Archives: Articles

Casablanca, Morocco – The Islamic state is a controversial issue in the West, as recent news confirms. Last October, an imam was killed and six men arrested by the FBI in Detroit for allegedly conspiring to establish an Islamic state in the United States. In the United Kingdom, government officials worry that extremist groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir have infiltrated Muslim schools to propagate their vision of an Islamic state.

Public opinion in the West reflects the fear that radical Muslims are trying to impose their values on the rest of the world. But the nebulous term “Islamic state” is not merely a concern for the anxious Western world, it is actually a point of discord and contention within the Muslim world itself.

For many Muslim theologians, the Islamic state actually represents an obstacle to Islamic ethics and values. In Iran, pre-eminent scholar Abdulkarim Soroush, also a former political figure, emphasises how difficult it is to sustain civil, political and religious rights in the current Islamic Republic of Iran. Even the new wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt believes that an Islamic state is not feasible in today’s world.

Increasingly, Muslim scholars across the world are calling for alternative systems that can foster an Islamic vision of society and simultaneously accommodate our increasingly pluralistic societies. They believe that pluralism and the universal democratisation of human rights are at the heart of the Qur’an. There are diverse opinions about the nature, shape and purpose of an Islamic state, ranging from the conservative to the very progressive. However, Islamic states as we know them today have largely failed in creating political systems that respect such ideas.

As a result, Mohamed Talbi, a Tunisian writer and intellectual, calls on Muslim societies to abandon the Islamic state paradigm and instead strive for a global ummah, a global community that shares the core values of freedom and justice. To him, Islam is embodied in the concept of “differences within unity”, namely pluralism. He writes, “I am a Muslim atom within a human molecule. My ummah is humanity, and I do not make any distinction between confessions, opinions, colour or race; all human beings are my brothers and sisters.” This time of globalisation represents to him a rare opportunity to work towards this ideal.

Farid Esack is another Muslim scholar, from South Africa, who argues against an Islamic state in today’s world: if Islam’s message is to fight for oppressed communities, then Islamic states as we currently know them are anything but Islamic. He came to this conclusion as a result of his personal experiences–first, as a student in Pakistan when he witnessed the persecution of poor and marginalised non-Muslim communities and, later, as an activist in South Africa, when he experienced solidarity with people from all faiths against apartheid. A close ally of former South African president Nelson Mandela, Esack also proposes a different form of Islamic influence embodied in a global ummah that does not simply tolerate differences but also unites humankind beyond race and religion for a specific purpose: justice.

Esack believes that the ummah cannot be defined by kinship but by acts of faith: the real ummah is a united inter-religious struggle against oppression in all its forms.

Abdullahi Na’im, a Sudanese Muslim intellectual who had to flee Khartoum for following the open religious doctrine of Mahmoud Taha, a Sudanese theologian and political figure who advocated political and liberal religious reform, is convinced that an Islamic state is doomed to failure and that secularism–rooted in freedom of religion, ethics and morality, and rights and duties–is by far the best system for Muslims throughout the world. This form of secularism would have to be inclusive of different worldviews and could only be built through the dialogue and exchange of a global civil society.

The importance of the ummah over the Islamic state demonstrates a shift from the state–the political apparatus–to individuals and communities who become active agents responsible for implementing Islamic ideals in their pluralistic societies. This interesting proposition, rooted in an Islamic worldview, could be a more fluid and suitable framework for our globalised world.

Isabelle Dana

* Isabelle Dana (isabelle.dana@gmail.com) is a professional in communications and media with a focus on Africa, the Middle East and Islamic studies. This article is part of a series on Islamic law and non-Muslim minorities written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 5 January 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication

 

Diversity and tolerance are considered very basis of modernity as one of the modernity’s fundamental principles is individual and community rights and also, as modernity implies democratic rule, tolerance and right to pursue any ideology or religion assumes great importance. The western countries consider themselves as role models for democracy and freedom. Mr. Bush, after 9/11 attack often used to say why (read Muslims) are jealous of our democracy and freedom?

Most of us believe in this myth that west stands for freedom of conscience, democracy and liberty. And in theory it is quite correct. But is it is in practice?  First of all let us ask one question did they ever consider non-whites, non-Europeans as equal and entitled to equality and liberty? The history tells us no. The white superiority was always underlying assumption and the blacks (now known as African-American) were always discriminated against. Even Jews, until Second World War, did not enjoy equal rights. They were always discriminated against and forced to live in ghettoes, apart from what Nazis did with them.

Also, until Second World War when the Western world was mono-religious and mono-cultural its tolerance for non-western religions and cultures was never tested. It is only when economic migrations began from the erstwhile colonial countries that west began to experience what they now call multi-culturalism and western society became multi-religious and multi-cultural.

It was then that strains appeared and we saw number of cases of prejudice and discrimination against non-white, non-western people migrating to the west. The most re cent case is of Switzerland voting to ban minarets for Muslim mosques. In the poll held 57 per cent Swiss people voted against allowing minarets to Muslim mosques. In Switzerland close to four million people are Muslims

It is heartening that the New York Times editorially condemned this proposed ban. It is worthwhile to quote excerpts from the editorial which was published on November 30, 2009, immediately after the referendum in Switzerland: “Disgraceful. That is the only way to describe the success of a right-wing initiative to ban the constitution of minarets in Switzerland, where 57 percent of voters cast ballots for a bigoted and mean-spirited measures.”

Further the editorial says, “But the vote also carries a strong and urgent message for all Europe, and for all Western nations where Islamic minorities have been growing in numbers; and visibility, and where fear and resentment of Muslim immigrants and their religion have become increasingly strident and widespread. The warning signs have been there: the irrational fierceness of official French resistance to the shawls and burkhas worn by some Muslim women; the growing opposition in many European quarters to Turkish membership in the European Union.”

The New York editorial is, indeed the voice of sanity in the growing intolerance in the Western world towards Muslims in particular and, non-western cultures and religions, in general. We would again like to reiterate here that in principle West does stand for equality, freedom of conscience and human rights which most of the Muslim countries have yet to learn. But, as we will show herein below that Islam also stands for tolerance and respect for other culture and faiths and believes diversity is creation of Allah but test really comes in practice.

It is also true that terrorist attacks in some countries, and especially after 9/11 has intensified hatred against Islam and Muslims but then in Switzerland, the Muslims have been peaceful and there have been no instances of such attacks and it appears quite irrational that people of Switzerland should display such intolerance towards their peaceful minority. However, the signs were in the air.

I had delivered a lecture on Islam and non-violence way back in 2004 in Zuric which was held in collaboration with the local church. When question answer session began the journalists present there said how Islam can ever be non-violent and peaceful. I said I have based my speech on the Qur’anic text and anyone can verify what I have said but the journalists did not seem to be convinced. They kept on arguing until the church official intervened. What these journalists must have been writing about Islam is obvious. In modern society media plays very important role.

This is further borne out by the TV debate between noted Swiss Muslim intellectual and my friend Tariq Ramadan and Oskar Freysinger on ban on minaret. It became evident from the debate that the real issue was not minaret, but Islam itself. Dr. Patrick Haenni, a researcher at Religiouscope, who believes that religion, not politics, was the core of the initiator’s discourse through a perspective full of misconceptions and stereotypes.

The ban on burqa in France by the Government is another instance of this intolerance for non-western religions and cultures. This writer is no advocate of burqas covering entire body and face from head to toe but the question is not one should wear burqa or not, more fundamental question is of individual right and choice? Whatever reason for wearing burqa, personal conviction, social or peer pressures or identity issue, does one have right to wear or not? Should one ban it outright?

Here I would like to narrate an interesting experience. I was lecturing on secularism in the University of Bukhara and in the audience were mostly young women dressed in skirts as western women do. During the lecture two burqa clad women (wearing burqa from head to toe) entered and sat down. After my lecture was over some of those women stood up and agitatedly said sir, why should we not thrown out these two women (wearing burqa)? I was shocked at the aggressive tone of these agitated women.

I enquired why do you want to throw them out? These women (all of them Muslim) said why are they wearing burqa and why do they cover themselves? I said I ask you one simple question suppose all these women were clad in Burqa and two of you had come wearing skirts and with modern haircut and if they had asked by not throw these two skirt-wearing women out, what would have been your response?

I said throwing out or banning a practice is not the solution but to dialogue with each other and to understand each other. They then appreciated my viewpoint and sat down quietly and we continued our discussion. Thus to accept the other, as other is (not with prescriptions) is the essence of democracy. Prescription for the other violates the very spirit of others’ rights and dignity which is the basis of modernity. Now it has been universally accepted that it is not only individual rights which are important but also group rights of minorities as well are equally important.

The west, whatever its principles and values, is yet to come to terms with non-western others. Also, it should not depend on the doctrine of reciprocation but group rights should be absolute. I remember in U.K. there was debate in eighties how Muslims treat Christian minorities in Muslim majority countries. Do they give them equal rights and freedom of religion? If not, why do they expect such rights in western countries?

This reciprocative approach contradicts the very spirit of democratic values and principles. These values and principles are absolute and no conditionalities could be prescribed. Of course there are complex reasons for the growing intolerance towards Muslim minorities in the western world. As everywhere the rightist forces thrive on hatred of the other and the ban on the minaret in Switzerland is also the result of rise of rightist politics. The Muslims in India too have experienced it when the BJP tried to come to power through hate politics of Ramjanambhoomi.

In France too, ban on hijab came under the regime of Sarkozy who is known rightist. Secondly, the rising number of immigrants also creates fear in the minds of original inhab -itants of the country and, in order to press the issue, these numbers are highly exaggerated. Muslims, both by way of migration and birth, are the fastest growing minority in the Europe. Thirdly, most of the Muslim migrants are non-whites, many of them blacks from African countries and here both religious as well as racial prejudice combine and intensify hatred and intolerance.

In France, for example, most of the Muslim migrants are from former French colonies and hence happen to be black. Discrimination against them and their marginalization totally alienates them and this alienation finds expression through complex ways – through aggressive behavior or overemphasis on their identities which in turn further intensifies their alienation.

And, if this is followed by economic crisis as Europe is undergoing these days, majority fear against the ‘migrant other’ becomes even more aggressive born out of fear and the rising tide of rightist forces in such circumstances further aggravates it. Also, the US policies in the Middle East has resulted in intensifying extremism in a section of youth in the Muslim countries resulting in terrorist attacks such as 9/11 which excites even more hatred against Muslims in the west.

What is the way out then? Where to stop this vicious circle of action and reaction? It is for sure that we cannot control all the factors. But it is also equally certain that we need a wise political leadership who is not after power but welfare of people. Democracy ideally speaking is for people’s participation and for their well being. However, like other political systems, democracy too, has become means of grabbing power by certain groups and classes. Also, it tends to be majoritarian i.e. heavily tilted in favor of racial, religious or linguistic majority. There has been hardly any exception to it in the world.

Certain Muslim countries who swear by Qur’an as their constitution also flagrantly violate Qur’anic provisions. Qur’an gives certain ideals and values for governance, an idea of the desirable society. It says diversity is Allah’s creation and must be respected and celebrated. And this diversity includes linguistic, racial and religious and human beings, whatever religion, race or linguistic group they belong to, must be accorded equal dignity and which means all of them should enjoy equal rights.

