Archives: Articles

What has happened to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh? No, I am not talking about the political confabulations that he is holding to save his colleague Home Minister P Chidambaram from falling into disgrace. In case you missed it, what I am referring to is his speech at the 66th session of the UN General Assembly in New York. “Till a few years ago the world had taken for granted the benefits of globalisation and global interdependence,” the Prime Minister said. “Today we are being called upon to cope with the negative dimensions of those very phenomena.” [Grim globalisation sermon by Singh, The Telegraph, Sept 24.http://bit.ly/oTuKjt].

It seems wisdom has finally dawned upon the elderly economist.After being in power for over seven years, and having initiated the process of economic liberalisation in India in 1991, Manmohan Singh probably is now being arm-twisted to sign on the dotted line. Only he would know how tough and harsh it must be for him to blurt it out at the UN General Assembly. Enough is enough, he seems to be conveying.

This reminds me of another historical statement that India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had made from the ramparts of the Red Fort in New Delhi on Aug 15, 1955. He had said: “It is very humiliating for any country to import food. So everything else can wait, but not agriculture.” I have often said in my presentations that only Nehru would have known how much humiliation he had to undergo to receive food aid. Similarly, I think only Manmohan Singh can tell us, if at all he ever picks up the courage to confide with the nation, how humiliating it has been for him to not only sing songs in favour of globalisation but to also bring in policies that would eventually go against the national interest.

The Telegraph report further states: In a clear indictment of free market policies and deregulation which have brought the world to its present financial meltdown, Singh said: “Economic, social and political events in different parts of the world have coalesced together and their adverse impact is now being felt across countries and continents.” The economist Prime Minister warned that “the world economy is in trouble”. As one of the leaders who is party to the Group of Twenty (G-20) efforts to revive the global economy after the meltdown three years ago, he lamented that “the shoots of recovery which were visible after the economic and financial crisis of 2008 have yet to blossom”. Making a grim prediction for the future, the Prime Minister, in fact, said: “In many respects the crisis has deepened even further.”

This is what happens when you read too much from the text books. The proponents of economic liberalisation had simply followed the book rules and had gone on defending whenever signs of failure would appear. These rules were designed in the west, and Indian economists (most of whom are on a kind of sabbatical from the western universities) had the onerous task to ensure that India does not deviate from the path of privatisation and neoliberalism. Using the mainline media to their advantage, I must say these economists had done a remarkable job in creating the illusion of economic growth. We have been simply seduced by the power of GDP, and somehow made to believe that we can all realise our dreams to be stinkingly rich before we die.

I think the Prime Minister’s exasperation stems from the diktats he has been lately receiving from the G-20 and the World Trade organisation (WTO). Take a look at the recent review of India’s trade policy by the WTO (which in reality was more of a US review of India’s trade policies). WTO hit where it would hit the Prime Minister most. Already under fire from the political opposition, media and the public at large for his inability to control inflation, WTO actually directed India not to restrict food exports at any cost. India must export, and when it needs to meet its domestic needs it can import. Such a directive, if India decides to follow, will only add to Manmohan Singh’s woes. [WTO slams India’s trade policy on farm items, Economic Times, Sept 15, 2011,http://bit.ly/pNqIKh]

Another crucial policy that he is being directed to adopt, and in fact he is being repeatedly asked to explain as to why he has not been able to implement is the approval for FDI in big retail. As per theG-20, India was supposed to have cleared all the obstacles in allowing unhindered approval for FDI in retail by November last year. As the coordinator on behalf of G-20,IMF was to monitor the implementation for FDI in retail across the G-20countries. It is not that Manmohan Singh didn’t try. He had in fact created a fast track approval process as a result of which all discerning views were put on hold. But then politically it has not been possible for him to appease theG-20.

These may be just two of the irritants. But the writing of the wall is clear to any sensible person, provided he is not a mainline economist. The 2008 economic meltdown was in reality an economic collapse. If the governments across the globe had not joined hands to pump in US $ 20 trillion to save the economy, the neoliberal economic model would have collapsed by now. This year too it is once again showing its ugly head. There is panic all around. The crisis of PIGS countries is now heating the Eurozone. The US is already faced with its worst economic crisis, partly being sustained by printing more currency notes. Everyone knows it can’t go on for long.

Nevertheless, Manmohan Singh must now be familiar with the imminent collapse of the global economy. As the head of the State he must be trying to emerge clean so that he can say: Look, I warned you..”

By Devinder Sharma

When Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Turkey’s prime minister in 2003, he seemed to be certain of the new direction his country would take. It would maintain cordial ties with Turkey’s old friends, Israel included, but also reach out to its Arab and Muslim neighbors, Syria in particular. The friendly relations between Ankara and Damascus soon morphed from rhetorical emphasis on cultural ties into trade deals and economic exchanges worth billions of dollars. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s vision of a ‘zero-problems’ foreign policy seemed like a truly achievable feat, even in a region marred by conflict, foreign occupations and ‘great game’ rivalry.

The Israeli raid on the Turkish aid ship, Mavi Marmara, in international waters on May 31, 2010, was not enough to erode this vision. The official Turkish response to Israel’s violent attack – which killed nine Turkish citizens – was one of great anger, but it hardly resembled what Turkey saw as state-sponsored Israeli piracy in the Mediterranean.

However, the Syrian uprising in March, the harsh government crackdown on dissent, and the growing militarization of the opposition – all leading the country down the road to full-fledged civil war – has forced Turkey to abandon its ‘zero-problems’ foreign policy. While Turkey had clearly grown impatient with the bloody crackdowns on widespread protests demanding freedom and political reforms, its growingly confrontational attitude towards Damascus was not entirely altruistic either. Considering the exceptionality of the situation throughout the Arab World, Turkey has had to make some difficult choices.

