Archives: Articles

 

 

05 February, 2011

Guardian.co.uk

The nature of any regime USA backs in the Arab world is secondary to control. Subjects are ignored until they break their chains

‘The Arab world is on fire,” al-Jazeera reported last week, while throughout the region, western allies “are quickly losing their influence”. The shock wave was set in motion by the dramatic uprising in Tunisia that drove out a western-backed dictator, with reverberations especially in Egypt, where demonstrators overwhelmed a dictator’s brutal police.

Observers compared it to the toppling of Russian domains in 1989, but there are important differences. Crucially, no Mikhail Gorbachev exists among the great powers that support the Arab dictators. Rather, Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless properly tamed.

One 1989 comparison has some validity: Romania, where Washington maintained its support for Nicolae Ceausescu, the most vicious of the east European dictators, until the allegiance became untenable. Then Washington hailed his overthrow while the past was erased. That is a standard pattern: Ferdinand Marcos, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Chun Doo-hwan, Suharto and many other useful gangsters. It may be under way in the case of Hosni Mubarak, along with routine efforts to try to ensure a successor regime will not veer far from the approved path. The current hope appears to be Mubarak loyalist General Omar Suleiman, just named Egypt’s vice-president. Suleiman, the longtime head of the intelligence services, is despised by the rebelling public almost as much as the dictator himself.

A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires (reluctant) opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. While not without some merit, the formulation is misleading. The general threat has always been independence. The US and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.

A familiar example is Saudi Arabia, the ideological centre of radical Islam (and of Islamic terror). Another in a long list is Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan’s dictators and President Reagan’s favorite, who carried out a programme of radical Islamisation (with Saudi funding).

“The traditional argument put forward in and out of the Arab world is that there is nothing wrong, everything is under control,” says Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian official and now director of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment. “With this line of thinking, entrenched forces argue that opponents and outsiders calling for reform are exaggerating the conditions on the ground.”

Therefore the public can be dismissed. The doctrine traces far back and generalises worldwide, to US home territory as well. In the event of unrest, tactical shifts may be necessary, but always with an eye to reasserting control.

The vibrant democracy movement in Tunisia was directed against “a police state, with little freedom of expression or association, and serious human rights problems”, ruled by a dictator whose family was hated for their venality. So said US ambassador Robert Godec in a July 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks.

Therefore to some observers the WikiLeaks “documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren’t asleep at the switch” – indeed, that the cables are so supportive of US policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself (or so Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The National Interest.)

“America should give Assange a medal,” says a headline in the Financial Times, where Gideon Rachman writes: “America’s foreign policy comes across as principled, intelligent and pragmatic … the public position taken by the US on any given issue is usually the private position as well.”

In this view, WikiLeaks undermines “conspiracy theorists” who question the noble motives Washington proclaims.

Godec’s cable supports these judgments – at least if we look no further. If we do,, as foreign policy analyst Stephen Zunes reports in Foreign Policy in Focus, we find that, with Godec’s information in hand, Washington provided $12m in military aid to Tunisia. As it happens, Tunisia was one of only five foreign beneficiaries: Israel (routinely); the two Middle East dictatorships Egypt and Jordan; and Colombia, which has long had the worst human-rights record and the most US military aid in the hemisphere.

Heilbrunn’s exhibit A is Arab support for US policies targeting Iran, revealed by leaked cables. Rachman too seizes on this example, as did the media generally, hailing these encouraging revelations. The reactions illustrate how profound is the contempt for democracy in the educated culture.

Unmentioned is what the population thinks – easily discovered. According to polls released by the Brookings Institution in August, some Arabs agree with Washington and western commentators that Iran is a threat: 10%. In contrast, they regard the US and Israel as the major threats (77%; 88%).

Arab opinion is so hostile to Washington’s policies that a majority (57%) think regional security would be enhanced if Iran had nuclear weapons. Still, “there is nothing wrong, everything is under control” (as Muasher describes the prevailing fantasy). The dictators support us. Their subjects can be ignored – unless they break their chains, and then policy must be adjusted.

Other leaks also appear to lend support to the enthusiastic judgments about Washington’s nobility. In July 2009, Hugo Llorens, U.S. ambassador to Honduras, informed Washington of an embassy investigation of “legal and constitutional issues surrounding the 28 June forced removal of President Manuel ‘Mel’ Zelaya.”

The embassy concluded that “there is no doubt that the military, supreme court and national congress conspired on 28 June in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the executive branch”. Very admirable, except that President Obama proceeded to break with almost all of Latin America and Europe by supporting the coup regime and dismissing subsequent atrocities.

Perhaps the most remarkable WikiLeaks revelations have to do with Pakistan, reviewed by foreign policy analyst Fred Branfman in Truthdig.

The cables reveal that the US embassy is well aware that Washington’s war in Afghanistan and Pakistan not only intensifies rampant anti-Americanism but also “risks destabilising the Pakistani state” and even raises a threat of the ultimate nightmare: that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Again, the revelations “should create a comforting feeling … that officials are not asleep at the switch” (Heilbrunn’s words) – while Washington marches stalwartly toward disaster.

© 2011 Noam Chomsky

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

05 February, 2011

The Independent

Caged yesterday inside a new army cordon of riot-visored troops and coils of barbed wire – the very protection which Washington had demanded for the protesters of Tahrir Square – the tens of thousands of young Egyptians demanding Hosni Mubarak’s overthrow have taken the first concrete political steps to create a new nation to replace the corrupt government which has ruled them for 30 years.

Sitting on filthy pavements, amid the garbage and broken stones of a week of street fighting, they have drawn up a list of 25 political personalities to negotiate for a new political leadership and a new constitution to replace Mubarak’s crumbling regime.

They include Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League – himself a trusted Egyptian; the Nobel prize-winner Ahmed Zuwail, an Egyptian-American who has advised President Barack Obama; Mohamed Selim Al-Awa, a professor and author of Islamic studies who is close to the Muslim Brotherhood; and the president of the Wafd party, Said al-Badawi.

Other nominees for the committee, which was supposed to meet the Egyptian Vice-President, Omar Suleiman, within 24 hours, are Nagib Suez, a prominent Cairo businessman (involved in the very mobile phone systems shut down by Mubarak last week); Nabil al-Arabi, an Egyptian UN delegate; and even the heart surgeon Magdi Yacoub, who now lives in Cairo.

The selection – and the makeshift committee of Tahrir Square demonstrators and Facebook and Twitter “electors” – has not been confirmed, but it marks the first serious attempt to turn the massive street protests of the past seven days into a political machine that provides for a future beyond the overthrow of the much-hated President. The committee’s first tasks would be to draw up a new Egyptian constitution and an electoral system that would prevent the president-for-life swindle which Mubarak’s fraudulent elections have created. Instead, Egyptian presidents would be limited to two consecutive terms of office, and the presidential term itself would be reduced from six to four years.