However, you will not find any Muslim country swearing by Qur’an as book of Allah implementing these ideals. You find discrimination on the basis of religion, even sects, language and ethnicity. You very much find discrimination for example in Saudi Arabia, against non-Arabs, against non-Wahabi Muslims and against other ethnic and racial groups. One finds discrimination in Iran against Sunni Muslims, against Arabs, against Bahais and against non-Persians.

In Pakistan one finds discrimination against certain linguistic groups like Baluchis and Sindhis. It is dominated by the Punjabi majority. Not only that there is sectarian violence between Shi’ahs and Sunnis besides Christians and Hindus. It is Punjabi majority which rules the roast. One has yet to see any Muslim country which does not violate injunctions of the Qur’an while swearing in by it as one has yet to see any western democracy not violating injunctions of their own constitutions enshrining ideals and values of modern democracy.

As long as the goal remains power, this is bound to happen. Another bane of the situation is current rise in rightist forces which arouse emotions of people on the basis of religion, race and language. Again no country is an exception to it. Education system itself, which prepares children and students for future material of the society, is controlled by, in most, if not all cases, by rightist elements.

The Netherlands is also undergoing severe problem of anti-Muslim tirade. One politician made a film called Fitna and refused to take it back. Also, a Muslim fanatic murdered a film maker from the Netherlands who caste slur on Islam and this further led to anti-Islamic surge there. I met a professor of Islamic studies from Netherlands in Germany who spoke on Islam. The seminar was on progressive Islam.

I was stunned by his anti-Islamic outpouring. It was nothing short of hate-Islam speech. When we protested the organizers maintained that all views are allowed to be expressed from this forum. May be it was so. But what was worrying factor was that the person was teaching Islam in the Netherlands. If such Islam is taught in universities of a country what mindset would be generated? One shudders to think.

Media is no exception. While it must be made clear there are honorable exceptions and some newspapers and TV channels which are quite objective or tend to be so but then such papers and channels are, more often than not, popular. They are read or watched by serious kind of people. Popular media tend to be prejudiced. Also, media is often owned by certain interests and it is not committed to the cause of objective reporting.

And media plays most crucial role in democracy. I would say if media plays responsible role rising above all interests modern democracies would be far more conflict-free than they are today. And in answering the question raised above media provides one of the crucial factors. Despite all the laws made by the state, media behaves the way it wants to as various state organs fail to implement the laws.

It is true we cannot have ideal democracy as the German philosopher rightly points out ideal is not real and real is not ideal, still one has to try to come as close to ideal as possible. Even such efforts are lacking in modern democracies. Invariably it is powerful interests which determine the shape and direction of things and there is always tension between vested interests and the ideals and interests seem to win.

Of course if the conflict remains manageable it is one thing but disaster takes place when it goes beyond manageable proportions. The attack on 9/11 and subsequent attack on Afghanistan and Iraq took this conflict between Islam and the west beyond all imaginable proportions as here too very powerful interests were involved. However, it would be wrong to consider it a self fulfillment of Huntigntonian prediction of ‘clash of civilization’. It was, instead, clash of political interests on both sides.

It is interesting to note that Huntington’s book received such media attention in the west precisely because certain interests in the west wanted such book written to promote conflict. Of course things may not have gone as planned but to an extent those interests were served but at a great social cost. It greatly sharpened prejudices in the west against Islam. And this has been going on for quite some time now.

Since Muslims began to immigrate to the western countries in the post-colonial period the anti-Islam prejudices began to acquire sharper edge. The Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses in the eighties and the support it received in the west was also part of this process. The enthusiastic support was not for the sake of freedom of opinion. There was a purpose behind it. The Islamic revolution had occurred in Iran which was anti-west in its thrust and made Iranian oil beyond western powers.

Thus the west adopted anti-Iran posture and when Khomeini, for his own political compulsions, issued fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the swords were drawn on both sides and west lent unqualified support to Rushdie in the name of freedom and Muslims stood by Khomeini’s fatwa. It was neither freedom nor Islam but who will dominate Iran and its oil, west or people and rulers of Iran.

All these developments through eighties culminated in 9/11 attacks and everything was complete for anti-Islamic prejudices in western countries and media. As far as Arab oil is concerned the clashes are likely to continue and will go through different phases. It reached its culmination during the Bush’s unqualified support to rightist policies and outright adventure in the West Asia.

However, since it crossed critical limits in conflict management Obama took over the reigns of administration. But it would indeed be too much to expect that Obama would resolve the conflict. But yes, certainly he may succeed in managing the conflict a shade better and he appears to be sincerely trying. He is far from free agent as many think. His hands are tied by so many uncontrollable factors.

Al-Qaeda and Taliban issue is not here to disappear in few years. Afghan people are fiercely independence loving and even Muslim rulers like Moghuls failed to subdue them, much less totally aliens like Americans. American policy makers should study history of Afghan rebellion much more seriously than they have done. US jackboots cannot crush Afghans. Obama has to an extent realized this and though he is sending more forces but has also promised to withdraw by 2011.

Withdraws or not but certainly solution does not lay in trying to crush Afghans but to resolve it through dialogue and accommodation which again is not easy. US is also not in Afghanistan for just to wipe out Al-Qaeda and Taliban but to control rich gas and mineral resources in Central Asia. It did not invaded Afghanistan for nothing. And as long as US wants to control rich resources of Central Asia it cannot find accommodation with Afghan Taliban and as long as Taliban issue continues anti-Islam prejudices will remain strong as ever.

It is also absolutely necessary to solve Palestinian problem if one desires peace in West Asia. While Afghan Taliban are more concerned about peace in their region but Al-Qaeda is more focused on West Asia and to solve both the problems sans US interests in both the regions is asking for let us say impossible. Should we despair then? Not really. But it is a challenge which few politicians can succeed in facing.

The Muslim countries too will have to seriously contemplate policy changes and have to make concerted efforts to project peaceful Islam on their part. They will have to fight powerful interests and confrontationists mindset on their part. The rulers in the west Asia have to go for modernization, changes in their education system and promoting spirit of understanding and dialogue with the other.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is wiser than his predecessors and following strategies to contain extremist elements in his own country. Like Obama’s his hands are tied too. In Pakistan military establishment is too powerful to be contained easily and for quite sometime to come civilian rule will not be able to ascertain its independence and Pakistan is very crucial for peace in Afghan-Pakistan region.

Well, while working for greater understanding let us understand these challenges too.

 

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Islam and Modern Age, January 2010)

 

Institute of Islamic Studies,

Mumbai.

E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in

 

East Room

8:40 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. (Applause.) Please, please have a seat. Good evening, everyone. And welcome to the White House.

Of all the freedoms we cherish as Americans, of all the rights that we hold sacred, foremost among them is freedom of religion, the right to worship as we choose. It’s enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution — the law of the land, always and forever. It beats in our heart — in the soul of the people who know that our liberty and our equality is endowed by our Creator. And it runs through the history of this house, a place where Americans of many faiths can come together and celebrate their holiest of days — and that includes Ramadan.

As I’ve noted before, Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. And some of you, as you arrived tonight, may have seen our special display, courtesy of our friends at the Library of Congress — the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson. And that’s a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam — like so many faiths — is part of our national story.

This evening, we’re honored to be joined by members of our diplomatic corps, members of Congress — including Muslim American members of Congress, Keith Ellison and Andre Carson — as well as leaders from across my administration. And to you, the millions of Muslim Americans across our country, and to the more than one billion Muslims around the world — Ramadan Kareem.

Now, every faith is unique. And yet, during Ramadan, we see the traditions that are shared by many faiths: Believers engaged in prayer and fasting, in humble devotion to God. Families gathering together with love for each other. Neighbors reaching out in compassion and charity, to serve the less fortunate. People of different faiths coming together, mindful of our obligations to one another — to peace, justice and dignity for all people — men and women. Indeed, you know that the Koran teaches, “Be it man or woman, each of you is equal to the other.”

And by the way, we’ve seen this in recent days. In fact, the Olympics is being called “The Year of the Woman.” (Laughter.) Here in America, we’re incredibly proud of Team USA — all of them — but we should notice that a majority of the members are women. Also, for the very first time in Olympic history, every team now includes a woman athlete. And one of the reasons is that every team from a Muslim-majority country now includes women as well. And more broadly — that’s worth applauding. (Applause.) Absolutely.

More broadly, we’ve seen the extraordinary courage of Muslim women during the Arab Spring — women, right alongside men, taking to the streets to claim their universal rights, marching for their freedom, blogging and tweeting and posting videos, determined to be heard. In some cases, facing down tanks, and braving bullets, enduring detentions and unspeakable treatment, and at times, giving their very lives for the freedom that they seek — the liberty that we are lucky enough to enjoy here tonight.

These women have inspired their sisters and daughters, but also their brothers and their sons. And they’ve inspired us all. Even as we see women casting their ballots and seeking — standing for office in historic elections, we understand that their work is not done. They understand that any true democracy must uphold the freedom and rights of all people and all faiths. We know this, too, for here in America we’re enriched by so many faiths, by men and women — including Muslim American women.

They’re young people, like the student who wrote me a letter about what it’s like to grow up Muslim in America. She’s in college. She dreams of a career in international affairs to help deepen understanding between the United States and Muslim countries around the world. So if any of the diplomatic corps have tips for her — (laughter.) She says that “America has always been the land of opportunity for me, and I love this country with all my heart.” And so we’re glad to have Hala Baig here today. (Applause.)

They are faith leaders like Sanaa Nadim, one of the first Muslim chaplains at an American college — a voice for interfaith dialogue who’s had the opportunity to meet with the Pope to discuss these issues. We’re very proud to have you here. (Applause.)

They are educators like Auysha Muhayya, born in Afghanistan, who fled with her family as refugees to America, and now, as a language teacher, helps open her students to new cultures. So we’re very pleased to have her here. (Applause.)

They are entrepreneurs and lawyers, community leaders, members of our military, and Muslim American women serving with distinction in government. And that includes a good friend, Huma Abedin, who has worked tirelessly — (applause) — worked tirelessly in the White House, in the U.S. Senate, and most exhaustingly, at the State Department, where she has been nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear. Senator Clinton has relied on her expertise, and so have I.

The American people owe her a debt of gratitude — because Huma is an American patriot, and an example of what we need in this country — more public servants with her sense of decency, her grace and her generosity of spirit. So, on behalf of all Americans, we thank you so much. (Applause.)

These are the faces of Islam in America. These are just a few of the Muslim Americans who strengthen our country every single day. This is the diversity that makes us Americans; the pluralism that we will never lose.

And at times, we have to admit that this spirit is threatened. We’ve seen instances of mosques and synagogues, churches and temples being targeted. Tonight, our prayers, in particular, are with our friends and fellow Americans in the Sikh community. We mourn those who were senselessly murdered and injured in their place of worship. And while we may never fully understand what motivates such hatred, such violence, the perpetrators of such despicable acts must know that your twisted thinking is no match for the compassion and the goodness and the strength of our united American family.

So tonight, we declare with one voice that such violence has no place in the United States of America. The attack on Americans of any faith is an attack on the freedom of all Americans. (Applause.) No American should ever have to fear for their safety in their place of worship. And every American has the right to practice their faith both openly and freely, and as they choose.

That is not just an American right; it is a universal human right. And we will defend the freedom of religion, here at home and around the world. And as we do, we’ll draw on the strength and example of our interfaith community, including the leaders who are here tonight.

So I want to thank all of you for honoring us with your presence, for the example of your lives, and for your commitment to the values that make us “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” (Applause.)

