Archives: Articles

Is it a response to sanctions on Iran or just business?

Saudi Arabia has booked very large crude carriers, like this one, to carry more oil to the United States.

NEW YORK — Saudi Arabia is preparing to extend this year’s unexpected jump in oil sales to the United States, adding to speculation about the response of the world’s top oil exporter to sanctions against Iran and a rally in prices.

The kingdom’s shipments to the United States have quietly risen 25 per cent to the highest level since mid-2008, according to preliminary U.S. government data, a sizable leap that appears at least partly related to the imminent completion of a major expansion at its joint-venture Motiva refinery in Texas.

But some say the scale of the increase, plus other U.S. data showing Gulf Coast inventories are still subdued, suggest the potential for a political dimension as well, evoking comparisons to 2008 when the OPEC kingpin was driving up production to knock oil prices off record highs near $150 a barrel.

The surge appears set to continue. Vela, Saudi Arabia’s state oil tanker company, has booked at least nine very large crude carriers (VLCCs) capable of carrying 2 million barrels of crude each from the Middle East Gulf to the U.S. Gulf since the start of March, the biggest such wave of fixtures in years, analysts say.

The pivot to the U.S. market, which bore the brunt of Saudi output curbs after 2008, is a surprise for two reasons.

For one, many analysts had believed that the kingdom’s modest output increase in recent months was bound for fast-growing Asian markets, particularly given the pressure on refiners there to reduce their imports from Iran.

Plus, it comes after a year in which U.S. crude oil imports shrank to their lowest since 1999 thanks to a dramatic boom in shale oil production and tepid demand from consumers who are making every effort to cut back as gasoline prices rise.

The White House has been scrambling for options to bring down gasoline prices — at a seasonal record high — during an election year, after concerns over an Iranian supply disruption launched benchmark Brent crude to over $120 a barrel not seen since the record price run of 2008.

Washington has urged ally Saudi Arabia to cover potential shortages when new U.S. and European Union sanctions are expected to reduce Iranian oil exports from July. The Obama administration has considered releasing strategic oil inventories, potentially as part of a bilateral deal with Britain.

The kingdom has stepped up efforts this week to assure edgy markets that it will make up for any oil supply disruptions at a time when Iran’s standoff with the West has begun to intensify.

“Beyond the expansion at Motiva, there has been a major public shift by the Saudis since the Iran tensions started to raise the price of oil,” said Amy Jaffe, an energy policy expert at Rice University’s Baker Institute in Houston.

“Saudi Arabia and the United States are trying to show the Iranians they (the Iranians) will have little flexibility, and they shouldn’t count on the world needing all the oil that Iran produces.”

Saudi output in February was up 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) from October at its highest since August. PRODN-SA

The build appears related, at least in part, to a massive expansion project at Saudi Arabia’s 285,000-bpd Motiva Port Arthur, Texas joint-venture refinery with Shell Oil, the U.S. unit of Royal Dutch Shell.

All expansion units are expected to be in production by the end of the second quarter of this year, with the expanded refinery reaching, by the end of the year, a maximum capacity of 660,000 bpd. Motiva Enterprises began circulating feedstocks through some of the expansion units in January

Motiva declined to comment. The expansion project, budgeted at $5 billion, began in 2007, and when complete will make the refinery the largest in the United States.

“I suspect there is some seasonality to it, U.S. refiners build inventories in the first quarter and U.S. refiners start up Gulf Coast plants out of maintenance,” said Jan Stuart, head of energy research at Credit Suisse in New York City.

“In addition, this year you have the Motiva expansion, which will buy a lot of crude,” he said, adding the building up of 20 days worth of inventory could account for part of the increased Saudi shipments.

That would be equivalent to building up inventories of 7.5 million barrels, by a Reuters calculation, implying a need to build 100,000 bpd of stock over the first 10 weeks of the year.

Still, crude inventories in the Gulf Coast region have not grown as much as they traditionally do during the first quarter when refiners build up stocks.

Gulf Coast stocks have risen by only 10.3 million barrels — or roughly 140,000 bpd — over the 10 week period, compared with 14.2 million barrels on average for the past five years, according to EIA data. The weekly data are preliminary, and more comprehensive monthly data for January is not yet available.

While the rise in Saudi output has been well charted, the fact that the lion’s share of it appears destined for U.S. refiners will come as a surprise to many. Overall U.S. demand for foreign crude has ebbed this year as a boom in domestic and Canadian production reduces the need for imports.