But no one involved in this initiative has any doubts of the grim future that awaits them if their brave foray into practical politics fails. There was more sniping into Tahrir Square during the night – an engineer, a lawyer and another young man were killed – and plain-clothes police were again discovered in the square. There were further minor stone-throwing battles during the day, despite the vastly increased military presence, and most of the protesters fear that if they leave the square they will immediately be arrested, along with their families, by Mubarak’s cruel state security apparatus.

Already, there are dark reports of demonstrators who dared to return home and disappeared. The Egyptian writer Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, who is involved in the committee discussions, is fearful for himself. “We’re safe as long as we have the square,” he said to me yesterday, urging me to publish his name as a symbol of the freedom he demands. “If we lose the square, Mubarak will arrest all the opposition groups – and there will be police rule as never before. That’s why we are fighting for our lives.”

The state security police now have long lists of names of protesters who have given television interviews or been quoted in newspapers, Facebook postings and tweets.

The protesters have identified growing divisions between the Egyptian army and the thugs of the interior ministry, whose guards exchanged fire with soldiers three days ago as they continued to occupy the building in which basement torture chambers remain undamaged by the street fighting. These were the same rooms of horror to which America’s “renditioned” prisoners were sent for “special” treatment at the hands of Mubarak’s more sadistic torturers – another favour which bound the Egyptian regime to the United States as a “trusted” ally.

Another young man involved in the committee selections admitted he didn’t trust Omar Suleiman, the former spy boss and Israeli-Palestinian negotiator whom Mubarak appointed this week. Suleiman it is, by the way, who has been trying to shuffle responsibility for the entire crisis on to the foreign press – a vicious as well as dishonest way of exercising his first days of power. Yet he has cleverly outmanoeuvred the demonstrators in Tahrir Square by affording them army protection.

Indeed, yesterday morning, to the shock of all of us standing on the western side of the square, a convoy of 4x4s with blackened windows suddenly emerged from the gardens of the neighbouring Egyptian Museum, slithered to a halt in front of us and was immediately surrounded by a praetorian guard of red-bereted soldiers and massive – truly gigantic – security guards in shades and holding rifles with telescopic sights. Then, from the middle vehicle emerged the diminutive, bespectacled figure of Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the chief of staff of the Egyptian army and a lifelong friend of Mubarak, wearing a soft green military kepi and general’s cross-swords insignia on his shoulders.

Here was a visitor to take the breath away, waving briefly to the protesters who crowded the military cordon to witness this extraordinary arrival. The crowd roared. “The Egyptian army is our army,” they shouted in unison. “But Mubarak is not ours.” It was a message for Tantawi to take back to his friend Mubarak, but his visit was itself a powerful political symbol. However much Mubarak may rave about “foreign hands” behind the demands for his overthrow, and however many lies Suleiman may tell about foreign journalists, Tantawi was showing that the army took its mission to protect the demonstrators seriously. The recent military statement that it would never fire on those who wish to dethrone Mubarak, since their grievances were “legitimate”, was authorised by Tantawi. Hence the demonstrators’ belief – however naïve and dangerous – in the integrity of the military.

Crucially missing from the list of figures proposed for the committee are Mohamed ElBaradei, the former UN arms inspectors and Nobel laureate, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the “Islamist” spectre which Mubarak and the Israelis always dangled in front of the Americans to persuade them to keep old Mubarak in power. The Brotherhood’s insistence in not joining talks until Mubarak’s departure – and their support for ElBaradei, whose own faint presidential ambitions (of the “transitional” kind) have not commended themselves to the protesters – effectively excluded them. Suleiman has archly invited the Brotherhood to meet him, knowing that they will not do so until Mubarak has gone.

But al-Awa’s proposed presence on the committee – and that of the Islamist intellectual Ahmed Kamel Abu Magd – will ensure that their views are included in any discussions with Suleiman. These talks would also cover civil and constitutional rights and a special clause to allow Suleiman to rule Egypt temporarily because “the President is unable to perform his duties”.

Mubarak would be allowed to live privately in Egypt providing he played no part – publicly or covertly – in the political life of the country. He is regarded as a still-fierce opponent who will not hesitate to decapitate the opposition should he hang on to power.

“He is one of the old school, like Saddam and Arafat, who in the last two days has shown his true face,” another committee supporter said yesterday. “He is the man behind the attacks on us and the shooting deaths.” Mohamed Fahmy knows what this means. His own father has been in exile from Egypt for seven years – after proposing identical protests to those witnessed today to get rid of the Mubarak empire.

Egypt’s day in brief

Curfew shortened

Cairo’s curfew has been reduced by three hours. People must be off the streets between 7pm and 6am instead of 5pm and 7am.

Al Jazeera offices torched

The Cairo offices of Al Jazeera were stormed and set alight. The broadcaster blamed supporters of President Mubarak for trying to hinder its coverage, adding that its website was also hacked. Last week, authorities closed the office and revoked credentials of its reporters.

Egypt economy slumps

Egypt’s economy has lost at least $3.1bn due to the crisis, investment bank Crédit Agricole said yesterday. The unrest has closed businesses and banks, and thousands of tourists have fled. The bank said the crisis is costing Egypt at least $310m per day, and said the Egyptian pound could depreciate by 20 per cent.

Obama criticises intelligence

President Obama sent a note bemoaning failure of US intelligence to predict crises in Tunisia and Egypt, AP reported.

What happens next?

Mubarak flees

If the President decides that the voices calling for his arrest, trial and even execution are gaining sway at the highest levels, he could take advantage of the rumoured offers of asylum, and disappear. But this is the least likely possibility. If he was ready to go, he would most likely have done so already, when the seriousness of the protests first became clear. His speech this week showed he was determined to go on his own terms.

Negotiated departure

The preferred solution of the Western powers, in particular the US, which has been leading demands that “an orderly transition must begin now”. For Mr Mubarak to agree he would have to be convinced that he would be able to step down in a “dignified” fashion. The most likely catalyst will be the senior echelons of the army, especially now that Mr Mubarak has given the US short shrift. If he were to go, his Vice-President, Omar Suleiman, would take charge of a transitional government, including opposition elements, ahead of new elections.

Protests fizzle out

Some supporters of Mr Mubarak will be heartened that, for all the sound and fury of the protesters, they have so far failed to force the President’s hand. The longer the protests go on, the less likely it is that he will exit suddenly. Even some of Mr Mubarak’s worst enemies are arguing that he should be allowed to carry on until September. Those who want him out now will argue that a lot can change before his mooted departure – and may fear violent reprisals once they lose the protection of the army. Such a scenario could probably materialise only if the Egyptian military and the US conclude that it is the best case.