God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END 8:48 P.M. EDT

A specific area of violence that has generated considerable concern is violence between two adults in an intimate relationship, referred to as “domestic violence”. Stories and studies from 1970s and 1980s era provided us with a vivid picture of the battered woman, her assailant, and their relationship. Frieze (2005) notes that Leone Walker’s 1979 book, The Battered Woman, was the most quoted book on marital violence through the late 1980s. This book portrayed battered women as helpless victims of male abusers, and claimed the motivation for men was a patriarchal desire for control.

Domestic violence perpetrated by partners and close family members on women has long been a matter of silent suffering within the four walls of the home. According to Dr. Susan Hanks, Director of the Family and Violence Institute in Alameda, California, men batter because of internal psychological struggles. Usually, men who batter are seeking a sense of power and control over their partners or their own lives, or because they are tremendously dependent on the woman and are threatened by any moves on her part towards independence. Some men batter because that’s the only way they know how to be close to or relate to a partner. Some men grew up in violent households, where they watched their mothers abused by their fathers and where they themselves were abused. Some men become violent under the influence of drugs or alcohol, although the substances themselves do not cause the violence.

For this reason projects have been implemented that contribute to an understanding of domestic violence prevalence and factors associated with it. Some common conclusions have been derived regarding the problem of domestic violence: Domestic violence was found to be all-pervasive among all women but varying in volume and frequency across class, age and education level. Further inequalities existing in the household, as represented by education and employment gaps between husbands and wives, were linked to domestic violence. The impact upon the survival of the household economy was found to be significant as well.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND POVERTY ARE INTERWOVEN:

Efforts to escape violence can have devastating economic impacts. Leaving a relationship might mean a woman will lose her job, housing, health care, child care, or access to her partner’s income. Often criminal and civil legal remedies are necessary to safely leave a relationship. But women are at highest risk of injury or violence when they are separating from or divorcing a partner. Women can be very intimidated by a partner and the consequences of her leaving. It takes a long time for a woman to give up hope in a relationship and to recognize that the only way she can be safe is to leave him. Also, legislation, policy, services and advocacy often focus on physically separating the battered woman and her children from the abusive partner, but do not guarantee a home, food of health care or an opportunity for long-term financial stability. And anti-poverty schemes focus on increasing economic resources and access to program without addressing the impact of violence on family’s basic human needs and do little to prevent a partner to harm the wife’s job.

Poverty reduces options for battered women. Safety planning strategies require significant life changes like, moving, separation or divorce. Some require extensive use of the civil legal system to obtain orders for custody, child support or protection. Woman must be able to financially support herself and her children after she leaves her abusive partner. In many locations there are programs that provide housing and temporary cash assistance, child care and free legal representation. However, most of these programs have limited funding, offer short-term resources. As a result some low-income battered women simply are without the income, government support, or access to services necessary to fully implement safety plan.

Low-income women also face multiple levels of bias and discrimination that reduce options for safety and financial security. For example, some landlords may not want to lease an apartment to single mother or to a woman whose rent is subsidized by the government. In general, women living in low-income neighborhoods have fewer employment and economic opportunities.

CHALLENGES AHEAD:

> “Rights” are valuable to individual freedom but does not take into account issues of gender justice within the family and community. It fails to shed light on the role of women as primary victims of poverty as they voluntarily give up their own rights to nutrition and health for their family members.

> Ill-health is one of the major factors besetting poor women. The most telling statistic is the increase in maternal mortality in the last decades. Gendered differences are reflected in patterns of health and illness around the world. The lack of nutrition and resources combined with increased pressure on their multiple gender roles due to other family members’ ill health and changing economic opportunities make poor women more vulnerable and more likely to delay treatment. For example, HIV-AIDS are faster common among majority of poor women. Poor women’s lack of control over their sexuality and fertility makes them far more vulnerable to HIV-AIDS and other STDs.

> The culture of some rural communities can make it more difficult for women to seek help. Communities where men and women tend to stay in traditional roles, where people avoid asking for help, and where there is less awareness of domestic violence and its impact on victims and children are communities where it is harder for domestic violence victims to seek out the resources they need.

> Rural domestic violence victims are in more isolated locations and may have difficulty accessing health care and other services due to lack of transportation or poor weather and road conditions. Emergency response time is often slower in rural areas. In addition, some rural homes do not even have telephone service to request emergency assistance.

> A shortage of health care providers is a constant challenge, particularly when addressing survivors of domestic violence who may need physical or mental health treatment to recover from the effects of abuse. Rural residents are more likely to be underinsured. Lack of insurance limits victims’ abilities to seek either primary or mental health care for injuries, depression, or anxiety.

> Domestic violence survivors may be in need of legal assistance but in rural areas, it can be more difficult to find an affordable lawyer or legal aid. Law enforcement and the courts in rural communities may be less familiar with issues of domestic violence and appropriate responses.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!

Amartya Sen (1999) has rightly quoted, ‘nothing arguably is as important in the world today in the political economy of development as an adequate recognition of political, economic and social participation and leadership of women. This is indeed a crucial aspect of “development as freedom.” Some women may say, “Well, he only did it when he drank. He was acting that way because of some things I did or said. If I change things just a little bit he might stop. He just got laid off from his job and he was depressed, and that’s why he’s acting out this way. Once he gets a job he’ll stop.” There is always a “reason”, and these are all excuses; it doesn’t matter what the reason, he doesn’t have the right to hit her. This is the key. It’s very hard sometimes for women who are caught up in these situations to be clear about that.

What is challenging now, is to see how at a time when women’s empowerment, human rights, gender equality have been endorsed by international community, the current economic climate is trying to shrink the national states so that resources required to put in these agendas are withdrawn. What strategies can then be promoted for women’s empowerment and poverty alleviation in today’s market crisis, continued structural adjustment, cuts in welfare state and globalizing market all disrupting the provision of reproductive health, education and medical services for poor communities and especially for poor woman and girls.

By Aditi Paul

27 January, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Aditi Paul is currently pursuing a masters degree in International Studies from Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

http://countercurrents.org/paul270110.htm

Over time, the definition of torture has evolved to encompass its evolving forms in methods and severity with comprehensive precision. The practise of torture dates back to the primitive human desire of the self-righteous to punish offences of others. During these contemporary times, specifically post-9/11, torture has once again reared its ugly head with a new face. The most recently revived form of torture is faith-based torture. The thrust in the revival of faith-based torture was propelled by the Bush administration in order to maintain national security, including investigations of “ticking-bomb” scenarios, at the sacrifice of upholding morality to fight the “war on terror.” According to reports by Stephen Budiansky, “U.S. military intelligence agencies have long known that torture and humiliation are unreliable and counterproductive means of securing intelligence” (qtd. in McCormick 156). Faith-based torture has its roots in religious persecution that dates back to antiquity and it continues to be practised globally. Recently, faith-based torture has expanded into aspects of psychological torture in order to escape legal scrutiny. “Faith-based torture” is a problematic expression that can lead to misunderstanding, both in its terminology and definition. Renaming and redefining the concept of “faith-based torture” from an objective stance is the first step in eradicating the legal exploitation of human dignity and promoting self-enforcement of the prohibition of torture.

The term “faith-based torture” is an oxymoron that does not accurately depict the subject: torture of the faithful. The use of the word “based” in “faith-based torture” refers to origin; hence by definition, the expression implies that faith is the origin of torture. No religion promotes the violation of basic human dignity, especially not for the sake of achieving nationalistic goals like interrogating “enemy combatants” to save a nation from an alleged threat. However, religion is vulnerable to misinterpretation as the word of God is interpreted through scriptures. It is the human error in interpretation of religion that results in its misunderstanding such as religion promotes torture. Human error in interpretation can be minimized by clearly defining the boundaries of a subject in question.

Current literature does not provide an objective definition of the term “faith-based torture” despite the available information on torture and faith. I propose the term “faith-based torture” be renamed as “torture of the faithful (TotF).” TotF will be defined as: the intentional act of assaulting individuals’ faith sensitivities to inflict either physical, mental, and/or emotional harm on the individual, or to inflict vicarious mental and/or emotional harm on the associated population of the individual. According to Liaquat Ali Khan, two conditions must be satisfied in order to classify the perpetration of torture as faith-based torture: “(a) the subject of torture belongs to an identifiable religious population, and (b) the chosen form of torture assaults deeply held religious values of that population.” These conditions will continue to be applied alongside the term TotF.

Let’s get one thing straight: torture is prohibited under international law. With such prohibitions in place, how does the practise of torture continue to penetrate our society? I believe there are two main reasons as to why torture continues to be legally practised: “the lack of political will to implement the obligations of States under international humanitarian and human rights law” (Kälin) and the lack of objective definition of torture leading to its legal exploitation to override basic human rights. Firstly, the concept of national sovereignty has always been a delicate matter; international law cannot be imposed on a State if the authorities refuse to apply international law due to a perceived threat to sovereignty and the desire to maintain independence. Secondly, the lack of objective definition of TotF enables the exploitation of loopholes through legal interpretation by governing bodies to conduct TotF. With an objective definition in place, clearer standards prohibiting TotF can be established and put into practise, thus defending the physical and spiritual integrity of potential victims.

There are various instances of TotF that have been identified globally; no political or religious grouping is exempt from culpability in this regard. The most prominent examples can be found in U.S.-run detention camps in the “war on terror;” such examples involve the practise of anti-Islamic torture. These can range from ineffective anti-Islamic tactics to more serious violations of Islamic modesty such as forced nudity and pornographic abuse. Anti-Islamic torture was committed to presumably cause the detainees to lose their Islamic identity and thus submit to interrogational duress. Among some of the ineffective anti-Islamic tactics involve incidents where detainees were prohibited from performing prayers or interrupted mid-prayer, relevant information such as the direction and time of prayer were withheld from them, prevented from reading the Qur’an and others. However, the religious identity and commitment of these detainees were not perceptibly affected by such anti-Islamic torture. This is because Islam provides a sufficient degree of flexibility to accommodate even cases of necessity.

Another form of TotF that causes much uproar in the Muslim community is the desecration of the Qur’an. A recent example is from late February where multiple copies of the Qur’an confiscated from prisoners were burned at NATO’s Bagram military airbase; the incident resulted in protests and civilian deaths. The incineration of the Qur’an by the military personnel can be interpreted as a vicarious form of TotF. Vicarious TotF involves an additional step beyond its physical perpetration, which is in this case, the act of burning multiple volumes of the Qur’an. Knowledge of the perpetration of TotF must be disseminated to the vicarious victims of the associated population; this is to generate vicarious degradation amongst the victimized population and invoke fear of the perpetrators. Essentially, TotF communicates to the victimized population what is not acceptable conduct in the eyes of the perpetrator.

The recent justifications in committing TotF post-9/11 tend to arise from self-serving political agendas. Our failure to uphold collective human rights through legal means results in our failure to protect innocent victims. TotF is a serious problem that needs immediate and sustained attention to defend basic human dignity. Awareness needs to be raised among the relevant authorities and the general public as well. We need to create a sense of outrage in order to provide impetuous for effective collective action.

By Emilie Terebessy

16 August 2012

Emilir Terebessy is an intern in JUST.