The reversal of the key Seaway pipeline — which will begin running from Oklahoma to Texas by July — was expected further to temper demand for imports by helping bring more cheap crude from the Midwest to the U.S. Gulf Coast refining hub.

“We were all expecting to see U.S. imports fall for Vela, so it’s a jump at a time when we are preparing for a reversal given the Seaway pipeline,” one shipping source said. “It raises the question why would they need more imports?”

Omar Nokta, managing director with investment bank Dahlman Rose & Co, said in a note on Friday that it was the first time in “several years” for Vela to book so many tankers in such a short time.

Provisional weekly data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that the rise in supplies began several months ago, and outpaced gains to other consumers such as China.

U.S. imports of Saudi oil hit 1.5 million bpd in the first 10 weeks of 2012, up 300,000 bpd from the fourth quarter of 2011 and marking the largest rise in shipments since the second quarter of 2003. Saudi shipments to China in January rose only 14 per cent from the year before.

Total U.S. crude imports are up only 165,000 bpd in the first 10 weeks of the year versus the fourth quarter. The EIA was not immediately able to respond to requests for an explanation of the data.

The shift also could simply be the result of restoring supplies to U.S. customers whose shipments had been cut much more deeply after prices crashed four years ago.

“Up to 2008, there was definitely a much larger rise in shipments to Asia, that’s where the demand was growing. The cuts that followed that were not proportionate,” said a senior executive at a major Saudi oil customer.

“Now there’s a degree of rebalancing.” The rise in bookings to the U.S. Gulf has also tightened tanker availabilities, helping push the average earnings for VLCCs on the benchmark Middle Gulf to Japan route — the major market barometer — to their highest level in over a year to $33,205 a day, Baltic Exchange data showed.

Data shows that the Saudi crude has been priced advantageously for U.S. buyers. Official selling prices (OSPs) for U.S. buyers, which are set by the state oil firm Saudi Aramco, have fallen to a deep discount versus Asian and European refiners, according to Reuters data.

The bargain rates may have encouraged a bit more crude to move West, although industry sources say the kingdom’s largest customers with global refining systems have less flexibility to shift supplies between different regions than they have in the past.

Edward Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup, said that while the higher U.S. volumes could be due to Motiva, it may come as part of efforts to build up global inventories.

“I think that if you look over a longer term, the Saudis are increasing their exports to the whole world right now and not just the U.S.,” Morse said.

“The Saudis are getting oil onto the market to encourage inventory building, and to show their customers they can deliver whatever is needed.”

By MATTHEW ROBINSON AND JONATHAN SAU,

18 March 2012

@ The Vancouver Sun

A Hero Respected By Both Muslims & Christians

Both Christians and Muslims admire Saladin.

Saladin’s traits and virtues were purely a reflection of the teachings of his faith.

He defeated the Crusaders, known to Muslims as the Franks, and recaptured Jerusalem in 1187.

The experience of the Crusaders with the Muslims demonstrates that Muslims and Christians are in no civilization clash, but rather in civilization bondage.

In 1099 Jerusalem  fell to the First Crusaders.  They slaughtered its Christian, Muslim and Jewish inhabitants, after promising them safety.  In 1187  Saladin destroyed King Guy’s army at the Horns of Hettin and  recovered Jerusalem. In stark contrast to the Crusades 88 years earlier, Saladin, adhering to the teachings of Islam, did not slaughter the city’s Christian inhabitants. Saladin’s noble act won him the respect of his opponents throughout the world including Richard the Lion heart. Saladin’s generosity and sense of honor in negotiating the peace treaty that ended the Crusade won him the lasting admiration and gratitude of the Christian world.

Saladin’s Birth and Lineage

Saladin was born in Tikrite (a city on the Tigris River), Iraq in 1137, of Kurdish ancestry. The Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad, al Mustarshid, had appointed his father Ayyub, skilled in administration and diplomacy, as the governor of the town.

Childhood and Education

Saladin received his early childhood education in Baalbek and Damascus, Syria. In 1143, when Saladin was six years old, Sultan Zengi of Musel appointed his father Ayyub as the governor of Baalbek. When Zengi died in 1146, his son Nur al Din succeeded him. Nur al-Din was a respected devout leader. After few years, Nur al Din appointed Ayyub as the Head of Damascus Militia. Saladin grew up where political decisions regarding the Crusades were made. His cultural and religious education was typical of the environments surrounding Baalbek and Damascus. Like his peers, Saladin learned Arabic, poetry, the formal prayers and memorization of the Quran and the Hadith.