Turkey’s initially guarded support of NATO’s military intervention against Libya was a litmus test. It proved that Turkey’s membership in the organization, and its regional standing was more important than any foreign policy visions.

“The same stunning irony was clear in Turkey’s relations with (murdered President Muammar) Qadhafi’s Libya. Once these regimes faltered…zero problems was likely to look like a bad bet,” wrote Steven A Cook in the Atlantic, on November 18.

The other ‘stunning irony’ is, of course, Turkey’s hostile attitude towards Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, once considered by Erdogan to be a personal friend. In fact, the leading role currently played by Ankara to isolate and punish al-Assad would seem like the official “denouement of the Erdogan/Davutoglu investment in Bashar al-Assad,” and thus the “end of what has been billed as Turkey’s transformative diplomacy,” according to Cook.

Despite pressure on Ankara to hasten its isolation of Syria, and subtle insinuations that the Turkish leadership is moving too slow on that front, the language alone tells of near complete foreign policy conversion. In a statement on November 15, Prime Minister Erdogan suggested that al-Assad cannot be trusted. “No one any longer expects (the Syrian President) to meet the expectations of the people and of the international community…Our wish is that the Assad regime, which is now on a knife edge, does not enter this road of no return, which leads to the edge of the abyss” (Global Spin blog, TIME online, November 16).

The apocalyptic language can be justified on the basis of an almost inevitable civil war in Syria, and the instability that such a war could create for an already unstable southern Turkish border. More, with regional and international players already vying for the opportunity to exploit Syria’s internal woes, Turkey’s own internal problems could soon be exploited for the benefit of outside forces. Thus, the new Turkish foreign policy appears to be centered on ensuring a position of leadership for Ankara in any future scenario faced by Syria. It’s a remarkable shift – from a moralistic approach to politics to a crude realpolitik outlook, which may require sacrificing others for the benefit of oneself.

Political realism is often riddled with ironies. While Turkey once threatened to go to war unless Syria expelled PKK’s Ocalan, it “is now supporting a man, Riad al Assad, whose ‘Free Syrian Army’ is doing exactly the same across the Syrian border,” according Ankara-based writer Jeremy Salt. Furthermore, “in confronting Syria…Turkey has put itself at odds with Syria’s ally, Iran, whose cooperation it needs in dealing with the PKK” (The Palestine Chronicle, November 18).

By claiming a position of leadership in the ongoing effort to topple the Syrian government, Turkey hopes to stave off unwanted repercussions from the Syria fallout – and thus control the outcome of that adventure. This explains why Turkey’s largest city, Istanbul, has played the host of the Syrian National Council, and why the Free Syrian Army, which has launched several deadly attacks on Syrian security installations, is finding a safe haven in Turkish territories.

Politically, Turkey is also taking a lead role. Its foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, after a meeting with French foreign minister Alain Juppe, called for more international pressure against Damascus. “If they don’t listen we have to increase pressure to stop bloodshed in Syria,” he said. “But this pressure should not be unilateral pressure, all the relevant countries should act together” (The Financial Times, November 18).

What Davutoglu means by ‘act together’, and which countries are ‘relevant’ is open to speculation.

As for acting, Mohammad Riad Shaqfa, the leader of Syria’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, offered his own roadmap at a news conference in Istanbul. “If the international community procrastinates then more is required from Turkey as a neighbor to be more serious than other countries to handle this regime,” Shaqfa said. “If other interventions are required, such as air protection, because of the regime’s intransigence, then the people will accept Turkish intervention” (Turkey’s Hurriyet, November 17).

A detailed plan of that envisaged intervention was published in Turkey’s Sabah newspaper on the day of Shaqfa’s comments. According to Sabah, an intervention plan was put forth by ‘oppositional forces’. Its details include a limited no-fly-zone that progressively widened to include major Syrian provinces and a blockade of the city of Aleppo in the north (Sabah, November 17).

Considering the escalating violence in Syria, and the palpable lack of good intentions by all ‘relevant countries,’ Syria is teetering close to the abyss of prolonged civil war, divisions and unprecedented bloodletting.

“As negotiator and facilitator between the Syrian government and the internal opposition, Turkey has a role to play,” wrote Jeremy Salt, “but provoking Syria along the border, lecturing Bashar al-Assad as if he were a refractory provincial governor during Ottoman rule and giving support to people who are killing Syrian citizens is not the way ahead.”

By Ramzy Baroud

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

Atgaa, 10, and her sister Reemya, 8, are about to be married to men in their 60s. Atgaa will be her husband’s fourth wife. Their wedding celebrations are scheduled for this week and will take place in the town of Fayaadah Abban in Qasim, Saudi Arabia.

The girls are getting married because their financially struggling father needs the money that their dowries will provide: young girls of this age can fetch as much as $40,000 each.

Many readers might be shocked at this news. How can it be legal? The answer is that Saudi Arabia has no minimum age for marriage, and it is perfectly legal to marry even an hour-old child.

Three Saudi ministries share the blame for allowing and facilitating child marriages. The health ministry is tasked with conducting genetic tests for couples considering marriage. Saudi law requires potential brides and grooms to provide certificates of genetic testing before marriages can officially proceed.

The justice ministry regulates the marriage process and issues licences. And the interior ministry registers families and documents the relationships between family members. It is also the most powerful government agency; it has authority over all other ministries and can direct their activities at will.