Who said this? “All the evidence shows that beyond the sort of standard of living which Britain has now achieved, extra growth does not automatically translate into human welfare and happiness.” Was it a) the boss of Greenpeace, b) the director of the New Economics Foundation, or c) an anarchist planning the next climate camp? None of the above: d) the former head of the Confederation of British Industry, who currently runs the Financial Services Authority. In an interview broadcast last Friday, Lord Turner brought the consumer society’s most subversive observation into the mainstream.

In our hearts most of us know it is true, but we live as if it were not. Progress is measured by the speed at which we destroy the conditions that sustain life. Governments are deemed to succeed or fail by how well they make money go round, regardless of whether it serves any useful purpose. They regard it as a sacred duty to encourage the country’s most revolting spectacle: the annual feeding frenzy in which shoppers queue all night, then stampede into the shops, elbow, trample and sometimes fight to be the first to carry off some designer junk which will go into landfill before the sales next year. The madder the orgy, the greater the triumph of economic management.

As the Guardian revealed today, the British government is now split over product placement in television programmes: if it implements the policy proposed by Ben Bradshaw, the culture secretary, plots will revolve around chocolates and cheeseburgers, and advertisements will be impossible to filter, perhaps even to detect. Bradshaw must know that this indoctrination won’t make us happier, wiser, greener or leaner; but it will make the television companies £140m a year.

Though we know they aren’t the same, we can’t help conflating growth and wellbeing. Last week, for instance, the Guardian carried the headline “UK standard of living drops below 2005 level”. But the story had nothing to do with our standard of living. Instead it reported that per capita gross domestic product is lower than it was in 2005. GDP is a measure of economic activity, not standard of living. But the terms are confused so often that journalists now treat them as synonyms. The low retail sales of previous months were recently described by this paper as “bleak” and “gloomy”. High sales are always “good news”, low sales are always “bad news”, even if the product on offer is farmyard porn. I believe it’s time that the Guardian challenged this biased reporting.

Those who still wish to conflate welfare and GDP argue that high consumption by the wealthy improves the lot of the world’s poor. Perhaps, but it’s a very clumsy and inefficient instrument. After some 60 years of this feast, 800 million people remain permanently hungry. Full employment is a less likely prospect than it was before the frenzy began.

In a new paper published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Sir Partha Dasgupta makes the point that the problem with gross domestic product is the gross bit. There are no deductions involved: all economic activity is accounted as if it were of positive value. Social harm is added to, not subtracted from, social good. A train crash which generates £1bn worth of track repairs, medical bills and funeral costs is deemed by this measure to be as beneficial as an uninterrupted service which generates £1bn in ticket sales.

Most important, no deduction is made to account for the depreciation of natural capital: the overuse or degradation of soil, water, forests, fisheries and the atmosphere. Dasgupta shows that the total wealth of a nation can decline even as its GDP is growing. In Pakistan, for instance, his rough figures suggest that while GDP per capita grew by an average of 2.2% a year between 1970 and 2000, total wealth declined by 1.4%. Amazingly, there are still no official figures that seek to show trends in the actual wealth of nations.

You can say all this without fear of punishment or persecution. But in its practical effects, consumerism is a totalitarian system: it permeates every aspect of our lives. Even our dissent from the system is packaged up and sold to us in the form of anti-consumption consumption, like the “I’m not a plastic bag”, which was supposed to replace disposable carriers but was mostly used once or twice before it fell out of fashion, or like the lucrative new books on how to live without money.

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley proposed different totalitarianisms: one sustained by fear, the other in part by greed. Huxley’s nightmare has come closer to realisation. In the nurseries of the Brave New World, “the voices were adapting future demand to future industrial supply. ‘I do love flying,’ they whispered, ‘I do love flying, I do love having new clothes … old clothes are beastly … We always throw away old clothes. Ending is better than mending, ending is better than mending'”. Underconsumption was considered “positively a crime against society”. But there was no need to punish it. At first the authorities machine-gunned the Simple Lifers who tried to opt out, but that didn’t work. Instead they used “the slower but infinitely surer methods” of conditioning: immersing people in advertising slogans from childhood. A totalitarianism driven by greed eventually becomes self-enforced.

Let me give you an example of how far this self-enforcement has progressed. In a recent comment thread, a poster expressed an idea that I have now heard a few times. “We need to get off this tiny little world and out into the wider universe … if it takes the resources of the planet to get us out there, so be it. However we use them, however we utilise the energy of the sun and the mineral wealth of this world and the others of our planetary system, either we do use them to expand and explore other worlds, and become something greater than a mud-grubbing semi-sentient animal, or we die as a species.”

This is the consumer society taken to its logical extreme: the Earth itself becomes disposable. This idea appears to be more acceptable in some circles than any restraint on pointless spending. That we might hop, like the aliens in the film Independence Day, from one planet to another, consuming their resources then moving on, is considered by these people a more realistic and desirable prospect than changing the way in which we measure wealth.

So how do we break this system? How do we pursue happiness and wellbeing rather than growth? I came back from the Copenhagen climate talks depressed for several reasons, but above all because, listening to the discussions at the citizens’ summit, it struck me that we no longer have movements; we have thousands of people each clamouring to have their own visions adopted. We might come together for occasional rallies and marches, but as soon as we start discussing alternatives, solidarity is shattered by possessive individualism. Consumerism has changed all of us. Our challenge is now to fight a system we have internalised.

By George Monbiot

05 January, 2010
The Guardian

George Monbiot is the author of the best selling books The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper. Visit his website at www.monbiot.com

© 2010 Guardian News and Media Limited

Cars Equipped with Machineguns Destroyed in Aleppo, Army Destroys Terrorists’ Center in Damascus Countryside

Aug 16, 2012

PROVINCES, (SANA) – The army forces destroyed more than 12 cars equipped with DShK (Dushka) machineguns in Kefr Hamra area, north of Aleppo, and killed all the terrorists inside them as they were trying to inter into Aleppo city.

Units from the armed forces destroyed a number of cars and killed the terrorists inside them in al-Saba’ Bahrat and Bab al-Nasr area in Aleppo.

A unit of the armed forces clashed with mercenary terrorists near Nazlet al-Zubdieh in Saif al-Dawla neighborhood in Aleppo, killing big numbers of them, and destroyed two cars equipped with DShK machineguns.

The locals in Maskana in Aleppo confronted an armed terrorist group and managed to kill a number of terrorists, including the group’s leader who is known as Abu Hamza.

In al-Midan area in Aleppo, an armed forces unit confronted a terrorist group that came from al-Halk neighborhood, killing most of the group’s members.

Authorities also destroyed 8 cars equipped with DShK machineguns in Daret Izzeh area in Aleppo Countryside.

Meanwhile, the army units chased down armed terrorist groups in al-Ba’eidin area near al-Halak roundabout in the city of Aleppo killing a large number of them.

Authorities also chased terrorists driving 12 cars equipped with machineguns in Ma’aret al-Artiq roundabout in the countryside of Aleppo and destroyed all their cars.

A unit from the armed forces clashed with terrorists near the Post building in Masaken Hanano in Aleppo, killing and wounding a large number of them.

Army Units hunt vanquished mercenaries in a number of Aleppo neighborhoods and countryside, inflicting heavy losses among them

Units from the Syrian Army today also pursued the vanquished mercenaries in a number of Aleppo neighborhoods and countryside, inflicting heavy losses among them.

A source in Aleppo told SANA reporter that the Army units clashed with an armed terrorist group near al-Zibdea, at the end of Saif al-Dawla neighborhood, killing scores of terrorists and destroying two cars equipped with Dushka machineguns.

The Army also destroyed a number of cars and killed the terrorists onboard near Souk al-Mawazen at al-Saba Bahrat area in Bab al-Nasr.

In Aleppo countryside, the army units destroyed 12 cars equipped with machineguns in Kabtan al-Jabal, killing all the terrorist onboard.

Another army unit monitored an armed group leading boarding 10 cars equipped with Dushka machineguns at Kfar Bsein in Aleppo countryside, clashing with them and destroying the 10 cars and killing all the terrorists.

Authorities Storm Terrorists’ Hideout in Basateen al-Razi in Damascus

Authorities stormed a terrorists’ hideout behind Basateen al-Razi in Damascus.

An official source told SANA reporter that the authorities clashed with the terrorists killing and injuring some of them and arresting others.

The source added that the authorities seized the weapons inside the hideout.

Syrian Army units  pursue vanquished mercenaries in Tafas, Daraa, fulfill specific operation in Ariha, Idleb

Units from the Syrian Army today pursued the vanquished mercenaries in Tafas, Daraa, arresting scores of them and killing many others.

A source in Daraa told SANA reporter that a number of terrorists threw their weapons and escaped after the strikes they received, while others were hit by panic.

Among the terrorists killed were Qasem Rawashda, Adham al-Zo’bi, Naser Kiwan and Ahmad Fawaz al-Mohammad.

The borders’ guards foiled an attempt by the armed terrorist groups to infiltrate into Syria from Jordan at Tal Shihab area, killing a number of them.

At Bosra al-Sham in Daraa countryside, the authorities clashed with an armed group, killing a number of them including their leader Hamid Mohammad Naser al-Mikdad.

In Idleb, a unit from the Army carried out a specific operation which lasted for three days in Ariha, storming the hideouts of the armed terrorist groups.

The Army seized big quantities of explosives, medical equipment and a number of stolen cars.

Army Destroys Terrorists’ Leadership Center in al-Tal, Damascus Countryside

The Syrian army destroyed a leadership center of the armed terrorist groups in al-Tal area in Damascus Countryside and killed a number of their leaders.

An official source said that among the killed terrorists were Maher Ismael al-Tahhan, Abu Ahmad, Abu Malek, Yaser Shareef al-Ahmar amd Moafaq Ismael al-Talab.

Terrorists Flee Tafas Area and Leave Their Weapons behind

The armed forces pursued the mercenary terrorists in Tafas area in Daraa Countryside and killed and arrested large numbers of them.

A source in the province told SANA that a number of terrorists fled Tafas and left behind their weapons after the operations carried out by the army against them.

The competent authorities clashed with an armed terrorist group in al-Jheir in Busra al-Sham, Daraa countryside, and killed big numbers of terrorists, among them the group’s leader Hamed Mohammad Nasser al-Mikdad.

The engineering units also dismantled four explosive devices, weighing 150 kg each, in the farms surrounding Tafas area.

The competent authorities foiled a new infiltration attempt to Syria by mercenary terrorists in Tal Shihab area in Daraa countryside, killing big numbers of terrorists, among them Anas Smeia’t and Abdul-Ilah Smeia’t.

Infiltration Attempts by Terrorists Foiled in Homs

Authorities foiled infiltration attempts carried out by armed terrorist groups in several areas in Talkalakh in Homs Countryside.

SANA reporter quoted a source in the province as saying that the authorities inflicted heavy losses upon the terrorists, adding that the remnants of terrorists fled back to the Lebanese lands.

Large Amount of Weapons Seized inside a Car on Homs-Palmyra Road

In Homs, the authorities seized a large amount of weapons and ammunition hidden inside a GMC pick-up on Homs-Palmyra road, near Mafraq Ghazaleh village.

SANA reporter quoted a source in the province as saying that the seized weapons included BKC machineguns, three Russian rifles, three grenades, 17 bullet chargers and night vision telescope

Al-Moallem: Need for Harmony between UN Efforts to Help Syrians and Sanctions Targeting Their Livelihood

Aug 15, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Walid al-Moallem, reviewed with the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Valery Amos, the continuous update made to the response and evaluation plan to cope with the growing needs of those affected by the practicies of the armed terrorist groups which increased their attacks against public and private properties.