Saladin in Early Adulthood

In the Middle Ages the youth were given responsibilities of manhood early.  He was sent to his uncle Shirkuh in Aleppo on a career that would lead him to become one of Nur al Din’s emirs. The devout Nur al-Din soon became a mentor for the young Saladin.  He built and funded schools and hospitals. He promoted the divine values of Islam and governed in the light of the Quran.

Nur al-Din set up the Court of Appeals. Saladin regularly attended the Court of Appeals as a student.  Saladin learned to appreciate the wisdom and justice of the Islamic law. Nur al Din was the first Muslim ruler who saw the need for Muslim states to be united.  Saladin respected him tremendously and followed Nur al-Din’s example in uniting the ummah.

Saladin in His Adulthood

Saladin, who learned his military lessons in Nur al-Din’s militia at the hands of his uncle Shirkuh, soon began to stand out among Nur al-Din’s leaders. In 1164, at the age of 26 he was an assistant to his uncle Shirkuh in an expedition to rescue Egypt from an invasion by Amalric, king of Jerusalem. Saladin made a lasting impression on his peers during this expedition.

Saladin used diplomacy and the administrative skills in piecing together this badly divided region. Saladin’s scope of vision was that he gave each situation its due attention and weight, and he never broke a bridge of diplomacy or peace initiative with his opponents. The power or wealth he acquired never spoiled him. Power and position did not mean anything to him. Despite his advisor’s request to keep some of the revenues he received from Egypt and Syria, he never kept any of it. When he died, his wealth was only few dinars.

The Decisive Battle of Hettin

In return for an attack made by the Crusaders of the Kerak on Muslim pilgrims in 1187, Saladin moved his army to northern Palestine and defeated the much larger Crusader army in the decisive battle of Hettin (July 4, 1187). Three months after this battle, Saladin captured Jerusalem., Saladin did not loot, murder or seek revenge for the Muslims. He spared the lives of 100,000 Christians and allowed Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem after it’s fall. In this benevolent act, Saladin was simply emulating Prophet Muhammad when  the Prophet re-entered his birth-city of Makkah, with ten thousand people. There was no bloodshed.

Recapturing Jerusalem shocked the West, and as such it brought about the Third Crusade led by Richard the Lion heart, King of England in 1189. Saladin’s army checked the massive Frankish armies and weakened them in a war of attrition on the land of Palestine. It was during this period Richard negotiated peace with Saladin.   Third Crusade army was exhausted. It was Saladin’s generosity  in  this treaty, which ended the Crusades and established his legendery status.. .

Magnanimity and Benevolence at Work

Some of the stories  that  help the reader to understand why Saladin became a legendary figure in the Western world follow:

a- Preventing a Bloodbath

After capturing Jerusalem in October 1187, Saladin’s act in signing the peace treaty and saving Christian blood was indeed a pious act. He not only spared the lives of 100,000 Christians, but also guaranteed their safe departure along with their property and belongings. They were given forty days to prepare for departure. In this way eighty four thousand of them left the city in perfect safety. What is important to understand is that Saladin was in a  position to seek revenge for his people. However he did not , because his faith taught him  to be merciful and forgiving.

b- Foregoing ransom

Part of the condition of the surrender of Jerusalem, was that each Christian pays her or his ransom. Thousands of Christians, mainly women, were not able to pay their ransom.Al-Adel, Saladin’s brother, Geukburi, Saladin’s brother-in law and Saladin  instead paid their ransom out of their own pockets.

This act was done in spite of the fact that there were some rich Christians such as the Patriarch, Heraclius and Madame la Patriarchesse of Jerusalem.   Saladin was advised to confiscate  that  wealth to use it as ransom for the poor Christians.  He refused to go back on his word.  He allowed the wealthy Christians to depart with all their wealth intact.

c- Excellence Beyond Justice

During the forty days respite that was given to the Westerners to leave Jerusalem, several Christian women approached Saladin asking for  their missing men. They had no one to look after them.  Saladin ordered his soldiers to find their missing guardians, and/or given compensation if they were killed.