As with many pernicious practices, child marriage would not exist without tacit support and approval from the country’s leadership. Far from condemning child marriage, the Saudi monarchy itself has a long history of marrying very young girls.

Sarah, who is now a brilliant Saudi doctor, told me she was barely 12 when the late prince Sultan proposed to her after seeing her walking at a military base where she had lived with her father. Luckily, her father had the wits to claim that she was chronically ill, at which point the proposal was swiftly rescinded.

Camel festivals, held at his time of the year in Saudi Arabia, witness the practice called akheth (“taking”) in which girls aged 14 to 16 are “gifted” to the usually elderly members of the monarchy for a few days or weeks. This practice, reminiscent of the infamous droit du seigneur in medieval Europe, is maintained to this day with the monarchy’s protection.

Saudi Arabia has probably the highest number of child marriages in the Middle East and yet there has been almost no international outrage or objection directed at the practice. I have personally sent two letters to Ann Veneman, the director of United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), regarding the Saudi practice and asking her to make her views on the issue public, as she did with Yemen.

Instead, Unicef lauded Saudi efforts to protect child rights and even honoured Prince Naif, whose interior ministry is one of the departments overseeing child marriages. So no wonder the Saudi monarchy feels confident that such a practice can continue.

The US government has been similarly indifferent to the plight of child brides in the kingdom. In April 2009, I wrote to William Burns, the undersecretary of state, regarding the case of Sharooq, 8 – also from Qasim. I never heard back from him.

At a public conference, I asked a former senator, Chuck Hagel (seated next to Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence), if he personally or the US would accept the friendship and alliance of a family that allows child marriage. The answer was nothing short of shocking: “We cannot decide for other countries what is appropriate or not,” he said.

So far, no UN body, such as Unicef or the human rights council, has issued a single statement condemning child marriages in Saudi Arabia [see footnote]. In fact, not one country has made a statement in the human rights council on this issue, and not a single western government has asked the Saudi monarchy to stop the practice. The ugly tradition of child marriage thus continues with the help of the monarchy and its apologists in the west.

If any governments, especially in the west, are seriously concerned with this barbaric and medieval practice, they should ban the heads of Saudi justice, interior and health ministries from entering their countries. If this action were taken against government leaders facilitating crimes against children we would soon see a resolution of this issue.

Saudi Arabia must be pressured to set a minimum age for marriage and save children like Atgaa and Reemya.

• This footnote was added on 15 November 2011. Unicef would like to make clear that a statement was issued in 2009 by Ann Veneman, then its executive director, expressing deep concern about child marriage in Saudi Arabia.

By Ali al-Ahmed

8 November 2011

@ The Guardian

It may not ease the daily pain of occupation and blockade or the endless anguish of refugee status and exile or the continual humiliations of discrimination and second class citizenship, but the admission of Palestine to membership in UNESCO is for so many reasons a step forward in the long march of the Palestinian people toward the dignity of sunlight! The event illuminates the path to self-determination, but also brings into the open some of the most formidable obstacles that must be cleared if further progress is to be made.

The simple arithmetic of the UNESCO vote, 107 in favor, 14 opposed, 52 abstentions, and 21 absent fails to tell the story of really one sided was the vote. Toting up the for and against votes obscures the wicked arm twisting, otherwise known as geopolitics, that induced such marginal political entities as Samoa, Solomon Islands, Palau, and Vanuatu to stand against the weight of global opinion and international morality by voting against Palestinian admission as member to UNESCO. This is not meant to insult such small states, but to lament that their vulnerability to American pressure should distort the real contours of world public opinion. Such a distortion makes a minor mockery of the idea that governments can offer adequate representation to the peoples of the world. It also illustrates the degree to which formal political independence may hide a condition of de facto dependence as well as make plain that voting within the United Nations System should never be confused with aspirations to establish a global democracy in substance as well as form. As an aside this consistently compromised electoral process within the UN System demonstrates the urgency and desirability of establishing a global peoples parliament that could at least provide a second voice whenever global debate touches on issues of human concern.

What is most impressive about the UNESCO vote is that despite the US diplomacy of threat and intimidation, the Palestinian application for membership carried the day. There was enough adherence to principle by enough states to provide the necessary 2/3rds vote even in the face of a determined American diplomatic effort, bolstered by threatening punitive action in the form of refusing further financial support for UNESCO, which amounts to some $60m for the current year, and overall 22 per cent of the organization’s annual budget of $643m in 2010-11 (which is projected to be $653m for 2011-12). Actually this withholding of funds is an American policy embedded in legislation that derives from the early 1990s, and cannot be attributed to the ridiculously pro-Israeli present Congress that would have acted in a similar fashion, and probably feels deprived of an opportunity to draw fresh UN blood. Indeed rabid pro-Israel members of Congress are already showboating their readiness to do more to damage so as to exhibit their devotion to Israel. This unseemly demand to punish the UN for taking a principled stand is worse than just being a poor loser, it amounts to a totally irresponsible willingness to damage the indispensable work of cultural and societal cooperation on international levels just to show that there is a price to be paid to defy the will of Israel, with the United States as willing enforcement agent. It is an excellent moment for the governments of other states to demonstrate their commitment to human wellbeing by helping to restore confidence in the UN. One way to do this is to help overcome this unanticipated UNESCO budget deficit, and what would deliver a most message to Washington and Tel Aviv would be a collection campaign that generated more funds than those lost. It seems a useful opportunity to show once and for all that such strong arm fiscal tactics are no longer acceptable and don’t even work in the post-colonial world. Such an outcome would also confirm that the geopolitical tectonic plates of world order have shifted in such a way as to give increasing prominence to such countries as China, India, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa all of whom voted to admit Palestine to UNESCO. At least for the moment in this limited setting we can obtain a glimpse of a genuine ‘new world order’! The Security Council has proved unable and unwilling to change its two-tier structure to accommodate these shifts, but these countries can by their own action become more active players on the global stage. It is not necessary to wait until France and Britain read the tea leaves accurately enough to realize that it is time for them to give up their permanent place at the UNSC.