The two sides exchanged ideas to push the humanitarian work forward and overcome any administrative obstacles that might erupt during the implementation.

Al-Moallem said that the Syrian government has paid great attention to the humanitarian situation, particularly the rehabilitation of damaged places and facilities to ensure rapid return of normal life.

The Foreign and Expatriates Minister stressed the need for finding a sort of harmony, which is currently absent, between the UN efforts which aim at providing humanitarian aid to the affected Syrians and the policy of unfair economic sanctions which target the livelihood of the Syrian citizen.

For her part, Amos expressed satisfaction over the cooperation achieved between the two sides since her visit last March, indicating her Office’s efforts to mobilize the largest humanitarian assistance to help Syria face the crisis in an atmosphere of neutralism, independence and away from politicalization.

The meeting was attended by Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Fayssal Mikdad, Head of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent Organization, Abdulrahman Attar and Directors of the Departments of the International Organizations and Media at the Foreign Ministry.

Ghalawanji, Amos Discuss Cooperation in Providing Humanitarian Aid to Citizens Affected by Terrorism

Deputy Prime Minister for Services Affairs, Minister of Local Administration Omar Ghalawanji, discussed with UN Under-Secretary-General Amos cooperation between Syria and international organizations in providing humanitarian aid to citizens affected by the events taking place in Syria.

Ghalawanji reviewed his Ministry’s work, particularly in light of the current crisis, emphasizing that the Ministry’s priority is taking care of citizens who were forced to leave their homes due to the crimes of armed groups and providing humanitarian aid until they can return to their homes.

He said that the Ministry’s work also focuses on rehabilitating infrastructures and public establishments in the areas that witnessed vandalism by terrorists, in addition to helping locals, assessing the amount of needed aid, guaranteeing the fairness in the distribution of relief, and expediting infrastructure rehabilitation to allow citizens to return to their homes.

Ghlawanji noted that infrastructure restoration in al-Qaboun neighborhood is 75% complete while restoration is 90% complete in al-Midan neighborhood in Damascus.

He said that displaced families are estimated at 202,000 consisting of 1.11 million citizens, with 369 facilities being allocated to house them, adding that there are more families which were dislocated but haven’t been recorded as they are living with relatives.

Ghalawnji said that the temporary housing facilities are provided with electricity, water and medical services provided by non-resident doctors, along with medical and food supplies, children food and sleeping supplies, adding that a committee has been formed to find more housing facilities while other committees were formed to receive complaints of citizens whose uninsured properties were damaged across Syria, noting that such damages are estimated at around SYP 7 to 8 billion, with the exception of Homs city, while damage to public properties exceeded in value SYP 155 billion due to methodical vandalism.

He went on to say that the government allocated SYP 1 billion to provide relief to governorates and humanitarian bodies, in addition to SYP 120 million to the Syrian Arab Red Crescent along with other amounts for civil societies, adding that the government also allocated SYP 50,000 for each family returning to the town of al-Heffeh to help them repair damages done to their homes in addition to providing a job opportunity to one family member of each such family.

Ghalawanji stressed that the government is doing its duties and providing all the available resources to assuage the suffering of citizens, affirming the government’s full readiness to carry out the response plan for humanitarian needs signed with the UN.

Lavrov: Russia Will Not Allow Thwarting Geneva Agreement on Syria

Aug 15, 2012

MINSK/MOSCOW, (SANA)- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed on Wednesday that Russia will not allow anyone to thwart Geneva Agreement on Syria, calling for commitment to this agreement.

In a statement in the Belarusian capital of Minsk, Lavrov affirmed that there is no other solution to the crisis in Syria other than that which is based on respecting the principles of the UN Charter and the territorial integrity of Syria and non-interference in the internal affairs of countries.

He said that it is necessary to exert pressure on all Syrian sides and to stop encouraging the opposition to continue armed fighting.

The Russian Foreign Minister noted that Russia seeks to obtain from the Western countries an answer on the extent of their readiness to commit to what was agreed on at Geneva meeting, adding that if the answer was yes, he would question why no tangible measures have been taken by these countries towards implementing the agreement.

He pointed out that the Russian-Chinese veto against draft resolutions on Syria came to defend the principles of the UN Charter, while the American partners used the veto to thwart decisions that have been taken.

Russia: Withdrawal of UNSMIS Would Further Complicate the Situation in Syria and the Region

Russia on Wednesday stressed that it supports the continuation of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS).

A well-informed source at the Russian Foreign Ministry said that Moscow sees that halting the presence of the UN in Syria should not be allowed given that it is considered a main source for obtaining objective information on what is taking place in the country.

The source highlighted the unbiased stance adopted by the UN observers since the beginning of their work in Syria in terms of recording the cases of violations against the peace plan by the parties in Syria.

The source also underscored the reduction in the level of violence noticed since the first weeks of the international observers’ work.

The Russian Foreign Ministry clarified withdrawing the UNSMIS would further complicate the situation in Syria and the region in general to a large extent.

A source at the Press and Media Department at the Ministry said Russia calls for the UNSMIS to continue in Syria, adding that the withdrawal under the current circumstances would leave serious negative consequences on Syria and the entire region.

The source added that the presence of the UN mission could take other forms according to the reality on the ground.

Bogdanov: The Audio Recording Posted by Saudi Website Fake

The Russian President’s Special Envoy to the Middle East and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov stressed that the audio recording posted by the website of the Saudi al-Watan newspaper claiming to having held an interview with him two days ago is fake.

In a phone call with Russia Today TV channel, Bogdanov affirmed that he made no statements on the situation in Syria recently, denying particularly those related to the brother of President Bashar al-Assad.

“I cannot say that the brother of the Syrian President was injured in his legs as we know very well that he was not at the meeting of the crisis cell at the time of the explosion which claimed the lives of a number of Syrian military and security leaders and injured others,” Bogdanov added.

He described the purported interview to be entirely fabricated from A to Z.

The Russian official reiterated his country’s clear stance towards the crisis in Syria which is based on that the Syrian people alone are the decision-makers in choosing their leadership.

He added that Russia has, since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, rejected foreign interference and called for dialogue and political settlement.

Bogdanov, who is on his annual vacation, said that it is inappropriate that some resort to fabrication to make fake scoop at the expense of sensitive issues that affect peoples’ destiny.

Russia Today TV indicated that anyone can listen to Bogdanov’s real voice on its website.

Iranian President Stresses Necessity that Syria Remain Strong

Aug 15, 2012

TEHRAN, (SANA)_Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressed the importance that Syria remain strong, expressing regret over some countries’ incitement of massacres in Syria through sending weapons.

In a speech on the sidelines of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit in Jeddah, Ahmadinejad said ”Iran has always sought to solve the crisis in Syria through dialogue, and the Iranian people see that national dialogue, not fighting, war and atrocities, is the sole way to solve problems.”

The Iranian president saw it important to reach an agreement between the Syrian government and opposition to implement reforms and exert efforts to solve problems.

In the same context, Ahmadinejad said in a speech before the extraordinary Islamic summit in Mecca that ”It is illogical that great powers teach us the lessons of freedom and justice , especially as they are the birthplace of injustice and dictatorship.’

The Iranian president considered that ”the enemy has seized the opportunity to deal a blow to us to deprive us of any chance of development.”

Jazaeri: Syria and the Syrian People Are to Win the War

The Media Assistant of the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Massoud Jazaeri, said Syria is a red line for the resistance and any negotiations regarding the Syrian issue should be in the framework of the interest of the resistance and the Syrian people.

In a statement to the Iranian Mehr news agency on Wednesday, Jazaeri said the psychological war which the West and its allies have waged against Syria seems to give them the impression that they are to win the war, whereas the indicators and evidence suggest that the winners will be the Syrian regime and people.

The Iranian official called for exposing the lies of the US, the international Zionism and the reactionary forces in the region regarding Syria, adding that it is important not to take weak stances towards the countries supporting terrorism against Syria at the upcoming Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Tehran.

He added that these countries should assume the responsibility for supporting the terrorism, killing and destruction in the Syrian cities.

Gunman from al-Khaldea in Homs Gives himself up to the Authorities

Aug 15, 2012

HOMS, (SANA)-A gunman from al-Khaldea neighborhood in Homs gave himself up and handed his weapon to the competent authorities which released him after settling his case.

“I gave myself up to a unit of the Syrian Arab Army positioned at the surroundings of al-Khalea after I tried to do so 4 times, but I failed as the armed groups prevented me from surrender,” Mohammad Fares Ghanam said in a speech to the Syrian TV broadcast Wednesday.

Ghanam added that what pushed him to surrender was his wish to abandon what he was involved in and return to normal life, and after his recognition that the acts of armed groups have no relation to which they call a revolution.

“The rebel should be good, clean person.. he doesn’t loot house or shops, he doesn’t burn or destroy public and private properties,” Ghanam said.

He underlined that the families in al-Khaldea want to go out of the neighborhood and get rid of the armed terrorist groups, but they prevent them from leaving to take them as human shields. He called on all gunmen to judge their conscience after hundreds of innocents were killed at their hands.

Syrian Journalists’ Union Calls for more Struggle in Defense of Free Speech

Aug 15, 2012

DAMASACUS, (SANA)_The Syrian Journalists’ Union stressed that the Syrian journalists are more determined than ever to continue conveying the truth of the situation in Syria.

In a statement on Wednesday on the occasion of the Syrian Journalists’ Day, the Union called for more struggle in defense of free speech.

”Syria is targeted by a conspiracy that aims at fragmenting the Arab nation so as to succumb to US-Israeli hegemony, aided by an Arab and foreign interference that employed domestic tools and mercenaries whose only project is killing and destruction.”

The Union said that the Syrian journalists are shouldering their responsibilities in defending Syria, indicating that they paid a heavy price to reveal the truth about what is happening on the ground.

The statement added that colonial powers have used media as a tool for blemishing the image of the Syrian army and people, adding that the dubious media campaign is part and parcel of the conspiracy against Syria.

The Union saluted the great Syrian people who stood up to the conspiracy, also saluting the martyrs of free speech and the valiant Syrian Arab army who is defending Syria.

Pinheiro Warns against Catastrophic Repercussions of any Foreign Military Interference in Syria

Aug 15, 2012

NEW YORK, (SANA)- Chairman of the Independent International Committee of Inquiry on Syria Paulo Pinheiro warned against the catastrophic repercussions of any foreign military interference in Syria, saying that the explosion which took place near a hotel where the UN observers reside indicates to the foreign presence in the country.

“It is not oblivious who were responsible for the explosion, but using such explosives is widely linked to the presence of armed foreign, extremist groups which participate in the acts of killing in Syria and this is worrying,” UPI quoted Pinheiro as saying in a speech to the UN Radio Wednesday.

In a relevant context, Pinheiro indicated to a report presented by the Committee on the situations in Syria, considering that the most important point of it is that the situation has changed and deteriorated to a great deal.

“The other escalation was on the diplomatic level, as the five permanent members at the UN Security Council had no ability to cooperate among them regarding Syria, Pinheiro said, adding that there is a need, more than before, for an international concordance as the resolution to the crisis in Syria wouldn’t happen except by the international cooperation.

Explosive Device Explodes behind Dama Rose Hotel in Damascus, Mikdad: All UNSMIS Members are Safe

Aug 15, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- An explosive device on Wednesday exploded behind Dama Rose Hotel in Damascus.