This  act is  one of the many.  Having a Muslim paying a ransom to a family of a soldier killed fighting other Muslims is excellence beyond justice

d- “Victory Is Changing the Hearts of Your Opponents by Gentleness and Kindness.”- Saladin

In September 1192, during the siege of Acre,when Richard fell sick, Saladin sent him his own physician to treat him. Along with this health care, he frequently sent him ice to cool down his fever and plum fruits that were necessary for his recovery.

e-  Pure Chivalry

During an offense made by Richard against a Muslim squadron  Richard’s horse was killed and he was down on the ground.  Saladin sent him two mounts so that he would not be at a disadvantage.

f- Returning a child

During the siege of Acre, a Christian woman came to Saladin’s camp weeping and wailing insisting that her child was snatched away by his soldiers. He himself returned the child to his mother and had them mount on the back of a mare to be returned safely to their camp.

g- Libert of faith

During the siege of Acre several soldiers were captured. Among them was an old man who was so old that he was toothless and could hardly walk. Saladin asked him  why he was there. The old man said that he wanted  to make a pilgrimage to the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. Saladin provided a horse for him and had him escorted to Jerusalem to fulfill his  dream.

By Faysal Burhan

Onislam,19 September 2011

Conclusion

Saladin was an honorable leader. His character and charitable deeds demonstrates that Muslims were no “infidels”. The Crusaders discovered that Muslims  had  values they consider Christian.  Saladan’s chivalry became the source of many plays and used in literature.   .

Source: This is a summary of an article titled (Saladin: a Benevolent Man, Respected by both Muslims and Christians), from The Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies web site – http://www.islamic-study.org/

Pax Christi International clearly and unequivocally rejects the possibility of military action against Iran as immoral, highly dangerous and counter-productive. Rather, we support continued diplomatic efforts based on mutual respect and dignity. We encourage discussions to bring all states into compliance with their Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations and we support including the Additional Protocol as the non-proliferation verification standard. All countries have a responsibility to encourage definitive movement toward a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East, as well as a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

Catholic social teaching clearly rejects preventive war. Military action against Iran to preclude further development of its nuclear program would fail the very restrictive conditions set by Catholic moral theology for the use of military force for at least three reasons:

 military action would clearly not be a last resort, as negotiations continue with ample room for success;

 the probability of successful military action is not high in a region that is as volatile as the Middle East; and

 imposing sanctions and threatening military action is a disproportional response to a situation wherein neither US nor Israeli intelligence has produced evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program and enrichment for peaceful purposes is legal under the NPT.

Pax Christi International insists that the military option be taken off the table and strongly supports continued diplomacy. The goal of negotiations, however, should not be an end to Iran’s enrichment program, which is legal within the NPT. Rather, the goal should be strict adherence to the NPT on all sides and Iran’s ratification and implementation of the Additional Protocol to the NPT. This would allow for more intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and verification that there is no diversion of enriched fuel to nuclear weapons.

The extraordinary sanctions imposed on Iran are likely to be devastating in the lives of ordinary people. For that reason, they should be lifted as promptly as possible – in exchange, for example, for greater transparency. The ratification and full implementation of the Additional Protocol should result in a complete lifting of all nuclear program related sanctions on Iran.

NPT obligations regarding nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapons states parties must also be fulfilled in return for compliance with non-proliferation obligations. Every effort must be made to bring Israel, India and Pakistan into the NPT or into other discussions about nuclear disarmament, including negotiating a nuclear weapons convention. Pax Christi International strongly supports creation of a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free

Zone in the Middle East, which will be advanced at a conference in Finland toward the end of 2012, and prompt negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

A decree by Iran’s religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, makes clear his condemnation of nuclear weapons: “the production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin.” Our own Catholic tradition and most other major religious traditions have been similarly emphatic.

Pax Christi International urges religious leaders, including Catholic religious leaders around the world, to reject resoundingly the possibility of military action in response to Iran’s nuclear program and to make clear our collective, urgent responsibility to rid the world of nuclear weapons, which are at the root of the current crisis. Pax Christi International likewise urges people of faith and conscience to withdraw personal and financial support from these weapons and to encourage the immediate negotiation of a binding international treaty that would definitively abolish them from the face of the earth.

By Pax Christi International

22 March 2012

@www.paxchristi.net

2012-0106-en-gl-SD

Delhi, Patna, Chennai & Bangalore: Electorate in Uttar Pradesh have rejected the proposal of the Indian National Congress to allow themselves to be identified with their biometric data like iris scan and thumb impressions. Rahul Gandhi campaigned in UP using the Aadhaar as an election agenda. Now that he has taken responsibility of his party’s defeat, he should call for stopping Aadhaar project because the verdict is against it.