Perhaps, more enduring that the vote itself is the reinforced image of the wildly inappropriate role given to the United States to act as intermediary and peacemaker in seeking to resolve the underlying conflict and ensure the realization of Palestinian rights that have been so cruelly denied for more than six decades. Observers as diverse as Michel Rocard, the former Socialist Party Prime Minister of France, and Mouin Rabbani, a widely respected Palestinian analyst of the conflict, agree that this effort to thwart an elemental Palestinian quest for legal recognition and political participation, demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt, although such a reality has long been apparent to even the most casual serious observer of the conflict, that the time has come to disqualify the United States from presiding over the resolution of this conflict. It has always verged on the absurd to expect justice, or even fairness, to flow from a diplomatic framework in which the openly and extremely partisan ally of the dominant party can put itself forward as ‘the honest broker’ in negotiations in a setting where the weaker side is subject to military rule and exile. To have given credibility to this tripartite charade for this long is itself mainly a commentary on the weakness of the Palestinian position, and their desperate need to insist henceforth on a balanced international framework if negotiations are ever to have the slightest prospect of producing a sustainable and just peace.

Leadership role lacking

Yet to find a new framework does not mean following Rocard’s incredibly Orientalist prescription: “The Americans have lost their moral right to leadership in resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is time for Europe to step into the fray.” As if Europe had recently demonstrated its capacity for rendering justice by the NATO intervention in Libya! As if the colonial heritage had been rebranded as a positive credential! As if the Americans ever had a ‘moral right’ to resolve this conflict that was only now lost in the UNESCO voting chamber! It is not clear how a new diplomacy for the conflict that is finally responsive to the situation should be structured, but it should reflect at the very least the new realities of an emergent multipolarity skewed toward the non-West. To be provocative for once, maybe Turkey, Brazil, Egypt, and India could constitute themselves as a more legitimate quartet than that horribly discredited version of a quartet composed of the United States, the EU, Russia, and the UN.

Returning to the UNESCO controversy, it is worth noting the words of denunciation used by Victoria Nuland, the designated State Department spokesperson. She described the vote as being “regrettable, premature” contending that it “undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Even Orwell might be dazed by such a diversionary formulation. Why was the vote regrettable and premature? After all to work for the preservation of religious sacred sites within the halls of UNESCO is hardly subversive of global stability by any sane reckoning.

And after enduring occupation for more than 44 years, it qualifies as comedic to insist that Palestine must not yet in from the cold because such entry would be ‘premature.’ And how can it be claimed that Palestine participation within the UN System ‘undermines’ the ‘shared goal’ of regional peace in the Middle East? The only answer that makes any sense is say that whatever Israel says is so , and the United States will act accordingly, that is, do whatever Israel wants it to do in the global arena. Such kneejerk geopolitics is not only contrary to elementary considerations of law and equity, it is also monumentally irrational and self-defeating from the perspective of national wellbeing and future peace.

Serving common interests

What in the end may be most troubling about this incident is the degree that it confirms a growing impression that both the United States and Israel have lost the capacity to serve their own security interests and rationally promote the wellbeing of their own people. This is serious enough with respect to the damage done to such societies by their own maladroit behavior, but dealing with these two military heavyweights who both possess arsenals of nuclear weaponry is sheer madness. These are two holdout government that continue to rest their future security almost exclusively on an outmoded reliance on hard power calculations and strategy, the effects are potentially catastrophic for the region and the world. When Israel alienates Turkey, its only surviving friend in the Middle East, and then refuses to take the minimal steps to heal the wounds caused by its recklessly violent behavior, one has to conclude that the Israeli sense of reality has fallen on hard times! And when Israel pushes the United States to lose this much social capital on the global stage by standing up for its defiance of international law as in relation to rejecting the recommendations of the Goldstone Report or refusing to censure the expansion of its unlawful settlements or the collective punishment of Gaza, there is no longer much doubt that Israeli foreign policy is driven by domestic extremism that then successfully solicits Washington for ill-advised backing.

The situation in the United States is parallel. Many excuse, or at least explain, America’s unconditionally irrational support for Israel as produced by the fearsome leverage exerted by AIPAC over electoral politics in the country as practiced by Congress and rationalized by conservative think tanks. But what this is saying is that the United States Government has also lost the capacity to pursue a foreign policy in a crucial region of the world that expresses its own national interests, much less provides guidance based on a wider commitment to a stable and just Middle East. The Arab Spring created a second chance so to speak to redeem the United States from its long embrace of vicious autocratic rule in the region, but this opportunity is being squandering on the altar of subservience to the vindictive whims, expansionist visions, and paranoid fears of the Netanyahu/Lieberman governing coalition in Israel.

Welcoming Palestine to UNESCO is a day of celebration and vindication for the Palestinian people, and a political victory for PLO leadership, but it is also a day when all of us should reflect upon the wider Palestinian tragedy and struggle, and seek to take further steps forward. UNESCO has given a momentary respite to those who were completely disillusioned by what to expect from the UN or the system of states when it comes to Palestinian aspirations, and instead put their hope and efforts into the initiatives of global civil society, especially the growing BDS campaign. Now is not the time to shift attention away from such initiatives, but it does suggest that there are many symbolic battlefields in the ongoing legitimacy war being waged for Palestinian self-determination, and several of these lie within the network of institutions comprising the United Nations.