The device was attached by an armed terrorist group under a diesel tank.

The explosion resulted in the ignition of the tank, injury of three persons and minor material damage in the surrounding area.

Mikdad: All UNSMIS Members are Safe, None of them Wounded by the Terrorist Attack

Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Fayssal Mikdad, said that all the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) members and their properties are safe and none of them was wounded by the terrorist attack which took place near their residence at Dama Rose Hotel in Damascus.

During his visit to Dama Rose Hotel Mikdad told reporters that “The terrorist explosion is another attempt by those who seek to distort the civilized image of Syria and its people,” adding that from the start of the UNSMIS mission in Syria, our main goal was supporting and protecting them, thanks God none of them was hurt during their mission.”

He underscored that this criminal act reflects the heinous campaign against Syria and the criminal and barbarian nature of those who lead and support it from inside or outside Syria.

Mikdad said “Syria will not be affected by such terrorist explosions and will continue its cooperation with the United Nations and will exert all efforts to protect its mission and enable observers to play their role appropriately.

The Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister said that what happened is terrorism and it should be halted, calling on the international community, the UN and the Security Council to work together against terrorism.

Mikdad said that terrorism is an international phenomenon, pointing out that “after September 11th events in the US and other attacks which hit Europe, Asia and Africa , we unified ourselves and worked together in several ways and today we have to unite all together to combat terrorism”.

Later, Minister of Tourism, eng. Hala Naser, visited Dama Rose Hotel and inspected the situation of its departments, the workers and the guests, including the UN observers.

Minister Naser affirmed that no serious material or human damage was caused due to the terrorist attack, calling for increasing efforts to improve the services provided at all the tourist institutions.

Lukashenko: Belarus Supports Russia’s Stances towards Syria

Aug 15, 2012

MOSCOW, (SANA) – President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko said that Belarus and Russia share the  same stances regarding the international events.

During his talks with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Minsk, Lukashenko expressed support to the Russian statements about Syria, stressing commitment to Moscow’s view in this regard.

Minister al-Shaar Affirms Commitment to Protecting Citizens and Pursuing Terrorists

Aug 15, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) –  Interior Minister Gen. Mohammad al-Shaar affirmed commitment to remaining vigilant and working to ensure the safety and comfort of citizens and continuing to pursue armed terrorist groups until they are eliminated.

During a meeting on Wednesday with directors of departments and police chiefs of Damascus and its countryside, al-Shaar stressed the need for serious pursuit of wanted people and bringing them to justice and for cleaning the country of mercenary terrorist groups so that Syria may return to being an oasis of safety and security.

He called on unit commanders to constantly meet their personnel on the field and give them moral support, affirming that Syria is strong and that it will prove victorious thanks to its army and its honest people.

The Minister also reviewed the details of the crisis in Syria and the international rallying against it due to its principled position and its refusal to abandon its resistant course and its rights

National Media Council to Bring Suits against the Parties Instigating Violence against the Syrians and National Media

Aug 15, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- The National Media Council said necessary legal measures are underway to bring suits against all the parties that instigate killing, violence and terrorism against the Syrian people, its national institutions and the Syrian media.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Council expressed condemnation of the operations of killing, abduction and threats practiced against the Syrian journalists and the terrorist attacks targeting the national media institutions.

It said that the targeting of the Syrian national media is part of the war waged against Syria by foreign sides seeking to undermine it.

The Council stressed that attacking journalists is an attack on the freedom of press and communication guaranteed by the international laws and conventions.

The statement affirmed that the Council is working at having the necessary measures prepared for taking legal action against the parties which instigate such practices.

It pointed out that the Council is working with the Journalists Union to bring these suits and address the Arab and international journalistic organizations and unions to get them acquainted with the terrorist crimes inflicted upon the Syrian journalists and institutions.

The problems in Afghanistan cannot be solved by military means alone. Even General David Petraeus agrees with that. But what are the alternatives? The Obama administration has been re-evaluating U.S. policy in the region, but the discussion so far has been mostly about troop levels and military options. If the president is serious about developing more effective strategies, he needs to de-militarize the mission and prioritize political reconciliation efforts.

Rather than attempting to fight a prolonged counterinsurgency war against the Taliban, the United States should focus on countering global terrorism and attempt to separate the Taliban from al-Qaeda. It was al-Qaeda, not the Taliban, that attacked the United States on 9/11. True, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are closely intertwined, but important distinctions exist between the two movements. The Taliban is a network of disparate Pashtun militia groups in Afghan-istan and Pakistan. Al-Qaeda, by contrast, is an Arab-based network with a global agenda of attacking Western interests.

As former Washington Post reporter Selig Harrison observes in “Pakistan: The State of the Union,” an April report from the Center for International Policy, the Taliban movement transcends the Afghan-Pakistan border. Local tribal leaders have never accepted the 1893 Durand Line demarcated by the British that divides the Pashtun region. Many reject the authority of both Kabul and Islamabad. The Taliban is not a unified organization but a complex, diverse movement encompassing more than a dozen separate insurgent organizations in Afghanistan and dozens of Islamist groups in Pakistan. “In contrast to al-Qaeda,” writes Harrison, “most of the Taliban factions focus primarily on local objectives in Afghanistan and [northern Pakistan] and do not pose a direct threat to the United States.” The various Taliban elements are divided by ideology and purpose, but they are united now by one overriding objective: to rid their region of foreign forces.

The presence of foreign troops is the principal factor motivating armed resistance and insurgency in the region. A recent report of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace observed, “The more military pressure is put on a fragmented society like Afghanistan, the more a coalition against the invader becomes the likely outcome.” The presence of foreign troops is “the most important factor in mobilizing support for the Taliban,” said the January report, “Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War,” by Gilles Dorronso.

Counterinsurgency specialist and Pentagon adviser David Kilcullen makes a similar point in his new book, The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One (Oxford University Press). The foot soldiers of the Afghan insurgency are fighting to drive out foreign military invaders, not to reinstate the caliphate or advance al-Qaeda’s globalist agenda. The more foreign forces arrayed against them, the more intense the armed resistance.

In Pakistan as well, writes Harrison, U.S. military policies and air strikes are radicalizing the population “and driving more and more Pashtuns into the arms of al-Qaeda and its jihadi allies.”

Policies of waging war in Muslim countries have the inadvertent effect of validating Osama bin Laden’s warped ideology of “saving Islam from foreign infidels.” When the United States invades and launches military operations in Muslim countries, this tends to validate the false image of America waging war on Islam. Polls in Muslim countries have shown 80 percent agreement with bin Laden’s contention that American policy is intended to weaken and divide the Islamic world. The presence of such attitudes creates fertile ground for jihadi recruiters.

Rather than waging war against the Pashtuns and stoking the fires of extremism, the United States and its allies should pursue policies of co-option and reconciliation. Harrison urges American leaders to seek “peace arrangements with Taliban and Taliban-related Islamist factions.”

South Asia experts Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid proposed in Foreign Affairs last year a “grand bargain” strategy of luring reconcilable Taliban elements into political accommodation and power-sharing arrangements as a means of peeling away support from al-Qaeda -related groups. They called for “a political solution with as much of the Afghan and Pakistani insurgencies as possible, offering political inclusion … and an end to hostile action by international troops in return for cooperation against al-Qaeda.”

Elements of the Afghan and Pakistani governments have supported reconciliation efforts. A February 2009 opinion poll in Afghanistan found 64 percent of respondents support a policy of negotiating with the Taliban and allowing its members to hold public office if they agree to stop fighting.

An important new book on the subject offers a blueprint for how to pursue dialogue and negotiation with elements of the Taliban. Written by Michael Semple, former deputy to the European Union’s special representative in Afghanistan, Reconciliation in Afghanistan (United States Institute of Peace Press) explores both the perils and promise of attempting to reach a political settlement with insurgent forces.

Reconciliation programs have been part of the new Afghan government since it was first installed. The results of these efforts have been meager, however, because of a lack of sustained commitment from political leaders in Kabul and their Western backers. From years of direct experience and interviews with 200 Afghans who took the initiative to join the process, Semple concludes that U.S., Afghan and international officials have been “singularly ill-equipped and often disinclined to take the needed steps to enable Afghans to reconcile and reintegrate peacefully back into society.”

Taliban groups attempting to reintegrate with the new government have been subjected to arbitrary arrest, seizure of assets and general harassment. The chronology of nearly every regrouped Taliban network, writes Semple, includes the tale of how “their commanders were driven out of southern Afghanistan before they launched the insurgency — not after.” As the insurgency has grown, Taliban leaders have gained personal and political advantages in continuing the hostilities, and the prospects for reconciliation have dwindled further.

In recent months unofficial talks have occurred, with the support of Saudi Arabia, to facilitate dialogue with Taliban representatives. During these discussions Taliban interlocutors have offered to halt their attacks against foreign and government troops in return for the removal of outside forces. Some have asked for a security agreement, similar to the one negotiated with Iraq, which would establish conditions and a timeline for military withdrawals. They have proposed replacing U.S./NATO troops with an international peacekeeping force drawn from predominantly Muslim nations, pledging not to attack such a force. They have also demanded an end to U.S. drone attacks, in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have rejected these terms and have asserted that official negotiations should occur only after the American military has inflicted greater pain on the Taliban in order to extract better terms, and when the militia groups have agreed to lay down their arms.

Semple argues for direct talks with the Taliban leadership council in Quetta, Pakistan, to seek an agreement on renouncing international terrorism and integrating reconciled insurgents into the Afghan political system. The goal would be to obtain commitments from militia leaders and tribal chiefs to cooperate in isolating al-Qaeda and prevent their territory from being used for global terrorist strikes.

This is a bargain Taliban leaders may be willing to accept. Former Taliban ambassador Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef said in an interview last March, “The United States has a right to guarantee its own security.” Former Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil acknowledged in the same interview that Americans have the right to “ensure there is no danger to them from Afghanistan.” An agreement for local cooperation in preventing global terrorist strikes would “constitute a strategic defeat for al-Qaeda,” according to Rubin and Rashid. It would help to achieve the priority U.S. security objective of countering terrorist threats.

The alternative to prolonged counterinsurgency war is the pursuit of dialogue to achieve negotiated political solutions. This is the approach recommended in the Carnegie Endowment report. It would reverse the logic of current U.S. strategy, using the presence of U.S. and NATO troops not in the pursuit of military victory but as a bargaining chip to induce political agreement and conciliation. In exchange for cooperation in isolating al-Qaeda, U.S. forces would end combat operations against the Taliban and begin a gradual military disengagement. This would undercut extremist propaganda and neutralize appeals for jihad against foreign invaders. Under this scenario the mission of remaining foreign troops would focus more on civilian protection and the training of local security forces. Some military and special forces operations could continue, but these would be narrowly targeted against al-Qaeda.

Demilitarizing U.S. strategy would not mean abandoning the people of Afghanistan. The reduction of military operations should be linked to a greatly increased commitment to development assistance and democracy-building programs for local groups willing to uphold human rights principles.

In March the Obama administration announced a civilian surge for the region, but the resources devoted to these efforts have been inadequate, dwarfed by the enormous expenditures for war. The U.S. and its allies should greatly expand their level of assistance for locally-managed civilian assistance programs that advance social development, education and human rights. These efforts, combined with political reconciliation strategies, are likely to be more effective over the long run in stabilizing the region and reducing insurgency and terrorism.