Supporting Home Ministry and Planning Commission’s scheme of uniqueidentity, the party had showcased aadhaar and related National Population Register (NPR) for Multipurpose Identity Card (MNIC), voters in general and poor have given their verdict against it. The party had claimed that the Aadhaar/NPR card will also address the discrepancies in controversial Below Poverty Line (BPL) list by hiding violation of the provisions of Census Act with ulterior motives. It was used like a fish bait to entrap citizens against democratic and legislative mandate. The message for P Chidambaram, Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Nandan Nilekani is that UP electorate who were promised Aadhaar/NPR/MNIC has rejected it. This project is applicable to vehicles and animals too through Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in later phases.

In our country, a surveillance regime has been proposed by Indian National Congress led United Progressive Alliance for the people but not for biometric and other intrusive technologies. Besides India’s Parliamentary Standing on Finance, countries like UK, Australia, Philippines and China have rejected aadhaar/NPR/MNIC like projects respecting people’s mandate.

It has reliably been learnt that officials from Infosys company have been giving leadership training to leaders of Indian National

Congress. This may have impacted decision making with regard to aadhaar/NPR/MNIC but it has clearly not worked in UP elections.

Recent reports of efforts to put Union Finance Minister and Defence Minister under surveillance reveal that there is paucity of capacity to monitor or regulate these technologies. If this is the plight of the ministers and technologically challenged political class, the threat for citizens can easily be understood.

Post UP elections, government must review its capacity to regulate an emerging technology regime that is undermining democracy and sovereignty and should not be misled by unelected cabinet ranked officials who say, “Technology has no history and no bias, it treats everyone the same way.”History of technologies reveals that it is their owners who are true beneficiaries especially when it is used for social control. There is a compelling need to urgently assess the claims and risks of biometric and surveillance technology and how some companies made UID/NPR/MNIC politically persuasive for the ruling party and intertwined the systems of technology with crying need for governance.

UP verdict is also a mandate against diluting federal structure of the country, FDI in the retail sector, free trade agreements (FTAs) that were aimed at turning India into a market democracy where executive and legislative decisions are driven by profit mongers not by public interest.

By Gopal Krishna , Vinay Baindur & Anivar Aravind

7 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), New Delhi,

E-mail-krishna1715@gmail.com

Vinay Baindur, Bangalore, Email:yanivbin@gmail.com

Anivar Aravind, Chennai, E-mail-anivar.aravind@gmail.com

Viewing the Russian election as a classical standoff between repression and liberty distorts more than it clarifies.

Berkeley, CA – If the tropes peddled by the Western media are to be believed, the Kremlin is faced with unprecedented challenges, from plummeting popularity to grassroots middle-class revolt. A “Russian Spring” is in the air, with Putin on the verge of being swept away by the same upswell of Twittering youth that unseated his Arab counterparts Ben Ali and Mubarak (provided, of course, that he doesn’t imitate Assad by shelling his own people).

Maybe it’s a new perestroika. Or perhaps the right comparison is to the US civil rights movement, with the Russian middle class providing the moral clarity and drive that will inexorably undermine and topple Putinism.

Overwhelmingly, commentary on the forthcoming presidential elections is filtered through the above narrative prisms. This is unsurprising, because a classical standoff between Repression and Liberty is both easily comprehensible, and ties in neatly with today’s – if, perhaps, not tomorrow’s – fashionable “springtime of peoples” narrative used to explain the Arab revolts. But forcing Russian politics onto this Procrustean bed distorts far more than it elucidates, because at its heart it is based on flawed – in many cases, I daresay mythical – foundations.

Teflon Putin and his silent majority

The first inconvenient truth, rarely mentioned, is that Putin is simply popular. Even most of his critics do not dispute that if free and fair elections were to be held tomorrow, he would win by a landslide. All the opinion pollsters give him a first-round win: state-owned VCIOM and FOM, and independent Levada, all predict a first-round victory with about 58 per cent to 60 per cent of the vote. He has a threefold lead over the Communists’ candidate Zyuganov, the perennial second-place man of Russian politics.

Nor are Putin’s ratings in freefall. They did slump to a “local minimum” in mid-December 2011, to use a mathematical term, but have since recovered, despite – or because of? – the protests.

Putin’s consistently high popularity may be unexpected, and attributed to nefarious factors like his control over the media – in reality, far more fictitious than real, as anyone who reads Russian newspapers or browses online will quickly find – but it shouldn’t be. Whether Putin, oil prices, natural recovery from the Soviet collapse, or some combination of all these factors is responsible, Russians undeniably live far better today than a decade ago: GDP (in purchasing power parity terms) has doubled, salaries have risen nearly tenfold (in US dollar terms) to $800 per month, and even many blue-collar workers can now afford the occasional holiday to Turkey or Thailand. Rightly or wrongly, Putin is associated with these improvements, and the stability that enabled it.