Crackdown

The clashes in Tahrir Square in central Cairo on Wednesday hinted at the bloodshed that could unfold if the regime decided it had a chance to cling on to power by crushing the opposition. But that possibility has probably diminished as the protests have widened. Any state-sponsored attack on citizens would meet with outrage and strong action from the West, probably including the withdrawal of the US aid on which Mr Mubarak relies.

©independent.co.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

05 February, 2011

Countercurrents.or

The dominoes are beginning to fall in the Arab world, and it all began in Tunisia.

A series of street protests in December 2010 and January 2011 led to the ouster of Tunisia’s former president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who fled to Saudi Arabia on January 14.

The events in Tunisia have set off a chain reaction across the entire Arab world as citizens of Arab countries have been inspired by the Tunisians’ people power movement.

Major demonstrations have been held in Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, and Jordan, and there have been smaller demonstrations and minor incidents in Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman, Sudan, and Libya.

A demonstration was held in Jordan on February 3 in which protesters demanded that newly installed Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit step down.

After demonstrations in Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh announced that he would step down when his current term expires in 2013.

Over the past week, the demonstrations in Egypt have gained steam every day, and it appears that President Hosni Mubarak may have to step down.

The situation has been compared to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which led to the collapse of communism in the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe.

But there are some major differences between the events of 1989 and the Arab world awakening of 2011 that make the comparison not completely accurate.

The current confrontation in the Arab world is not between authoritarian regimes and the forces of democracy.

The day of the authoritarian regimes is done. It may take a little longer for some of them to fall, but eventually they will all fall.

Even their patrons in the West are abandoning the dictators of the Arab world, as evidenced by Ben Ali’s hasty departure.

The powers that be who run the Western world have decided that it is no longer in their interests to support puppet rulers running authoritarian regimes in the Arab world.

So they are turning to Plan B, which may have been prepared decades ago and put on the shelf until needed.

In Plan B, the Western powers will allow the authoritarian regimes of the Arab world to collapse and attempt to replace them with fake democracies run by puppet rulers beholden to their masters in the West.

And thus the current confrontation in the Arab world is actually between the forces of true democracy, who want independent countries, and the forces of fake democracy, who are seeking to establish comprador regimes, which would be the same old neocolonialism with a new face.

The forces of true democracy in the Arab world must be very careful in choosing their new leaders since the global ruling class does not want them to have independent governments and will do everything in their power to prevent such a turn of events.

And the globalists are adept at setting up governments that have all the trappings of democracy but which are actually client states with their vassals in charge.

Everything is in flux in the Arab world, which is a good thing since it provides an opportunity for change and progress after so many years of stagnation.

But there is also a great danger, since the Machiavellian manipulators of the global ruling class are skillful chaos players who plan ahead for such eventualities for decades.

The dominoes are truly falling in the Arab world, but it is not clear in which direction they are falling.

The writer is a veteran journalist working with the Tehran Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

08 February, 2011

Andyworthington.co.uk

I’m posting below an essay about Guantánamo, written as a school project by Sammie Killmer, a sixth-grade schoolgirl in Denver, Colorado, who understands more about Guantánamo and the men held there than most adults in a position of influence in the United States.

This is not coincidental, as her father is Darold Killmer, an attorney whose law firm represents five prisoners still in Guantánamo: Musa’ab Omar Al Madhwani (ISN 839), Abdul Rahman Al Qyati (ISN 461), Sa’ad Al Azani (ISN 575), Jalal Salim Bin Amer (ISN 564) and Suhail Abdu Anam (ISN 569) [see here, here and here for more information about these men]. However, as Darold explained to me in an email, “The teacher’s assignment asked the kids to write an opinion piece on an issue that interested them. Sammie chose Gitmo … All of the work is her own, from information that she and I have talked about over the years, from individual research she did, and from an interview she had with my law partner Mari Newman (Sammie was not allowed to interview me for the project).”

I hope you enjoy the perspective of this particular 11-year old girl as much as I did, and I was especially taken by the way in which, cutting through the usual nonsense about the nameless, faceless “terrorists” in Guantánamo, Sammie provided five thumbnail portraits of her father’s clients, as provided by Mari Newman, which do more to bring these particular men to life as individual human beings than anything the US media has managed to accomplish in nine years.

Guantánamo Bay: want to hear an 11 year old girl’s opinion?

By Sammie Killmer

Cuba/Washington DC: What is Guantánamo Bay (also known as Gitmo)? Though at the most Guantánamo Bay had over 775 prisoners, many have been released, but 173 prisoners still remain. This camp was open by the Bush administration since 2002 and President Obama said it would be closed in early 2009 but it still holds 173 prisoners and isn’t closed. It is very disappointing that President Obama said he would have it closed last year and he did not keep his promise. To me it seems that Guantánamo will never close. Many of the prisoners held were and are not terrorists. In fact, many of the prisoners still being held are innocent.

Another problem I have with Gitmo is that some prisoners are on hunger strike and that the guards have the nerve to force feed them. What they do to force food down another person’s throat is just sad. It’s awful.

There are three major camps and seven sub camps. Camp Delta is the biggest camp with seven sub camps. There is also Camp Iguana which use to hold prisoners 18 and younger, but now it holds some detainees set for release back to their home countries. On some websites it claims prisoners at Camp Iguana are allowed TV and to shower twice day, but on the Internet a lot of the articles and information is only the government’s side of the story and not the whole truth.

The number of prisoners left is very, very disappointing: 173 men left at the camp. Also their nationalities are all middle eastern. Over the years the camp has held detainees from Australia, England and other countries, but they have almost all been released. Now the main population is middle eastern men. Some have even been cleared for release. When you think about someone being cleared to leave camp you think of their last day, but some men have been waiting months and even years because they are set for clearance but the guards and government do not release them back to their home countries.

I had a wonderful opportunity to chat with a Guantánamo Bay Lawyer Mari Newman who has been recognized by the ACLU Civil Rights award for working on this case.

Here is a summary of my interview with her (I did ask for non-classified information):

“How many clients do your firm Killmer, Lane and Newman have?”

“Five”

“How long do you usually meet with them?”

“If their case is going on, all day, but if not half day”

“Are the guards harsh on what they are the permitted to say?”

“The guards are not in the room but there is a camera in the hut and the detainees are chained to the floor”

“Was it hard to get security clearance to go to Guantánamo?”

“Yes it took a long time”

“What briefly was the process to getting cleared?”

“You fill out a very long form with everything about you: where you have lived in the past, past jobs, places you have traveled, everything. A lot of people you know are interviewed”

“How many people are cleared at Killmer, Lane and Newman?”

“There are five of us, Darold, David, Sara, Siddhartha and myself”

“Do you think that all 173 prisoners will be released and Gitmo closed by the end of Obama’s term?”

“No I don’t”

“How would you explain each client?”