Oct. 13, 2009

By David Cortright

David Cortright is director of policy studies for the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

Source: http://ncronline.org/news/peace/alternatives-war-afghanistan

As any student of foreign and national security policy well knows, the devil is in the details. Back in April 2009, in a speech delivered in Prague, the Czech Republic, President Barack Obama articulated his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Since that time, however, the Obama administration has offered very little of substance to push this vision forward. When one looks past the grand statements of the president for policy implementation that supports the rhetoric, one is left empty-handed. No movement on ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). No extension of a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia (START). No freeze on the development of a new generation of American nuclear weapons. Without progress in these areas, any prospects of a new approach to global nuclear nonproliferation emerging from the May 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference are virtually zero.

Perhaps the most telling indicator of failed nonproliferation policy on the part of the Obama administration is the fact that there has been no progress on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, and in particular the ongoing controversy surrounding a proposed uranium exchange. The deal would have Iran swap a significant portion of its existing stock of 3.5 percent enriched uranium (the level needed to fuel Iran’s planned nuclear power reactors, as opposed to uranium enriched to 90 percent, which is needed for nuclear weapons) in exchange for nuclear fuel rods containing uranium enriched to 19.5 percent (the level needed to operate a U.S.-built research reactor in Tehran that produced nuclear isotopes for medical purposes). Iran is running out of fuel for this reactor, and needs a new source of fuel or else it will be forced to shut it down. As a signatory member of the NPT, Iran should have the right to acquire this fuel on the open market, subject of course to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, but the United States and Europe have held any such sale hostage to Iran’s agreeing to suspend its indigenous uranium enrichment program, which is the source of the 3.5 percent enriched uranium currently in Iran.

The crux of the U.S. and European concerns rests not with Iran’s possession of 3.5 percent enriched uranium, but rather that the enrichment technique employed by Iran to produce this low-enriched uranium could be used, with some significant modifications, to manufacture high-enriched uranium (90 percent) usable in a nuclear weapon. This reality, and the fears of a nuclear-armed Iran it produces, trumps the fact that the IAEA today is in a position to certify that it can account for the totality of Iran’s inventory of nuclear material, and that any diversion of nuclear material would be detected by the IAEA almost immediately. Furthermore, beyond its capacity to enrich uranium, there is no real evidence that Iran has engaged in a nuclear weapons program.

But the fear and hype that emanate from American and European policymakers, strongly influenced by the zero-tolerance policy of Israel when it comes to Iran and anything nuclear, peaceful or otherwise, have created an environment where common sense goes out the window and anything becomes possible. Take, for instance, Iran’s current stock of 3.5 percent enriched uranium. The IAEA certifies that Iran is in possession of approximately 1,800 kilograms of this material. Policy wonks and those in the intelligence community given to hypotheticals have postulated scenarios that have Iran using this stock of 3.5 percent enriched uranium as the feedstock for a breakout enrichment effort that, if left to its own devices, could produce enough high-enriched uranium (90 percent) for a single nuclear bomb. This breakout capability would require Iran to reconfigure thousands of the centrifuges it uses for low-level enrichment for use in the stepped-up process of follow-on enrichment. Ironically, one of the next steps required in such a scenario would be for Iran to reconfigure its centrifuges to enrich uranium up to 20 percent—roughly the level Iran needs for the nuclear fuel required to operate the Tehran research reactor.

Fears about a potential covert Iranian enrichment breakout capability reached feverish proportions when, in September 2009, Iran revealed the existence of (and U.S. intelligence proclaimed the discovery of) a prospective small underground centrifuge enrichment facility near the city of Qom. The fact that this facility was under construction, and consisted as of September 2009 of little more than a reinforced hole in the ground without any equipment installed, did nothing to allay the fears of those who saw an Iranian nuclear bomb behind every bush, or under every rock. Suddenly Iran was on the verge of having a nuclear bomb, and something had to be done to prevent this from happening.

The focus of attention shifted away from Iran’s ongoing enrichment capability, which the U.S. and Europe demanded be permanently suspended, to Iran’s 1,800 kilograms of 3.5 percent enriched uranium. This material represented Iran’s theoretical atomic bomb. If the material could be placed under international control, then Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, at least for the immediate future, could be thwarted. Iran was not going to freely hand over this material. However, a deal was negotiated between the U.S. and Iran that would have Iran ship 1,600 kilograms of its 3.5 percent enriched uranium to Russia, which would then further enrich it to 19.5 percent before sending it to France, which would process the uranium into fuel rods unusable for nuclear weapons. This fuel swap appeared to provide an elegant solution to a vexing problem. Indeed, President Obama embraced it as his own initiative when it was announced in October 2009.

For Iran, the swap was always about acquiring the needed nuclear fuel rods, manufactured from 19.5 percent enriched uranium, in order to continue operation of its research reactor in Tehran, which produces much-needed nuclear isotopes for medical purposes. The main attraction for the Iranians for such a deal, beyond acquiring the fuel rods, was that they would not need to produce any 19.5 percent enriched uranium itself, and thus not have to reconfigure their current centrifuge-based enrichment infrastructure to operate beyond its 3.5 percent enrichment threshold. Iran has consistently maintained that it neither requires, nor desires, any capability to enrich uranium beyond the 3.5 percent level needed to manufacture nuclear fuel rods for its own nuclear power reactors. Having its uranium enrichment infrastructure locked in at 3.5 percent simplified not only Iran’s own operations, but also the safeguard monitoring and inspection requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, charged with verifying Iran’s compliance with the terms of the NPT. Iran viewed the fuel swap as a means of facilitating international acceptance of its uranium enrichment program, a point of view that was in fundamental opposition to that of the United States and Europe.

No amount of finessing the specifics of a fuel swap, whether it be done in stages, managed by a neutral third party, or carried out over the course of several months or several years, could reconcile the Iranian position with that of the U.S. and Europe. At the center of this problem is the Iranian uranium enrichment program itself. Any fuel swap deal is little more than window dressing to the larger issue of whether or not Iran will be permitted by the international community to enrich uranium. To the U.S. and Europe, finer points such as whether such enrichment would be capped at 3.5 percent, or diversified to include 19.5 percent, remain irrelevant, since their unified policy approach is to suspend all uranium enrichment activities inside Iran.

The fatal flaw in the Obama fuel swap proposal, when it was broached in October 2009, was that it failed to explicitly state that any fuel swap had to be linked to Iran’s suspension of its uranium enrichment program. While policy wonks in and out of the Obama administration can argue that such a position was more than implied, given the existence of U.N. Security Council resolutions that explicitly call for suspension, any deal that introduces Iran’s stocks of low-enriched uranium as a legitimate commodity provides de facto legitimization of the processes that produced that commodity. Since Iran has consistently refused to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, it had every reason to treat the proposed fuel swap as a stand-alone deal that focused on a short-term problem, and not as part of the larger U.S.-driven demands for enrichment suspension.

The U.S. policy objective was never to provide Iran with 19.5 percent enriched uranium fuel rods, or to lock Iran in at a 3.5 percent enrichment threshold, but rather to get the majority of Iran’s existing stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium out of the country, thereby eliminating any scenario that had Iran using this low-enriched uranium as feedstock for any breakout nuclear weapons production capability, no matter how farfetched such a scenario might be. This is why the Obama administration never paid much attention to the details of such a swap, since these details simply didn’t matter. The U.S. approach was never about facilitating a swap so much as it was about facilitating a kidnapping. The policy objective was to get the majority of Iran’s enriched uranium stocks under international control. Once Iran no longer had access to 1,600 kilograms of its 1,800-kilogram stockpile of low-enriched uranium, the Obama administration could blunt the fear-driven concerns over the immediacy of any Iranian nuclear capability. It would take Iran several months to reconstitute its low-enriched uranium stocks to the level needed to produce its hypothetical nuclear bomb. During this period, the U.S. would redouble its demands for suspension of uranium enrichment and develop a comprehensive package of stringent economic sanctions that would be imposed on Iran should it fail to cooperate.

The fatal flaw in the U.S. approach was that it failed to recognize that such policy formulations may work on paper but in the real world things are far more complicated. The Obama administration had hoped for immediate Iranian agreement to the fuel swap. Once Iran’s enriched uranium was safely out of Iran, the U.S. would then redouble its diplomatic pressure to suspend enrichment activities while simultaneously pressing for international consensus on sanctions. U.S. policy formulators envisioned a seamless transition between these various stages of policy implementation. But Iran, by agreeing in principle to a fuel swap, but demanding closer scrutiny of the details inherent in any such deal, complicated implementation of the U.S. plan.

By December 2009, a point at which the U.S. had hoped to have the Iranian uranium under its control and a sanctions campaign under way, Iran had yet to agree to the specifics of any fuel swap but at the same time publically remained committed to the concept. That approach paralyzed the U.S.-led effort to rally support behind sanctions since most nations did not want to do anything that would threaten the fuel swap negotiations. As 2010 rolled around, the Iranian delay tactics forced the U.S. to shed all pretenses around the fuel swap. While Iranian negotiators spoke of a potential swap formula that could unfold over the course of several months, the U.S. spoke of a swap timetable stretching out several years, making such a swap useless for the purpose it was ostensibly being instituted for—the Iranian nuclear research reactor and the manufacture of medical isotopes.

With the true U.S. policy objective thus exposed, Iran last week announced that it would carry out its own indigenous enrichment of uranium to the 19.5 percent needed to fuel the research reactor. Whether Iran has the technical or practical capabilities necessary to bring such a plan to fruition is debatable. While reconfiguring its existing centrifuge cascades to produce 19.5 percent enriched uranium is not impossible, Iran has never before attempted to process enriched uranium into nuclear fuel rods. Likewise, there is a question about the viability of Iran’s feedstock of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the gaseous material that is fed into the centrifuges for the purpose of enriching uranium.

Iran’s stores of foreign-procured UF6 are nearly exhausted. So is the stock of UF6 that Iran produced using foreign supplies of natural uranium. What is left for Iran is UF6 produced from indigenous sources of natural uranium. However, these stocks are believed to be contaminated with molybdenum, a metallic substance the presence of which creates destructive mass-distribution problems when Iran’s centrifuges are spun up to the more than 60,000 revolutions per minute needed to extract enriched uranium from the UF6 feedstock. If Iran cannot come up with the means to extract the molybdenum from its indigenous UF6, then short of finding an outside supplier of natural uranium or clean UF6 (activities that would have to be declared to the IAEA), the Iranian enrichment program will halt.

This would not prevent Iran from using its existing stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium as the feedstock for any effort to produce 19.5 percent uranium. Reconfiguration of its centrifuges to conduct this higher level of enrichment is likewise well within the technical capability of Iran. The ultimate testament to the failure of U.S. nonproliferation policy when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program is the reality that, in an effort to retard any Iranian nuclear breakout scenario that saw Iran rapidly converting its low-enriched stocks to high-enriched fissile material, the United States has actually facilitated such a scheme. Had the U.S. sought to lock Iran’s enrichment infrastructure in at a 3.5 percent capacity, any deviation from that level would have been viewed with suspicion. However, by creating the conditions that have Iran now seeking to build enrichment facilities capable of 20 percent enrichment, the Obama administration has significantly reduced the threshold of detection and prevention which was in place when all Iran produced was 3.5 percent enriched uranium.