This largely rules out any useful comparison with countries such as Tunisia or Egypt, which were growing much more slowly in per capita terms, and from far lower starting bases. Furthermore, they are major grain importers, while Russia is a net exporter, so they are adversely affected by food price shocks to a much greater extent than Russia. (On a slight tangent, I suspect that Chinese adopting meatier diets played a greater role in the “Arab Spring” than any other factor). Needless to say, the late USSR isn’t a good comparison either, the word zastoi (“stagnation”) being practically synonymous with it.

Whereas pro-United Russia fraud in 2011 – probably on the scale of 5 percent to 7 percent – was what unleashed the protest genie in the first place, it did enable it to retain a slight Duma majority. In that case, there was at least a perverse logic to the falsifications. But since Putin is virtually assured of a first-round win, it becomes clear that the last person to benefit from falsifications would be Putin himself, because it would be a threat to his legitimacy. In contrast, truly clean and honest elections would at a single stroke remove the single issue keeping the disparate protest movement together.

It is not surprising, therefore, that these elections will be under heavy scrutiny – not only by official monitors, but also through a nationwide system of 200,000 web cameras, installed on Putin’s initiative in the past three months (you will be able to access video feeds from the polling station of your choice at http://webvybory2012.ru/). The new measures will hopefully eliminate the most common type of fraud: massively inflated turnouts that exclusively benefit the pro-Kremlin party or candidate.

That said, I think it is too much to hope for that a deep problem like election fraud, prevalent since at least 1996 – and with its own set of perverse incentives, as United Russia functionaries are rewarded for good electoral results, be they obtained by fair means or foul – will be completely solved in one election cycle. But I think its magnitude can be reasonably expected to decline.

Partisans and their crowd wars

Dismissing the conspiracy theories that all Russia’s opinion pollsters are controlled by the Kremlin, let us move on to a more sophisticated argument: Whereas Putin may have a stranglehold on the “silent majority”, it is apathetic, unprogressive, and hence fragile and historically doomed.

“You had bribes, blackmail, and buses,” the liberal critic says. “Yet even so, a mere 20,000 people went to your Anti-Orange Meeting, most of them state workers cajoled into coming by their bosses. Our Meetings For Fair Elections attract 100,000 to 200,000 people, including the best of Russia’s ‘creative class’. We grow stronger with every passing month. Come spring – Putler kaput!”

Many Russian liberals would agree with the above argument, invocation of Godwin’s Law included. It is also by and large the narrative that the Western media has adopted, if – at least in formal publications – with less invective. But that argument suffers from several basic flaws.

Whereas the opposition’s 100,000+ attendance figures are mostly taken at face value, the same favour is rarely extended to pro-Kremlin ones, on the few occasions they are mentioned at all. For instance, the Anti-Orange Meeting on February 4 at Poklonnaya had a densely packed crowd about 200-300 meters wide, and stretching more than half a kilometer into the distance; according to calculations by the geodesic engineer Nikolai Pomeshchenko, there were around 80,000 people there. But the most quoted figure in the Western press was 20,000, which Patrick Armstrong tracked down to a single AP article which was shamelessly copied by outlets as diverse as The Guardian, FOX, and Salon. Does this photo look like 20,000 to you? Who are you going to believe, AP or your lying eyes? (But I guess that’s still marginally better than Le Parisien, which tried to pass off Poklonnaya as an anti-Putin rally).

In contrast, there is a distinct lack of any critical questioning of figures issued by the opposition. Again, let’s ask Pomeshchenko: Using spatio-mathematical methods, he estimated opposition protests of 60,000 on December 10 (at Bolotnaya), 56,000+ on December 24 (at Prospekt Sakharova), and 62,000 on February 4 (again, at Bolotnaya). They are intuitively reliable, being halfway between the estimates of the police and the opposition, both of which have a dog in the fight.

But what would be truly discouraging to an oppositionist looking at these figures is that they aren’t increasing over time. The stability of these figures is furthermore supported by opinion polls; more than half the people at the latest rally also said they participated in the previous two, which strongly implies that it is largely the same “hard core” that goes to each opposition meeting.

One can quibble with the precise attendance figures – there are huge margins of error – but it is clear that momentum is failing to build. At Prospekt Sakharova, opposition star Navalny promised a million protesters at the next rally; in the event, he overshot by more than 900,000. With none of these meetings drawing more than 1 per cent of Moscow’s population, an “Arab Spring”-type revolution would appear to be a distant prospect.