“Ok well –

Musa’ab — he was very funny before he was imprisioned in Gitmo. He is still very funny. He has been there since the end of October 2002. He also enjoys soccer.

Abdul Rahman — He is a poet. He is calm. He also loves cream puffs and all types of sweets.

Suhail — He is on hunger strike. He is force-fed. He also likes to read books about all different cultures.

Sa’ad — He is very religious and studies religion. He is shy and quiet.

And Jalal — He talks very fast and likes pictures of very beautiful animals.”

“How do you think Guantánamo affects America’s reputation internationally?”

“Terrible because historically America has been a symbol of freedom and known for our three unalienable rights life, liberty and property and it gives us a terrible reputation.”

We also talked about how only four Gitmo cases have made it to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled in favor of the detainees in all of them but in the court of appeals many detainees have been ruled against though some have won.

The Guantánamo Bay issue upsets me because it is hard to believe that the US government just thrown people in prison and do nothing with them. I am very disappointed and upset how America has treated many innocent men. I cannot believe it. It’s sad what we have done. I would like to end this with a Ben Franklin quote given to me by Mari Newman:

“Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”

– BEN FRANKLIN

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

07 February, 2011

ASPO-USA

If I bake a batch of cookies and the recipe calls for two cups of flour but I have only one, it is pretty clear that I can’t bake a full batch of cookies. All I can make is half a batch. I will end up with half of the sugar, and half of the eggs, and half of the shortening that I originally planned to use left over.

Liebig’s Law of the Minimum applies in situations like this. In agriculture, it says that growth is controlled not by total resources available, but by the one in scarcest supply. If a baker does not have enough of one necessary ingredient, he will have to make a smaller batch. I wonder if it isn’t a little like this with oil and the economy.

Oil seems to me to be a necessary “ingredient” in our economy. If for some reason oil is not available (perhaps because the buyer cannot afford it), then to some extent other “ingredients” in the economy, like human labor and new houses and stores in shopping malls, are less needed as well. That is why as oil consumption decreases, there are so many layoffs, and the effect multiplies and affects all areas of the economy, even housing prices and demand for business property.

If worldwide oil price is on the high side (like it is now), customers are faced with a choice: should they buy the full amount of high-priced oil, or should they cut back in some way? For example, a state transportation department might find that asphalt (an oil product) is high priced. They might decide to buy less and fix fewer roads. If they do this, they won’t need as many workers to spread the asphalt, so they may lay off some workers. With less demand, refineries that make the asphalt won’t need to process as much oil, so some of the older refineries can be closed, and their workers laid off.

The laid-off workers will have less money to spend, so they will cut back: go out to restaurants less, take fewer trips, and wait longer between haircuts. And of course, there will be little need to build new refineries, or to buy new trucks for spreading asphalt, so these changes will impact workers in the construction business and in the manufacturing of trucks. A laid-off worker may miss mortgage payments, and this will trickle through the economy in other ways. Housing prices may drop from lack of demand because some workers have lost their jobs and because foreclosed houses are on the market at low prices.

Sometimes there may be the possibility of substitution: in this example, switching to concrete or gravel roads instead. But even in this case there may be layoffs: less need for refineries, for example. Also, spreading gravel may take fewer workers. Concrete roads may last longer and therefore affect employment in years to come.

Let’s take another example. If oil prices rise, airlines will need to raise their prices to cover the cost of fuel. Because of higher prices, businesses can be expected to cut back on travel, and less-wealthy vacation travelers may stay home. The reduction in travel can be expected to lead to layoffs in the airline industry. There will be less demand for new airplanes (unless an inventor can truly figure out a way to make a more fuel efficient airplane!), and less demand for workers who build the airplanes. Fewer travelers will pass through the airport, so airport restaurants and shops are likely to lay off workers.

As a third example, if oil prices rise, grocery stores will raise the price of the food they sell because oil is used in food production and transport, and stores will need to pass the higher costs through to the customer. While customers are likely to “trade down” to the less-expensive items offered, in total, they are still likely to spend more on groceries than in the past. To compensate, customers can be expected to cut back on their discretionary expenditures elsewhere. A few may even miss mortgage payments.

How can this problem of layoffs, debt defaults, and falling housing prices be avoided when oil prices rise? I am not sure that it can be.

If a government has a huge amount of money for oil subsidies, perhaps it can subsidize oil prices so the effect isn’t felt throughout the economy. Usually it is only the oil exporters who can afford such subsidies.

Or a government can make a rule that companies can’t lay off workers, no matter how much demand drops. Unfortunately, such a rule is likely to result in many bankrupt companies. If they continue making goods few can afford, they will end up with a lot of excess inventory as well.

Or governments can try to cap oil prices. But now we are running short of oil that can be extracted from the ground at low cost, so capping prices has the perverse effect of reducing supply. Governments can also raise taxes on oil companies, but to some extent this also has the effect of reducing supply. The fields that had marginal profitability before the tax hike are likely to be closed.

If the government wants to keep employment up, somehow it needs to find less expensive alternatives to oil, so as to stop this vicious cycle of higher oil prices sending the economy into a tailspin. Higher priced substitutes are not helpful — they just make the situation worse! That is why most of the alternatives now under consideration are dead ends, unless the costs can be brought way down, say to $50 or $60 a barrel. Even electric cars need to be inexpensive to really help the economy.

Too many people don’t really understand where the economy is running into trouble and are proposing solutions that can’t fix the problem. Our real problem is that the economy cannot afford high priced oil; it is not that there is too little (high priced) oil in the ground.

We have always assumed that we can have cheap and available ingredients for our societal “recipe” for how our current economy functions. Now this assumption is coming into question.

Gail Tverberg, actuary and writer, is an editor of The Oil Drum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 February , 2011

The Guardian

Current events in Egypt and Tunisia have the entire region and beyond glued to their television sets. The all-too-spoken-about Arab street has risen, seemingly from the dead. But while it is satisfying to see a dictatorial head of state being ousted by his own people, it is far too early to rejoice.

What we are witnessing is the removal and replacement of leaders, not an upgrading of the political systems that allowed someone like the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to remain in power for 30 years and then have the audacity to position his son to succeed him, while the Egyptian people sank into deepening poverty.

Unrest across the region will force these reactionary regimes to make some minimal changes, such as introducing term limits, which should have been done decades ago. But these knee-jerk legislative changes are solely aimed at persuading the demonstrators to go home.

Likewise, no one should belittle the fact that hundreds of thousands of average citizens are challenging their governments in the streets. This is not like demonstrations as we know them in western countries. It is the real thing. Serious conviction – and sustained repression – is the prerequisite to get many people to challenge a police state that ignores even the most basic human rights.

