculations, Arab peoples are dismissible. They are a non-entity. But now Israel is forced to revisit that old calculation. Its fears that Egypt’s new president, Muhammad Mursi will shun, or at least revisit the Camp David peace treaty – signed between Egypt and Israel in 1979, with the ultimate aim of sidelining Egypt from a conflict that remains essentially “Arab” – are well-founded. But Mursi is not the one that is truly feared, and nor is his Muslim Brotherhood. The trepidation stems from the fact that a truly democratic Egypt is unlikely to work in tandem with US-Israel to further pressure and isolate Palestinians – or sideline Egypt from its Arab context. Israel and its allies fear genuine Egyptian democracy.

With the notable shifts that may redefine Palestine’s position within Arab priorities, one cannot ignore the fact that several Arab countries continue to normalize with Israel, oblivious to any seasonable political changes in the region. They do so as if there are hidden hands that wish to balance the possible losses in Tunisia and Egypt, with gains elsewhere. Palestinians in Gaza, as elsewhere, still speak of Arab solidarity with passion, but also with obvious bitterness. They still pray for their brethren to come to the rescue. The older generation speaks of the bravery and sacrifices of many Arabs who fought alongside Palestinians. But the generational expectations have also been altered. Palestinians simply want real solidarity. They want to see Palestinian communities treated with respect and a complete end to Arab normalization with Israel.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London.)

By Ramzy Baroud

04 July, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org