The last objection is that people are unwillingly bussed into pro-Putin protests. There are probably a few genuine cases, but again, it’s better to go by concrete numbers. How many buses were there in the photos from Poklonnaya? Forty. Let’s arbitrarily double it to eighty. Let’s assume all the passengers on them were coerced into going, i.e. that by definition, one simply cannot willingly step into a bus, and let’s also assume that they were all at their maximum capacity of 50 people. So even under patently unrealistic conditions, that’s 4,000 people, or no more than 5 per cent of the protesters at Poklonnaya.

This view of the rallies as evenly matched, with the pro-Putin ones perhaps enjoying a slight numerical edge, are backed by polling evidence. According to VCIOM, Putin has less electoral support in Moscow, at 44 per cent, than in the rest of Russia, at 59 per cent; in contrast, Prokhorov – whose electorate largely consists of aggrieved liberals who sympathise with the anti-Putin protests – has 17 per cent of Muscovites on his side, compared to 9 per cent of Russians. Add in a sprinkling of social democrats, Communists, and nationalists from the camps of the three other candidates, and it turns out that the pro-Putin and anti-Putin are, give or take, about evenly matched in Moscow (if not in the rest of Russia, where opposition protests have largely flopped). By Occam’s Razor, their respective rallies should also then be about evenly matched.

The lesson is, beware of the tricks partisans on all sides – liberals, pro-Kremlin, Western journalists – use to fight their “crowd wars”.

A disunited Russia (and why that isn’t a bad thing)

While thus far I have treated the opposition as monolithic, the reality is that – demands for fair elections excepted – it is not. They are composed of several distinct ideological currents: The Communists, who will support Zyuganov in these elections; the nationalists, who will support Zhirinovsky; the pro-Western liberals, who will support Prokhorov; and the social democrats, who will support Mironov.

The largest of these opposition blocs by far, with the support of about 20 per cent of Russia’s electorate, are the Communists. While the Western media tends to treat them as the only “real” opposition (whatever that is supposed to mean), the liberal bloc nationwide has no more than 10 percent at most, and is matched by anti-Putin social democrats and exceeded by the nationalists. The only part of the country where the liberals match the Communists in numbers is Moscow.

This is likely due to Moscow being the traditional seat of Russia’s liberal intelligentsia, like the writer Boris Akunin and journalist Leonid Parfyonov. This intelligentsia has traditionally opposed power, be it Tsarist, Soviet, or Putinist; it is in its blood. That said, it should not be confused with the “creative classes”, who are more anti-Putin than the average Russian but are very far from exclusively so. For instance, the writer Sergey Lukyanenko, whom you may know from the movie adaptation of his “Night Watch” series – a work that is notable for its moral ambiguity – wrote about how ironically, it was the liberals themselves and what he perceived as their anti-democratic rhetoric that moved him to support Putin in these elections.

This is not a lone phenomenon. To the contrary, there are active arguments between liberal and pro-Putin intellectuals via LJ blogs, Twitter, and the wider Runet that have received a big stimulus from the recent charging of the political atmosphere. To the extent that culture wars like this – fought through words and cyberspace, not prisons and repressions – are integral parts of liberal democracies, Russia isn’t doing too bad on this score.

Apart from this intensified discussion, another good point about the outburst of protest activity is that it has forced Putin to up his game. He wrote seven very detailed articles on his proposed policies, as opposed to just one in 2000; unlike in previous elections, this time he campaigned actively, and addressed a crowd of 75,000 supporters in Luzhniki Stadium. There is pending legislation to substantially liberalise the political space, such as reducing the entry barrier into the Duma from 7 per cent to 5 per cent, restoring direct elections of governors,  and reducing the amount of signatures needed for party registration.

These, however, probably shouldn’t be interpreted as concessions to the liberal opposition, but as a restoration that would have happened in any case. That is because the original rollbacks were responses to the general crisis of the Russian state by the late 1990s which have now largely receded. Furthermore, at the time these rollbacks had broad support; ironically, what the liberals of today now decry, and blame Putin for, many of them once supported. Case in point: there is a video of Boris Nemtsov, a prominent opposition activist today, essentially arguing that Russia needs a Tsar while serving under Yeltsin in 1997. And there is another video in which Putin argues the precise opposite way back in 1996, while serving under the liberal St Petersburg mayor Anatoly Sobchak.