In the Arab world, civil uprisings – or intifadas, as they are frequently called – were coined in the Palestinian context. However, the context of the first Palestinian intifada was very different to what we are seeing today. Back in 1987 Palestinians genuinely became fed up with the foreign military occupation that Israel maintains to this day. Communities across the West Bank and Gaza took to the streets and sustained their efforts for nearly six years.

Demonstrations were only part of the story. The real ingredient to the Palestinians’ ability to remain steadfast was much more complicated. Palestinians are highly political, and they organized themselves in a decentralized fashion and knew how to operate out of Israel’s sight.

But the first intifada was aimed solely at a foreign entity, Israel, and ended with the signing of the infamous Oslo peace accords, which have failed multiple times over the past two decades. The Palestinian leadership tried to pick the fruits of their intifada prematurely and paid a dear price in human, political, economic and social loss.

Egyptians would be well advised to learn from the Palestinians that the window of opportunity for real change comes all too infrequently. They should therefore be very clear on what they desire from this historic episode. I’d guess that the US state department already has more than a few scenarios in place and dealing with these is what the Egyptian people will really be up against in the coming weeks.

The second Palestinian intifada in 2000 had many more similar elements to today’s upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt. Following the collapse of the Camp David II talks and continuing Israeli provocations, the Palestinian street erupted. Although this second uprising was quickly steered to target Israel, the undercurrent at the time was boiling against a Palestinian leadership that was seriously corrupt and refused to shift gear politically, opting instead for a never-ending US-sponsored peace process.

The Palestinian president at the time, Yasser Arafat, knew that the second intifada had the potential to turn on him and the house of cards that he had created, the Palestinian Authority. Arafat knew how to shrewdly get his people to vent their anger elsewhere – towards Israel, the foreign occupier.

Arafat thought, like today’s Mubarak and the many other leaders of his generation, that the US would come to his rescue and make things happen. He was wrong. Every major Palestinian political crisis witnessed the traditional Palestinian leadership taking minute steps forward to keep the masses at a distance. Often these steps meant rearranging the cabinet while paying lip service to the demanded structural reforms. Expect the same in Egypt and Tunisia.

Over the years, Palestinians have been able to maintain pressure on their occupier and keep their own quasi-government in check because they were organized at the grassroots level for many years beforehand. This level of deep, sustained organizing has been weak to non-existent in most of the Arab world. The police-state governments in Egypt, Tunisia and across the Middle East made sure civil society remained obedient – as the media and the private sector were made to be.

The obvious question is: if Palestinians are so experienced in taking to the streets, why then are there so few serious demonstrations in Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem or Gaza in solidarity with the Egyptian people? The reason is that the Palestinian Authority has been co-opted by a US-dominated and foreign-funded agenda which, in times of crisis, understands a single tool: force.

The same applies to the Palestinian government in Gaza, for different reasons. Since the last Palestinian elections, which ended in infighting, the US has equipped, trained and led a new generation of Palestinian security services to serve their old model of Arab world governance – police states and banana republics. Expect the US not to embrace real democracy in the Arab world, but rather to put a new, younger facade on an old and corrupt system of governance.

If you want a barometer for today’s Middle East political temperature, follow Egypt; however, if you want a barometer for tomorrow’s possibilities for serious, sustainable reform, keep your eye on the Palestinian people who are in a dual struggle – one to shed themselves from 43 years of a brutal Israeli occupation and one to create the first Arab model of truly representative and accountable governance.

The main factor preventing the Palestinians from continuing on their path to structural reform, following their first genuine elections in 2006, is the refusal of the US to accept the results of those elections. Expect a similar US veto on any forthcoming Egyptian move towards electoral reform that encompasses true representation.

Until the people of the Middle East take reforms seriously and transform their mass demonstrations into sustained, organized efforts that address all aspects of society – political, legislative, economic and social – then the blood and tears invested in this latest round of civil outcry will be wasted.

Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American freelance business consultant and serves as a Board of Trustees member at Birzeit University. He is also a Director at the Arab Islamic Bank and the community foundation Dalia Association. He blogs at www.epalestine.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reports about Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy law have become a focal point in the international press. It is natural for the international press to undertake this issue so seriously mainly because of the way Pakistani leadership, both the government and the opposition, has been viewing it with such an importance. It is as if this law constitutes the complete teachings of Islam and without this law there is no scope for Islam to survive in the world today. The prime minister has claimed that, “a Muslim cannot have two opinions on the blasphemy law and being descendant of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), he cannot even think of amending it.”[1] The opposition, including a number of religious oriented political parties, also has adopted a similar position on the law. Although Pakistani politicians and religious leaders seem to achieve bliss through this law, this is bound to create a catastrophe. In our opinion, this constitutes sheer exploitation in the name of Islam and its prophet.

 

Circumstances in Pakistan clearly suggest that it is not the law, but execution of the law which has created a volatile situation in the country. Our knowledge of history tells us that letters are not always capable to ensure the purpose of the law. That is why history has coined the phrase “letter and spirit.” This is most relevant in the application of law, and especially in Pakistan where, according to reports, many people belonging to minority communities have been harassed under the guise of this law.

 

Mistreatment of the poor and weak has been common is found in every society throughout history, but when it is done in the guise of religion, it naturally causes horror. Followers of religion, however, view any criticism or description of this horror as religion-phobia. In the case of Pakistan it would be called Islamophobia which, of course, is in abundance around us today. But shouldn’t one raise the question whether the way this law is being manipulated would have the genuine potential to create fear within the minority communities? What would be the rationale to support a murderer? Love for the Prophet? A Prophet who was known for his love and kindness for weak and destitute? A Prophet who went to visit an adversary when he came to know that the woman (a non-Muslim) who used to put trash on his pathway was not well and counseled her? The woman was so moved by the behavior of the Prophet that she immediately accepted Islam. Does the blasphemy law in any way reflect teachings of the Prophet? In our opinion, if the upholders of the blasphemy law believe that they hold the truth, let them have the truth manifest itself through their behavior.

 

It is shocking to see people demonstrating in favor of a murderer who committed the crime in the guise of protecting the Prophet’s honor. Politicians, both from the government and the opposition, seem to have been persuaded by political expediency. Even lawyers are reported to have offered free counseling to the murderer, and now, according to newspaper reports, the law enforcing agencies don’t find a prosecutor for the case. This should be completely unacceptable by any standard of Islamic behavior. Are there no rooms for balanced view of Islam in contemporary Pakistan? According to the British newspaper Guardian Javed Ahmad Ghamdi, an independent scholar from Lahore who held the view that there is no scope for blasphemy law in the light of the Qur’an and Prophet’s teachings, is said to have fled from Pakistan because of his views on blasphemy law and other similar issues related to Islamic teachings. One of his followers, Dr. Farooq Ahmad, was gunned down by extremists a few months ago. What is happening in Pakistan? A nation achieved more than half a century ago with a dream that Muslims would regain their past civilization in the modern world by reviving Islamic teachings. Is the current state of affairs in Pakistan manifest any sign of that noble dream?