By Richard Falk

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.

Hands Off the People of Iran unequivocally condemns the ratcheting up of sanctions on Iran in the aftermath of the much-heralded report of the International Atomic Energy Agency on that country’s nuclear capability on November 8. The report did little more than confirm the assessment that Hopi arrived at some time ago: that at worst Iran may be interested in the so-called ‘Japanese’ option. This is nuclear development that stops just short of the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon – but only by a month or so. But this is something that has been commented on many times before.

Chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne announced that from November 28, all UK credit and financial institutions were obliged to cease trading with Iran’s banks, a move that apparently represented “a further step to preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons”. This is the first time the UK has cut off an entire country’s banking system from London’s financial sector.

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton welcomed the opportunity the report presented for a “significant ratcheting-up of pressure” on Iran through the imposition of new sanctions. US actions include measures to limit Tehran’s ability to refine its own fuel, as well as targeting the financial interest of the Revolutionary Guards.

Even this was not enough for the rabid Israeli regime, which frothed about Iran having a nuclear weapon within a year and made ominous noises about military action. Israel feels politically vulnerable, given the current upheavals in the Arab world. An Iran with nuclear capability challenges its regional hegemony in a broader sense, but there is also a very practical concern. Iran’s missile delivery system is sophisticated enough to deliver a conventional payload to Tel Aviv – hence the November 7 explosion/assassination at the military base in Bid Ganeh, some 20 kilometres (12 miles) west of Tehran. Amongst others this killed major-general Hassan Moqaddam, a key figure in Iran’s ballistic missiles programme: according to Time magazine, a “western intelligence source” laid the blame at the door of the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, and warned that “there are more bullets in the magazine”.

On one level, the western powers are in a weak position when it comes to convincing the wider population that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The debacle of Iraq – and farcical claims around Saddam’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction” – have prompted many commentators to dub the IAEA’s report “Iran’s 45-minute moment” (a reference to the nonsense peddled about Iraq’s supposed capability to drop bombs on strategic European targets in that time frame). Of course, from the point of view of Iraq’s barbaric rulers, if such weapons had existed it would have been a fairly obvious military response to the invasion of their country to use them. Similar claims today about Iran’s nuclear ambitions will raise many a sceptical eyebrow.

The veracity of the report will also be called into question when it is recalled that the current IAEA director general, Yukiya Amano, has often been accused, on solid grounds, of pro-US bias. According to diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks last year, US diplomats favoured his nomination, as he was “in tune with the US position regarding Iran’s nuclear programme” – a revelation that will help undermine the US/Britain’s charges against the regime.

However, on another level the case for imperialist intervention has undoubtedly been bolstered by the relatively ‘clean’ regime change in Libya (so far …). The overthrow of Gaddafi by western-backed insurgents is widely perceived of as a ‘good war’, in stark contrast to the quagmire of Iraq; the inability of the anti-war movement in this country to mobilise large numbers onto the streets in opposition to the intervention is a mark of this.

The current low level of anti-war mobilisation is a big problem for all those who oppose the imperialist interference in the Middle East, for we should be clear that the war on Iran has already started. It is unlikely to take the form of military invasion and occupation at any stage – the experience of the running sore of Iraq has chastened the imperialists on that front. What we will see – are seeing – is war pursued by other means:

Cyber warfare with its unforeseen consequences (last year’s attack on Iran’s nuclear plants and a number of major industrial complexes by the sophisticated piece of malware, Stuxnet).

Political assassinations of Iranian physicists/scientists allegedly involved in the nuclear programme (murders that are used by the Iranian regime to justify its own political executions).

Swingeing sanctions that, while barely troubling the rich and powerful, dramatically impoverish ordinary Iranians and actually endanger their lives (sanctions have affected everything from aviation to surgery and dentistry).

These sorts of tactics betray the strategic goal the US and its allies have in mind. Ideally for them, a repetition – in a ‘tidier’ form – of the Libyan scenario. That is, that pressure from imperialism engenders splits in this deeply discredited regime and its possible collapse/paralysis. Then indigenous opposition forces spearhead regime change, with the active aid and encouragement of the west. Clinton has spoken openly of her administration’s hopes for the implosion of the regime. There is solid ground for her optimism. Fraught divisions exist at every level of the theocratic regime, most dramatically in its top echelons with the ongoing conflict between supreme leader ayatollah Khamenei and president Ahmadinejad, and continued joint conflict with timid reformists such as Mir-Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi.

The Obama administration would have been encouraged in this by recent developments in the Iranian opposition movement. A pro-war/anti-war-pro-sanctions debate is now dominating Iranian political discourse generally and has engendered a split into two major trends in this opposition. First there are those such as Mohammad Khatami who totally oppose the war, despite their criticisms of the regime. However, this does not flow from any sort of principled or consistently democratic position; rather, it is inspired by nationalism. Khatami has called for “national unity” in the face of this crisis and offers the supreme leader advice about ‘changing course’.

Far more worrying has been the significant section of the opposition (including some who could be politically designated as ‘soft left’, but mainly composed of liberals) who appear to be almost egging the Americans to launch a military strike. The example of the Nato bombing of Libya is looked to by these forces as a positive example of ‘humanitarian intervention’. Although there does not appear to be the appetite in Washington for air strikes, the US’s ally in the region, Israel, remains politically unstable and bellicose: witness the recent statement by Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak that “We do not expect any new UN sanctions on Tehran to persuade it to stop its nuclear defiance. We continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves not to take any option off the table.”