The number of centrifuges required to step up enrichment of 20 percent uranium to higher levels is significantly smaller than the number needed to step up from 3.5 percent to 20 percent. Furthermore, any Iranian breakout scenario that starts at 20 percent enriched feedstock will reach its end objective of 90 percent enrichment far quicker than a similar program that starts at 3.5 percent. The Obama administration has not only made it easier for Iran to hide a covert nuclear weapons enrichment capability, but also made it far more efficient. That there is no evidence of any such program in existence does not matter in the minds of those who had given Iran such a capability to begin with. When dealing in a universe driven by the theoretical, the U.S. fumbling of the nuclear fuel swap with Iran has simply made the breakout theory more viable. And since U.S. nonproliferation policy toward Iran is more driven by faith-based analysis than it is by fact-based analysis, one can all but guarantee that the U.S. response to this new fiction will be real, and measurable, and have nothing but negative results for the Middle East and the World.

The unfolding crisis concerning Iran’s nuclear program represents but one of several nonproliferation failures perpetrated by the United States that, in combination, bode poorly for the upcoming NPT Review Conference scheduled for May. In May of 2009, at the conclusion of the preparatory committee for the NPT Review Conference, there were high hopes for the possibility of progress in reaching international consensus on nonproliferation issues, and reshaping the NPT to capture this consensus. Much of these hopes were derived from the statements and rhetoric of the Obama administration about nuclear disarmament and arms control. Unfortunately, rhetoric never caught up with reality.

Not only has U.S. policy toward Iran been exposed as operating in total disregard to the provisions of the NPT (Iran, after all, is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of that treaty), but the cornerstone commitments made by the Obama administration as a prerequisite for a successful NPT Review Conference in May 2010—movement toward ratification of the CTBT, agreement with the Russians to extend the verification mechanisms inherent in START while achieving even deeper cuts in their respective nuclear arsenals—have failed to materialize. There is almost no chance of the CTBT being submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification, let alone being actually ratified. The failure of the administration to extend START past its December 2009 expiration date has not only left the U.S. and Russia with no arms control verification vehicle, but has reignited dormant Cold War-era tendencies in both nations, with the Russians deploying a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missile and the U.S. talking about nuclear warhead modernization.

President Obama had hoped that the 2010 NPT Review Conference would pave the way to a global consensus on multilateral approaches toward nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Instead, its looming demise only accelerates the existing trend in the United States to reject international agreements and instead embrace a unilateralism sustained by the false premise that security can be achieved through nuclear supremacy. One only needs to examine the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the ongoing fiasco that is America’s global war on terrorism to understand the fallacy of that argument.

The policy of the U.S. toward Iran’s nuclear program is to blame for much, if not all, of this failure. Had the administration used the fuel swap agreement as an opportunity to bring Iran back into the fold of the international community—not by excluding its uranium enrichment efforts, but rather legitimizing them through enhanced IAEA inspections and Iran’s agreement to participate in closely controlled regional fuel bank programs that kept its enriched uranium stocks under stringent international controls—there would not have been the policy floundering which occurred in the fall of 2009.

Fears about a phantom Iranian nuclear weapon would have dissipated, and with it the illogical U.S. insistence on ballistic missile defense initiatives that have fatally undermined the current round of U.S.-Russian arms control negotiations. Had the Obama administration remained consistent with its September 2009 decision to terminate the controversial Bush-era missile defense plan involving the stationing of interceptor missiles and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, there would be a START treaty today. But the sleight-of-hand approach, in which one program was terminated only to be replaced by another, triggered concerns among Russian military leaders about the real policy objectives of the Obama administration.

The administration has demonstrated that, for all the noble intent and objectives in the arena of arms control and nonproliferation exhibited at its inception, it too is susceptible to the addiction to nuclear weapons that has plagued America since 1945. This addiction, which feeds the notion of the United States’ self-appointed status of global savior and policeman, prevents any policy formulation that is perceived to weaken or undermine America’s nuclear supremacy. At a time when the world needed American leadership in the field of disarmament and nonproliferation, it instead got nothing but a replay of past policy, wrapped in the paranoid delusions of a nation that is unable or unwilling to come to grips with reality. Genuine international security is derived not from any nation, even the United States, seeking to impose deterrence-based policies through nuclear supremacy. True security comes from a world free of nuclear weapons.

To secure America, a president must have the courage to dismantle what, in the past, has been proclaimed as the foundation of our survival, but in reality presents us with the seeds of our destruction—nuclear weapons. President Obama had articulated such a vision in his groundbreaking speech in Prague back in April 2009. Since that time the United States has embarked on arms control and nonproliferation policies that have not only failed to move America and the world further down the path of peace and security, but actually made matters worse.

Policies must be judged not by their intent but their results. In this, the Obama administration’s policies represent an abysmal failure. The administration seeks to place the blame for these failures elsewhere, on Iran, China, Russia and North Korea. But the root cause of such failure lies with the utter lack of courage and conviction on the part of Barack Obama. He claimed to possess a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, only to succumb to the same hubris and avarice that afflicted past U.S. presidents when tempted by the world supremacy that nuclear weapons promise.

By Scott Ritter

17 February, 2010
TruthDig.com

Scott Ritter was U.S. weapons inspector in the Soviet Union (1988-1990) and chief inspector for the United Nations in Iraq (1991-1998) and is author of “Iraq Confidential” (2006), “Target Iran” (2007) and “Dangerous Ground: The Failure of U.S. Arms Control Policy From FDR to Obama,” to be published by Nation Books this year.

Source: http://countercurrents.org/ritter170210.htm

 

Readers ask if the financial crisis is over, if the recovery is for real and, if not, what are Americans’ prospects. The short answer is that the financial crisis is not over, the recovery is not real, and the U.S. faces a far worse crisis than the financial one. Here is the situation as I understand it:

The global crisis is understood as a banking crisis brought on by the mindless deregulation of the U.S. financial arena. Investment banks leveraged assets to highly irresponsible levels, issued questionable financial instruments with fraudulent investment grade ratings, and issued the instruments through direct sales to customers rather than through markets.

The crisis was initiated when the U.S. allowed Lehman Brothers to fail, thus threatening money market funds everywhere. The crisis was used by the investment banks, which controlled U.S. economic policy, to secure massive subsidies to their profits from a taxpayer bailout and from the Federal Reserve. How much of the crisis was real and how much was hype is not known at this time.

As most of the derivative instruments had never been priced in the market, and as their exact composition between good and bad loans was unknown (the instruments are based on packages of securitized loans), the mark-to-market rule drove the values very low, thus threatening the solvency of many financial institutions. Also, the rule prohibiting continuous shorting had been removed, making it possible for hedge funds and speculators to destroy the market capitalization of targeted firms by driving down their share prices.

The obvious solution was to suspend the mark-to-market rule until some better idea of the values of the derivative instruments could be established and to prevent the abuse of shorting that was destroying market capitalization. Instead, the Goldman Sachs people in charge of the U.S. Treasury and, perhaps, the Federal Reserve as well, used the crisis to secure subsidies for the banks from U.S. taxpayers and from the Federal Reserve. It looks like a manipulated crisis as well as a real one due to greed unleashed by financial deregulation.

The crisis will not be over until financial regulation is restored, but Wall Street has been able to block re-regulation. Moreover, the response to the crisis has planted seeds for new crises. Government budget deficits have exploded. In the U.S. the fiscal year 2009 federal budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, three times higher than the 2008 deficit. President Obama’s budget deficits for 2010 and 2011, according to the latest report, will total $2.9 trillion, and this estimate is based on the assumption that the Great Recession is over. Where is the U.S. Treasury to borrow $4.3 trillion in three years?

This sum greatly exceeds the combined trade surpluses of America’s trading partners, the recycling of which has financed past U.S. budget deficits, and perhaps exceeds total world savings.

It is unclear how the 2009 budget deficit was financed. A likely source was the bank reserves created for financial institutions by the Federal Reserve when it purchased their toxic financial instruments. These reserves were then used to purchase the new Treasury debt. In other words, the budget deficit was financed by deterioration in the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. How long can such an exchange of assets continue before the Federal Reserve has to finance the government’s deficit by creating new money?

Similar deficits and financing problems have affected the EU, particularly its financially weaker members. To conclude: the initial crisis has planted seeds for two new crises: rising government debt and inflation.

A third crisis is also in place. This crisis will occur when confidence is lost in the U.S. dollar as world reserve currency. This crisis will disrupt the international payments mechanism. It will be especially difficult for the U.S. as the country will lose the ability to pay for its imports with its own currency. U.S. living standards will decline as the ability to import declines.

The financial crisis is essentially a U.S. crisis, spread abroad by the sale of toxic financial instruments. The rest of the world got into trouble by trusting Wall Street. The real American crisis is much worse than the financial crisis. The real American crisis is the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing, industrial, and professional service jobs such as software engineering and information technology.

Jobs offshoring was initiated by Wall Street pressures on corporations for higher earnings and by performance-related bonuses becoming the main form of managerial compensation. Corporate executives increased profits and obtained bonuses by substituting cheaper foreign labor for U.S. labor in the production of goods and services marketed in the U.S.

Jobs offshoring is destroying the ladders of upward mobility that made the U.S. an opportunity society and eroding the value of a university education. For the first decade of the 21st century, the U.S. economy has been able to create net new jobs only in domestic nontradable services, such as waitresses, bartenders, sales, health and social assistance and, prior to the real estate collapse, construction. These jobs are lower paid than the jobs were that have been offshored, and these jobs do not produce goods and services for export.

Jobs offshoring has increased the U.S. trade deficit, putting more pressure on the dollar’s role as reserve currency. When offshored goods and services return to the U.S., they add to imports, thus worsening the trade imbalance.

The policy of jobs offshoring is insane. It is shifting U.S. GDP growth to the offshored locations, such as China, thus halting growth in U.S. consumer incomes. For the past decade, U.S. households substituted an increase in indebtedness for the lack of growth in income in order to continue increasing their consumption. With their home equity refinanced and spent, real estate values down, and credit card debt at unsustainable levels, it is no longer possible for the U.S. economy to base its growth on a rise in consumer debt. This fact is a brake on U.S. economic recovery.

Stimulus packages cannot substitute for the growth in real income. As so many high value-added, high productivity U.S. jobs have been offshored, there is no way to achieve real growth in U.S. personal incomes. Stimulus spending simply adds to government debt and pressure on the dollar, and sows seeds for high inflation.

The U.S. dollar survives as reserve currency because there is no apparent substitute. The euro has its own problems. Moreover, the euro is the currency of a non-existent political entity. National sovereignty continues despite the existence of a common currency on the continent (but not in Great Britain). If the dollar is abandoned, then the result is likely to be bilateral settlements in countries’ own currencies, as Brazil and China now are doing. Alternatively, John Maynard Keynes’ bancor scheme could be implemented, as it does not require a reserve currency country. Keynes’ plan is designed to maintain a country’s trade balance. Only a reserve currency country can get its trade and budget deficits so out of balance as the U.S. has done. The prospect of U.S. default and/or inflation and decline in the dollar’s exchange value is a threat to the reserve system.

The threats to the U.S. economy are extreme. Yet, neither the Obama administration, the Republican opposition, economists, Wall Street, nor the media show any awareness. Instead, the public is provided with spin about recovery and with higher spending on pointless wars that are hastening America’s economic and financial ruin.

 

By Paul Craig Roberts

23 January, 2010

 

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He can be reached at paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

Source: http://vdare.com/roberts/100202_crisis.htm