 

This question is related to the issue of patience, pluralism, freedom of speech and respect for human dignity. This issue also raises the question of the fundamental purpose of religion. In history religions have been backbone of all civilizations no civilization would have been possible without peace. Islam in particular, which literally means peace, not only established peace under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad (sm); it also laid down the foundation of a glorious civilization. Is the situation in Pakistan contributing to establishment of peace? How could one expect to establish peace if the minorities do not feel secure? How could a nation contribute to peace if majority of the population go for wild emotionalism in the face of minor provocation?

 

It is high time particularly for the so-called Islamists in Pakistan to look at the situation in Egypt where their enemies are trying to create panic among most observers by suggesting that if the current people’s revolution in Egypt succeeds their counterpart will take over and impose their version of Islam on the people.  The Islamists in Pakistan should very well know that Islam is confined to the boundaries of Pakistan and so is not Islamophobia. Therefore, the picture of Islam they depict in Pakistan will have an impact on the rest of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

MALAYSIA TODAY

LETTERS/SURAT

Wednesday, 09 February 2011 admin-s

Chandra Muzaffar 1986: “Datuk Abdullah’s argument that Malay political dominance should be preserved and perpetuated in order to ensure stability and harmony defies logic and denies justice.

Chandra Muzaffar 2011: “Ketuanan Melayu is not — as erroneously interpreted by the English language media — ‘Malay Supremacy’. It is more accurately described as ‘Malay Sovereignty’.

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM

No matter how hard we try, we will not find the term “Ketuanan Melayu” in the 1957 Federal Constitution. Nor will we find it in the post-May 13 amendments to the constitution. The fact remains that the term “Malay dominance” came into prominence after Abdullah Ahmad made his infamous assertions at the Institute of International Affairs in Singapore on 30 August 1986.

Just as the May 13 incident was the precursor to the New Economic Policy and the slew of new discriminatory policies, so Operation Lalang in 1987 provided the fait accompli for such unacceptable concepts such as “Ketuanan Melayu” to be part of the UMNO lexicon.

Abdullah Ahmad made his assertions on behalf of his UMNO bosses at a time during the 1986 general elections when even the MCA could not justify the “deviations” of the NEP. The mid-Eighties were a time of economic recession when the Malaysian masses in all the communities were trying to make ends meet. To remind young Malaysians today, this is what Abdullah Ahmad asserted:

“Let us make no mistake – the political system in Malaysia is founded on Malay dominance. That is the premise from which we should start. The Malays must be politically dominant in Malaysia as the Chinese are politically dominant in Singapore…

“I call for acceptance of the Malaysian political system as I have described it. Let not Singapore be the harbinger of Chinese irredentist tendencies. I say to all – the Chinese in Malaysia and to Singaporeans – don’t play with fire.”

This speech was castigated by many including myself, Dr Tan Chee Khoon, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, Lim Kit Siang, and even Dr Ling Liong Sik, then MCA president. My good friend, the late K. Das compiled these writings into a publication: “Malay Dominance?” in 1987.

Defies Logic and Denies Justice

Then Aliran president, Dr Chandra Muzaffar wrote in no uncertain terms:

“Datuk Abdullah’s argument that Malay political dominance should be preserved and perpetuated in order to ensure stability and harmony defies logic and denies justice.

“No rational person will accept a political system which legitimizes the perpetual dominance of one community and compels the other communities to acquiesce with their subordinate roles. Such a system would be a betrayal of the right of every human being to political equality, as enshrined in any modern constitution. More than that, it is demeaning to human dignity to preserve and perpetuate a system which dichotomises power on the basis of dominant and subordinate communities.

“In truth, the Malays should also be concerned about their future. For the “Malay political dominance” which Datuk Abdullah has chosen to defend has, in a sense, camouflaged the truth about the real political power of the vast majority of Malays.

“What does ‘Malay political dominance’ mean to the Malay padi farmer with a dwindling income, or a Malay rubber smallholder with meagre means, or to a Malay in-shore fisherman who can hardly keep body and soul together?

“Or is it because of this political dominance that these disparities have become more pronounced? The truth about Malay political dominance is that, it enabled the elite to protect the interests of a few. This is the ‘stark reality’ of the ‘power equation’ which Datuk Abdullah has conveniently forgotten…”

(“Malay Dominance?” K.Das Ink, 1987:89)

Ever since the strong response to Abdullah Ahmad’s racist views in 1986, UMNO’s apologists and spin doctors have been on the defensive. The crude far-right racists have, however, been given free rein.

Attempt to Rehabilitate Ketuanan Melayu

It was thus with mixed amazement and amusement that I read this latest attempt to rehabilitate “Ketuanan Melayu” by – of all people! – Dr Chandra Muzaffar in his new capacity as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Yayasan 1Malaysia:

“Ketuanan Melayu is not — as erroneously interpreted by the English language media — ‘Malay Supremacy’. It is more accurately described as ‘Malay Sovereignty’. The fight against the Malayan Union in 1946 was an attempt to restore Malay sovereignty, crucial elements of which were later incorporated into the Malayan and Malaysian Constitution in the form of the position of the Malay Rulers, the status of Malay and Islam, and the Special Position of the Malays. Suffice to emphasize loyalty to the Constitution today, without harping upon ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ which from a 1Malaysia perspective is divisive and detracts from our noble endeavour to strengthen inter-ethnic unity and harmony through common Malaysian citizenship.” (Malaysian Sentinel, 3 January 2011)

Dr Chandra’s latest rendition of Ketuanan Melayu is inconsistent on at least two fronts.

Firstly, if as he says, we have interpreted Ketuanan Melayu erroneously, then why does he still say “from a 1Malaysia perspective (it) is divisive…?”

He seems to imply that “Malay sovereignty” is preferable to “Malay supremacy”. But what does “Malay sovereignty” mean to us Non-Malays except to justify continued racial discrimination? Is Dr Chandra saying these discriminatory policies no longer exist?

These discriminatory policies exist and are periodically justified by UMNO leaders’ reference to Ketuanan Melayu. Therefore they must be addressed and not covered over by feel-good slogans like “1Malaysia”.

If spin doctor slogans are to mean anything, the DAP’s “Malaysian Malaysia” has been around far longer than ‘1Malaysia’!

There are also historical facts that have to be put right. Dr Chandra says the UMNO-led fight against the Malay Union in 1946 was “an attempt to restore Malay sovereignty.”

Is There ‘English Sovereignty’ in Britain?

This is a strange convolution of the concept of sovereignty – meaning “independence of the political control of other states; power of self-government” (Collier’s Dictionary) – with a racial bastardisation of the concept.

Is there such a thing as “English sovereignty” in Britain? What does it mean for the Scots and Welsh and Irish and Pakistanis and others?