The stance of Hands Off the People of Iran is crystal-clear. We implacably oppose the sabre-rattling of the imperialists and demand that all sanctions on the country are lifted, that all threats of military action be rescinded. We call for this not because we have any illusions in the loathsome regime in Iran. It starves its own people; it denies them basic human rights; it endangers their lives through its elaborate games of brinkmanship with the US and its powerful allies. Unlike some politically demented leftists, we say that nuclear weapons in its hands would be a defeat for the forces of democracy and radical social change, as well as a profoundly destabilising development in the region.

No, we oppose the warmongering – whether it takes the hard form of assassinations, threats of military action, or the ‘soft’ option of sanctions – because we do not have any illusions in the loathsome regimes in place in Washington, London or Tel Aviv either. The intervention of these powers and their allies has nothing whatsoever to do with the promotion of ‘democracy’ – indeed, the regimes the imperialists impose often have features that are significantly worse than the previous team of oppressors of the people. Hopi insists that democracy can only come in Iran from below – from the struggles of the workers’, women’s and students’ movements. It will never fall from the sky in the tip of a US or Israeli bunker-buster.

We look to those like the working class and anti-capitalist activists, left intellectuals and students who met in an anti-capitalist conference in Iran on November 4. Many of the contributions emphasised the need to strengthen the workers’ struggles, the underground left/workers’ groups and the fight for left unity – “It is a shame that hero worship of certain intellectuals acting as semi-gods has harmed unity amongst the forces of the Iranian left,” said veteran labour activist NA. Military action against Iran, whether overt or covert, whether air strikes or sanctions, only acts to disorganise and disorientate these forces for change. This is why the threatening military backdrop to the conference was discussed by participants and Clinton’s bellicose statements noted. This is why Hopi contributes to their struggle for freedom by fighting against any imperialist attack on their country.

The imperialists want change in Iran via a palace coup or politically neutered opposition movement. Hopi says genuine democratic change must come from below, through the initiative, elan and thirst for change of the masses themselves! l

No war, no sanctions on Iran!

For a nuclear-free Middle East as a step to a nuclear-free world!

Don’t attack Iran

By Hands Off the People of Iran

MANAMA // A vital US naval base in the Middle East is getting a multi-million-dollar upgrade, which will double the station’s size and enable the US to better withstand the growing number of threats in the region’s strategic waterways. Expansion work on the Naval Support Activity Bahrain base, which is home of the US Navy 5th Fleet Command, began yesterday with a ground-breaking ceremony, during which US officials emphasised the military, political and economic significance of the move towards ensuring regional peace and stability.

The US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, said: “The US Navy’s presence in the region for 60 years has allowed the countries of the Gulf the peace and stability they need to prosper. As threats grow, from wherever they may be, it is important that our presence remains constant. “What you see today is a commitment to staying in the region. Anybody who suggests that we are getting afraid or nervous or losing our resolve just has to take a look at what we are doing here today.”

The upgrade, which is expected to be completed in four phases over five years, will cost $580 million (Dh2.1 billion). The 5th Fleet area of operation encompasses about 6.5 million square km of water, spanning the coastlines of 27 countries, including the Gulf, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean. The area includes three strategically vital chokepoints – the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, which links the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, and the Bab al Mandeb Strait at the southern tip of Yemen.

It is the US military’s most engaged theatre of operation, with the US maritime coalition supporting missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as carrying out counter-terrorism and counter-piracy efforts. Iran’s repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, its continued maritime exercises in Gulf waters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s frequent testing of US warship reactions have also challenged the US in the area.

Tuesday’s warning by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah leader, that his group would target ships heading in the direction of Israel in any future Lebanon-Israel war if Lebanon’s water ways are besieged, may have added yet another threat to the list. Captain Enrique Sadsad, the 5th Fleet base commander, said in an interview: “Our naval forces and coalition partners are focused on executing our mission, keeping our forces and host nation secure, and are also actively engaged in partnerships and co-ordination with other Gulf allies to help ensure our mutual defence.

“The base continues to grow in terms of operational requirements to sustain ongoing operations around this region,” Captain Sadsad said. “This expansion project will not only enhance our ability to support our tenant commands and their mission – whether that be logistics, aviation, theatre security, or surface operational support – but also provide the necessary infrastructure to support our service members and their families, including our civilian and contract employees.”

Plans for expansion of the base had been in the pipeline since 2003 as operational requirements increased after the September 11 attacks, but it was not until January 2008 that a lease agreement for a part of Bahrain’s recently decommissioned Mina Salman was reached between Manama and Washington. The 28-hectare area will be used to relocate US and coalition port operations from their current 1-hectare facility in the same port.

The first phase of the upgrade is set to be completed in the autumn of 2012 and consists of constructing a perimeter fence, port operations centre, administrative buildings and waterfront development to support navy and coalition ships. Later stages of the project will include the construction of barracks, a dining facility, recreation centre and a bridge over the road separating the base from the port to link the two sides.

The construction is also expected to benefit the local economy. Mr Ereli said: “The expansion represents a huge investment in Bahrain and has great economic benefits. In addition to the lease contract we presently have about 300 ships visiting port each year and that number will likely increase by 30 per cent. “A large part of the $580 million set aside for the project will benefit Bahraini companies. Twenty per cent of the construction cost, around $100 million, will be paid to Bahraini construction companies. Another $150 million will be used to buy construction material from Bahrain. We will also have thousands of Bahraini workers and consultants employed during the five-year long construction phase.”