Sure, the demonstrators in Malaya in 1946 were carrying slogans such as: ‘Malaya belongs to the Malays. We don’t want other races to be given the rights and privileges of the Malays.’ (Utusan Melayu, 22.12.1945) But these protests were “not so much against British rule as for the reinstatement of British justice”. (Khong, KH, ‘British rule and the struggle for Independence in Malaya, 1945-57’, PhD Pittsburgh 1975:179) Some placards even read: “Father protect us till we grow up.”(ibid, p.180)

It is disappointing that while ex-UMNO leaders such as Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim are prepared to jettison such a concept of Ketuanan Melayu for “Ketuanan Rakyat”, former Aliran President Dr Chandra Muzaffar sees fit to try to rehabilitate this discredited term.

Wish List for Yayasan 1Malaysia

Yayasan 1Malaysia can do a useful service for all Malaysians by calling on the Malaysian government to implement these basic reforms which are essential for inter-ethnic unity and harmony:

–         ratify the International Convention on the eradication of all forms of racial discrimination;
–         ban racially-defined political parties;
–         enact a Race Relations Act and institute an Equal Opportunities Commission to combat racism and racial discrimination in Malaysia;
–         ensure the government services are fairly represented by all Malaysian ethnic groups;
–         ensure that all schools are treated equally in terms of hardware and financial allocation…

 

 

 

Though there is no concept of priesthood in Islam yet a class has come into existence which is known as ‘ulama or called clerics in English. In Islam any person, if he/she has adequate knowledge can perform all the functions and rituals be it related to marriage, death or other obligations for Muslims. Alim (plural ulama) means one who knows. Thus whole emphasis is on knowledge of Qur’an and hadith irrespective of class, caste, race or nationality. Since knowledge is central this class came to be called ‘ulama.

Now the question is what knowledge should be imparted to these persons who are supposed to guide the community. The Ulama often quote a hadith that since Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the last prophet the ulama are like stars after him and Muslims should seek guidance from them as stars guide and become source of light in darkness of night and ignorance is like darkness.

Now in those days when the tribe of ‘ulama began to come into existence the most important knowledge was that of Qur’an and hadith w2hich embodied total knowledge for guidance of the community. And in the island of Arabia which had no literary tradition before Islam, Qur’an and hadith imparted revolutionary tradition of knowledge. Anyone having that knowledge was counted among great alim. Also Qur’an and hadith were main sources of shari’ah law so its knowledge was main source of knowledge.

However, as Islam spread to other countries with old culture and civilization and other sources of law, besides these ‘ulama with their knowledge limited to Qur’an and hadith other types of ulama also came into existence i.e. those who acquired knowledge from other sources like philosophy, mathematics, physical sciences like optics, chemistry, physics, astronomy and so on. These ulama put emphasis on reason and rational sciences besides traditional sources like Qur’an and hadith

These rational sciences, over period of time became so important that they became source of syllabus for training of ‘ulama and came to9 be known as ulum al-aqliyah which mainly consisted of translations from Greek philosophy and other sciences. In those days Greek sciences were the most advanced ones and these rational sciences were supposed to broaden the vision of the ulama. They were thought to be so important that Socrates whose disciple was Plato (Flatoon or Aflatoon) was thought to be one of the prophets

Muslims produced great philosophers who contributed richly and whose commentaries on Greek philosophy were taught in European universities and Christian seminaries throughout middle ages. Thus the Christian priests studied al-Farabi, Ibn Sina (Avicina), Ibn Rushd (Averros) etc. in their seminaries.  Thus all kinds of rational sciences flourished during medieval ages in the Islamic world and Muslim ulama learnt these sciences.

Now these Greek sciences are mostly of historical importance and humankind has made tremendous progress in social and physical sciences and no one can claim to be an alim without knowledge of these contemporary developments. Unfortunately colonial period and development of these sciences in Europe had to be simultaneous and since Muslim countries were victims of colonial rule, Muslims in general and the Ulama in particular, became highly prejudiced against all western o9r European sciences. Their source was mainly colonial.

Also, the Islamic seminaries while taking out their anger against colonial masters did not understand difference between colonial rulers and scientists many of whom were themselves persecuted by the rulers. It is not the rulers who developed science but it was scientists who did and also these ulama by now considered traditional Greek philosophy and science as integral part of their religion which was totally wrong. These ulama had resisted Greek knowledge and many philosophers were persecuted but later they adopted and made these sciences part of their syllabus, and then of their religion.

Similarly they resisted modern social and physical sciences as irreligious being imported from colonial west and rejected these ‘ulum. However, later they began to accept these sciences but would not teach them in the Islamic seminaries. Still they teach traditional Greek sciences as if it is part of Islamic knowledge. Now it is high time that Islamic seminaries integrate, like Greek sciences earlier, part of syllabus in Islamic seminaries.

Today the whole emphasis in these seminaries is on traditional sciences and theological issues which is of course necessary but only as a part of training. Along with these theological issues they must train the students in these seminaries in modern social and physical sciences which will greatly help broaden their vision. They should also be trained in reinterpreting Qur’an so that it can embrace modern knowledge. The earlier commentaries and interpretations were done in the light of knowledge which was available then. One cannot continue to teach same tafsir (commentary) as if not only Qur’an but also the tafsir literature is also divine. While Qur’an is divine, tafsir is entirely human effort to understand it within the parameters of available knowledge.

The existing hadith literature comprises both authentic as well as hadith of doubtful origin. The students must be trained in modern method of critiquing the existing hadith li8terature and rigorously select only those which are authentic and in keeping with reason. Integrity of the narrator is not enough; it should also fulfill the criterion of reason. Reason and intellect are divine gifts and the Qur’an recognizes the role of ‘aql (reason).

Also, in these madrasas sectarianism is flourishing and so there is great need for future ulama to learn the value of tolerance and moderation. The fundamental values of Qur’an truth9haq), justice (‘adl) , doing goodihsan), compassion rahmah) and wisdom (hikmah) must be taught and emphasized. Also, knowledge of comparative religion must be imparted which is highly necessary in the modern pluralist world.

Only such a comprehensive syllabus will produce future ulama.

_________________________________________________________

Centre for Study of Society and Secularism

Mumbai

 

 

09 February, 2011

Al Jazeera

The recent uprisings do not exist merely in a historical vacuum, but must be considered within a geopolitical context

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, four transformative events have reshaped the global setting in enduring ways. When the Soviet empire collapsed two years later, the way was opened for the triumphalist pursuit of the American imperial project, seizing the opportunity for geopolitical expansion provided by its self-anointed global leadership – as ‘the sole surviving superpower’.

This first rupture in the nature of world order produced a decade of ascendant neoliberal globalisation, in which state power was temporarily and partially eclipsed by passing the torch of lead global policymaker to the Davos oligarchs, meeting annually under the banner of the World Economic Forum. In that sense, the US government was the well-subsidised sheriff of predatory globalization, while the policy agenda was being set by bankers and global corporate executives. Although not often identified as such, the 1990s gave the first evidence of the rise of non-state actors – and the decline of state-centric geopolitics.

The second rupture came with the 9/11 attacks, however those events are construed. The impact of the attacks transferred the locus of policymaking authority back to the United States, as state actor, under the rubrics of ‘the war on terror’, ‘global security’ and ‘the long war’. This counter-terrorist response to 9/11 produced claims to engage in preemptive warfare – ‘The Bush Doctrine’. This militarist foreign policy was put into practice by initiating a ‘shock and awe’ war against Iraq in March 2003, despite the refusal of the UN Security Council to back American war plans.

This second rupture has turned the entire world into a potential battlefield, with a variety of overt and covert military and paramilitary operations launched by the United States without appropriate authorisation – either from the UN or by deference to international law.

Selective sovereignty

Aside from this disruption of the liberal international order, the continuing pattern of responses to 9/11 involves disregard for the sovereign rights of states in the global south, as well as the complicity of many European and Middle Eastern states in the violation of basic human rights – through engaging in torture, ‘extreme rendition’ of terrorist suspects and the provision of ‘black sites’, where persons deemed hostile to the US were detained and routinely abused.

The response to 9/11 was also seized upon by the neoconservative ideologues that rose to power in the Bush presidency to enact their pre-attack grand strategy, accentuating regime change in the Middle East – starting with Iraq, portrayed as ‘low-hanging fruit’ that would have multiple benefits once picked.

These included military bases, lower energy prices, securing oil supplies, regional hegemony – and promoting Israeli regional goals.

The third rupture involved the continuing global economic recession that began in 2008 – and which has produced widespread rises in unemployment, declining living standards, and rising costs for basic necessities – especially food and fuel. These developments have exhibited the inequity, gross abuses, and the deficiency of neoliberal globalisation – but have not led to the imposition of regulations designed to lessen such widely uneven gains from economic growth – to avoid market abuses, or even to guard against periodic market collapses.

This deepening crisis of world capitalism is not currently being addressed – and alternative visions, even the revival of a Keynesian approach, have little political backing. This crisis has also exposed the vulnerabilities of the European Union to the uneven stresses exerted by varying national domestic capabilities to deal with the challenges posed. All of these economic concerns are complicated – and intensified by the advent of global warming, and its dramatically uneven impacts.

A fourth rupture in global governance is associated with the unresolved turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa. The mass popular uprisings that started in Tunisia have provided the spark that set off fires elsewhere in the region, especially Egypt. These extraordinary challenges to the established order have vividly inscribed into the global political consciousness the courage and determination of ordinary people, particularly the youth, living in these Arab countries, who have endured intolerable conditions of material deprivation, despair, alienation, elite corruption and merciless oppression for their entire lives.

Resisting the status quo

The outcomes of these movements for change in the Arab world is not yet knowable – and will not become clear for months, if not years, to come. It is crucial for supporters on the scene – and around the world – not to become complacent, as it is certain that those with entrenched interests in the old oppressive and exploitative order are seeking to restore former conditions to the greatest extent possible, or at least salvage what they can.

In this regard, it would be a naïve mistake to think that transformative and emancipatory results can come from the elimination of a single hated figure – such as Ben Ali in Tunisia or Mubarak in Egypt – or their immediate entourage. Sustainable, significant change requires a new political structure, as well as a new process that ensures free and fair elections and adequate opportunities for popular participation. Real democracy must be substantive as well as procedural, bringing human security to the people – including tending to basic needs, providing decent work, and a police force that protects rather than harasses. Otherwise, the changes wrought merely defer the revolutionary moment to a later day, and the ordeal of mass suffering will resume.

To simplify, what remains unresolved is the fundamental nature of the outcome of these confrontations between the aroused regional populace and state power, with its autocratic and neoliberal orientations. Will this outcome be transformative, bringing authentic democracy based on human rights and an economic order that puts the needs of people ahead of the ambitions of capital? If it is, then it will be appropriate to speak of ‘The Egyptian Revolution’, ‘The Tunisian Revolution’ – and maybe others in the region and elsewhere to come – as it was appropriate to describe the Iranian outcome in 1979 as the Iranian Revolution.

From this perspective, a revolutionary result may not necessarily lead to a benevolent outcome – beyond ridding the society of the old order. In Iran, a newly oppressive regime resting on a different ideological foundation emerged, itself challenged after the 2009 elections by a popular movement calling itself the Green Revolution. So far this use of the word ‘revolution’ expressed hopes rather than referring to realities on the ground.

What took place in Iran – and what seemed to flow from the onslaught unleashed by the Chinese state in Tiananmen Square in 1989 – was ‘counterrevolution’ – the restoration of the old order and the systematic repression of those identified as participants in the challenge to power. In fact, the words deployed can be misleading. What most followers of the Green Revolution seemed to seek in Iran was reform – not revolution – changes in personnel and policies, protection of human rights – but no challenge to the structure or the constitution of the Islamic Republic.

Reform vs counterrevolution

It is unclear whether this Egyptian movement is at present sufficiently unified – or reflective – to have a coherent vision of its goals beyond getting rid of Mubarak. The response of the state, besides trying to crush the uprising and even banish media coverage, offers at most promises of reform: fairer and freer elections and respect for human rights.

It remains unknown what is meant by – and what will happen during – an ‘orderly transition’ under the auspices of temporary leaders closely tied to the old regime, who likely enjoy enthusiastic backing from Washington. Will a cosmetic agenda of reform hide the reality of the politics of counterrevolution? Or will revolutionary expectations come to the fore from an aroused populace to overwhelm the pacifying efforts of ‘the reformers’? Or, even, might there be a genuine mandate of reform, supported by elites and bureaucrats – enacting sufficiently ambitious changes in the direction of democracy and social justice to satisfy the public?

Of course, there is no assurance – or likelihood – that the outcomes will be the same, or even similar, in the various countries undergoing these dynamics of change. Some will see ‘revolution’ where ‘reform’ has taken place, and few will acknowledge the extent to which ‘counterrevolution’ can lead to the breaking of even modest promises of reform.

At stake, as never since the collapse of the colonial order in the Middle East and North Africa, is the unfolding and shaping of self-determination in the entire Arab world, and possibly beyond.

How these dynamics will affect the broader regional agenda is not apparent at this stage, but there is every reason to suppose that the Israel-Palestine conflict will never be quite the same. It is also uncertain how such important regional actors as Turkey or Iran may – or may not – deploy their influence. And, of course, the behaviour of the elephant not formally in the room is likely to be a crucial element in the mix for some time to come, for better or worse.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008).