Mr Ereli said that such investments carried a political message of confidence in Bahrain and the role it plays. Hussain Jasim, a Bahraini MP with Al Wefaq Society, welcomed what he expects to be a boon to the country’s economy. Already, he said, the base contributes at least $150m to the Bahraini economy each year. “They have directly contributed to the construction boom in Juffair area – where the [current] base is located – and I personally call that area ‘little America’ because of the US-franchised restaurants and coffee shops that line its street,” he said.

“Every Bahraini dinar that is spent in the economy is worth four in circulation inside the economy so you imagine the impact [of the project],” he said. “Hotels, car rental services, restaurants all depend to a certain extent on the US presence.” The US Navy presence in Bahrain dates back to the Second World War but it was not until 1971 that the navy leased part of the former British base to set up what is the 5th Fleet Command today.

By Mazen Mahdi

27 May 2010

@ The National

MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

The size of the standby American combat force to be based in Kuwait remains the subject of negotiations, with an answer expected in coming days. Officers at the Central Command headquarters here declined to discuss specifics of the proposals, but it was clear that successful deployment plans from past decades could be incorporated into plans for a post-Iraq footprint in the region.

For example, in the time between the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States Army kept at least a combat battalion — and sometimes a full combat brigade —  in Kuwait year-round, along with an enormous arsenal ready to be unpacked should even more troops have been called to the region.

“Back to the future” is how Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, Central Command’s chief of staff, described planning for a new posture in the Gulf. He said the command was focusing on smaller but highly capable deployments and training partnerships with regional militaries. “We are kind of thinking of going back to the way it was before we had a big ‘boots on the ground’ presence,” General Horst said. “I think it is healthy. I think it is efficient. I think it is practical.”

Mr. Obama and his senior national security advisers have sought to reassure allies and answer critics, including many Republicans, that the United States will not abandon its commitments in the Persian Gulf even as it winds down the war in Iraq and looks ahead to doing the same in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

During town-hall-style meetings with military personnel in Asia last week, the secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, noted that the United States had 40,000 troops in the region, including 23,000 in Kuwait, though the bulk of those serve as logistical support for the forces in Iraq.

As they undertake this effort, the Pentagon and its Central Command, which oversees operations in the region, have begun a significant rearrangement of American forces, acutely aware of the political and budgetary constraints facing the United States, including at least $450 billion of cuts in military spending over the next decade as part of the agreement to reduce the budget deficit.

Officers at Central Command said that the post-Iraq era required them to seek more efficient ways to deploy forces and maximize cooperation with regional partners. One significant outcome of the coming cuts, officials said, could be a steep decrease in the number of intelligence analysts assigned to the region. At the same time, officers hope to expand security relationships in the region. General Horst said that training exercises were “a sign of commitment to presence, a sign of commitment of resources, and a sign of commitment in building partner capability and partner capacity.”

Col. John G. Worman, Central Command’s chief for exercises, noted a Persian Gulf milestone: For the first time, he said, the military of Iraq had been invited to participate in a regional exercise in Jordan next year, called Eager Lion 12, built around the threat of guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

Another part of the administration’s post-Iraq planning involves the Gulf Cooperation Council, dominated by Saudi Arabia. It has increasingly sought to exert its diplomatic and military influence in the region and beyond. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, for example, sent combat aircraft to the Mediterranean as part of the NATO-led intervention in Libya, while Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates each have forces in Afghanistan.

At the same time, however, the council sent a mostly Saudi ground force into Bahrain to support that government’s suppression of demonstrations this year, despite international criticism.

Despite such concerns, the administration has proposed establishing a stronger, multilateral security alliance with the six nations and the United States. Mr. Panetta and Mrs. Clinton outlined the proposal in an unusual joint meeting with the council on the sidelines of the United Nations in New York last month.

The proposal still requires the approval of the council, whose leaders will meet again in December in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and the kind of multilateral collaboration that the administration envisions must overcome rivalries among the six nations.

“It’s not going to be a NATO tomorrow,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic negotiations still under way, “but the idea is to move to a more integrated effort.”

Iran, as it has been for more than three decades, remains the most worrisome threat to many of those nations, as well as to Iraq itself, where it has re-established political, cultural and economic ties, even as it provided covert support for Shiite insurgents who have battled American forces.

“They’re worried that the American withdrawal will leave a vacuum, that their being close by will always make anyone think twice before taking any action,” Bahrain’s foreign minister, Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, said in an interview, referring to officials in the Persian Gulf region.

Sheik Khalid was in Washington last week for meetings with the administration and Congress. “There’s no doubt it will create a vacuum,” he said, “and it may invite regional powers to exert more overt action in Iraq.”

He added that the administration’s proposal to expand its security relationship with the Persian Gulf nations would not “replace what’s going on in Iraq” but was required in the wake of the withdrawal to demonstrate a unified defense in a dangerous region. “Now the game is different,” he said. “We’ll have to be partners in operations, in issues and in many ways that we should work together.”

At home, Iraq has long been a matter of intense dispute. Some foreign policy analysts and Democrats — and a few Republicans — say the United States has remained in Iraq for too long. Others, including many Republicans and military analysts, have criticized Mr. Obama’s announcement of a final withdrawal, expressing fear that Iraq remained too weak and unstable.

“The U.S. will have to come to terms with an Iraq that is unable to defend itself for at least a decade,” Adam Mausner and Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote after the withdrawal announcement.

Twelve Senators demanded hearings on the administration’s ending of negotiations with the Iraqis — for now at least — on the continuation of American training and on counterterrorism efforts in Iraq.

“As you know, the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime,” the senators wrote Wednesday in a letter to the chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee.

By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS

31 October 2011

@ The New York Times

Thom Shanker reported from MacDill Air Force Base, and Steven Lee Myers from Washington.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. government may soon announce plans for a large sale of precision-guided bombs to the United Arab Emirates, a source familiar with the arms sales plans said late on Thursday, as tensions mounted with Iran over its nuclear program.

The Pentagon is considering a significant sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions made by Boeing Co, adding to other recent arms deals with the UAE. These include the sale of 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles about which U.S. lawmakers were notified in September.

The sale of Boeing-built “bunker-buster” bombs and other munitions to UAE, a key Gulf ally, is part of an ongoing U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.

No comment was immediately available from the Pentagon’s press office or the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees foreign arms sales.

Boeing has sold thousands of JDAM bombs to the United States and its allies in recent months as they have replenished their arsenal of the popular precision-guided bombs.

Boeing spokesman Garrett Kasper said the company was unable to discuss the proposed contract since it would involve a foreign military sale, something that would be discussed at a government-to-government level.

The proposed sale, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, would expand the existing capabilities of UAE’s air force to target buildings such as the bunkers and tunnels where Iran is believed to be developing nuclear or other weapons. The newspaper said Washington was eyeing the sale of 4,900 of the so-called smart bombs.

Tension over Iran’s nuclear program has increased since Tuesday when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Tehran appeared to have worked on designing a bomb and may still be conducting secret research to that end.

Speculation has heightened in the Israeli media that Israel may strike Iran’s nuclear sites and there is speculation in the Western press about a possible U.S. attack.

But U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday warned that military action against Iran could have “unintended consequences” in the region. Tehran had warned earlier that an attack against its nuclear sites would be met by “iron fists.”

Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and that it is enriching uranium to run reactors for electricity generation.

The Obama administration is trying to build up the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait, as a unified counterweight to Iran.

Recent arms deals approved by the administration include a record $60 billion plan to sell Saudi Arabia advanced F-15 aircraft, some 2,000-pound (907-kg) JDAMs and other powerful munitions.

The U.S. government also approved the sale of a $7 billion terminal missile defense program to UAE that would be built by Lockheed Martin Corp.

Washington has also sought to build up missile-defense systems across the region, with the goal of building an integrated network to defend against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles from Iran.

The UAE has a fleet of advanced U.S.-made F-16 fighters, also built by Lockheed, that could carry the JDAMs.

Once the Pentagon formally notifies lawmakers about a proposed sale, they have 30 days to raise objections, although such action is rare since sales are carefully vetted with Congress before they are formally announced.

This sale will likely include other weapons systems, including military aircraft and other weapons, according to the source familiar with the plans.

11 November 2011

Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa;

Editing by Eric Walsh.

@ Reuters

The Chinese renminbi could pose a threat to the international dominance of the US dollar within a decade, according to an independent commission set up by the US Congress.

The annual report of the US-China Economic and Sec­urity Review Commission, published on Wednesday, said China’s efforts to spread international use of its currency were succeeding in broadening its reach.

“[It] no longer seems inconceivable that the RMB could mount a challenge to the dollar, perhaps within the next five to 10 years,” said the commission, chaired by William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a business group. “Chinese financial authorities are laying the groundwork for these ambitions via a series of bilateral arrangements with foreign companies and financial centres.”

The report also said China was continuing to intervene heavily in its domestic economy through a combination of subsidies and protections to state-owned enterprises, rules on forced transfer of technology from foreign investors and limiting government procurement to Chinese companies – the so-called indigenous innovation policy.

“Chinese officials including [President Hu Jintao] have pledged to modify China’s indigenous innovation policy in response to protests from US business leaders and top officials,” the report said. “These promises have not been implemented at the local and provincial levels, however.”

Over the past few years, Beijing has gradually relaxed controls on the use of the renminbi in international transactions, using Hong Kong as a test-bed for experimentation.

Considerable controls remain on cross-border capital flows, together with continued massive official intervention in foreign exchange markets to hold down the renminbi.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington-based think-tank whose estimates of currency undervaluation are frequently cited as authoritative on Capitol Hill, said this week that the renminbi remained undervalued against its trading partners by only 11 per cent, compared with 16 per cent in April, thanks to modest appreciation and higher inflation in China.

But the institute said the renminbi was still 24 per cent undervalued against the dollar based on estimates of fundamental equilibrium exchange rates – currency values that would return economies roughly to current account balance if they were producing around their normal capacity.

Senior US administration officials, in­cluding Ron Kirk, trade representative, and John Bryson, commerce secretary, travel to China this weekend for bilateral talks under the annual joint commission on commerce and trade. Beijing has promised to make a revised offer before the end of 2011 to join the government procurement agreement, a pact within the World Trade Organisation to open public contracts to international tender.

The currency issue has risen back up the US political agenda. In October, the Senate passed a bill that would allow the US to impose retaliatory tariffs on Chinese imports in accordance with estimates of currency misalignment. But the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives, which opposes the move, has so far resisted bringing a similar bill to a vote.

By Alan Beattie

16 November 2011

@ Financial Times

Despite vows to punish Iran for an alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador, U.S. officials have decided that such sanctions could disrupt oil markets and further damage the U.S. and world economies.

By Paul Richter

4 November 2011

@ Los Angeles Times