So who is the liberal here? Neither and both. Politics is a dynamic process, and it is very rare that you get clear demarcations between black and white. Certainly not in Russia, at any rate. This I consider one of the most important points to bear in mind when reading Russia’s forthcoming elections.

By Anatoly Karlin

4 March 2012

@ Al Jazzera

Anatoly Karlin is finishing a degree in Political Economy at University of California-Berkeley. He runs the blog Sublime Oblivion about Russia, geopolitics, and peak oil.

Source: Al Jazeera

“Perception is 100 percent of politics,” the old adage goes. Say something three, five, seven times, and you start to believe it in the same way you “know” aspirin is good for the

heart.Sometimes though, perception is a dangerous thing. In the dirty game of politics, it is the perception – not the facts of an issue – that invariably wins the day.

In the case of the raging conflict over Syria, the one fundamental issue that motors the entire international debate on the crisis is the death toll and its corollary: the Syrian casualty list.

The “list” has become widely recognized – if not specifically, then certainly when the numbers are bandied about: 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 – sometimes more. These are not mere numbers; they represent dead Syrians.

But this is where the dangers of perception begin. There are many competing Syrian casualty lists with different counts – how does one, for instance gauge if X is an accurate number of deaths? How have the deaths been verified? Who verifies them and do they have a vested interest? Are the dead all civilians? Are they pro-regime or anti-regime civilians? Do these lists include the approximately 2,000 dead Syrian security forces? Do they include members of armed groups? How does the list-aggregator tell the difference between a civilian and a plain-clothes militia member?

Even the logistics baffle. How do they make accurate counts across Syria every single day? A member of the Lebanese fact-finding team investigating the 15 May 2011 shooting deaths of Palestinian protesters by Israelis at the Lebanese border told me that it took them three weeks to discover there were only six fatalities, and not the 11 counted on the day of the incident. And in that case, the entire confrontation lasted a mere few hours.

How then does one count 20, 40, or 200 casualties in a few hours while conflict continues to rage around them?

My first port of call in trying to answer these questions about the casualty list was the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which seemed likely to be the most reliable source of information on the Syrian death toll – until it stopped keeping track last month.

The UN began its effort to provide a Syrian casualty count in September 2011, based primarily on lists provided by five different sources. Three of their sources were named: The Violations Documenting Center (VDC), the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) and the Syrian Shuhada website. At that time, the lists varied in number from around 2,400 to 3,800 victims.

The non-UN casualty list most frequently quoted in the general media is the one from the Syrian Observatory – or SOHR.

Last month, SOHR made some headlines of its own when news of a rift over political viewpoints and body counts erupted. Two competing SOHRs claimed authenticity, but the group headed by Rami Abdul Rahman is the one recognized by Amnesty International.

OHCHR spokesman Rupert Colville stated during a phone interview that the UN evaluates its sources to check “whether they are reliable,” but appeared to create distance from SOHR later – during the group’s public spat – by saying: “The (UN) colleague most involved with the lists…had no direct contact with the Syrian Observatory, though we did look at their numbers. This was not a group we had any prior knowledge of, and it was not based in the region, so we were somewhat wary of it.”

Colville explains that the UN sought at all times “to make cautious estimates” and that “we have reasonable confidence that the rounded figures are not far off.”

While “also getting evidence from victims and defectors – some who corroborated specific names,” the UN, says Colville, “is not in a position to cross-check names and will never be in a position to do that.”

I spoke to him again after the UN decided to halt its casualty count in late January. “It was never easy to verify, but it was a little bit clearer before. The composition of the conflict has changed. It’s become much more complex, fragmented,” Colville says. “While we have no doubt there are civilian and military casualties…we can’t really quantify it.”

“The lists are clear – the question is whether we can fully endorse their accuracy,” he explains, citing the “higher numbers” as an obstacle to verification.

The Casualty Lists Up Close: Some Stories Behind the Numbers

Because the UN has stopped its casualty count, reporters have started reverting back to their original Syrian death toll sources. The SOHR is still the most prominent among them.

Abdul Rahman’s SOHR does not make its list available to the general public, but in early February I found a link to a list on the other SOHR website and decided to take a look. The database lists the victim’s name, age, gender, city, province, and date of death – when available. In December 2011, for instance, the list names around 77 registered casualties with no identifying information provided. In total, there are around 260 unknowns on the list.

Around that time, I had come across my first list of Syrians killed in the crisis, reportedly compiled in coordination with the SOHR, that contained the names of Palestinian refugees killed by Israeli fire on the Golan Heights on 15 May 2011 and 5 June 2011 when protesters congregated on Syria’s armistice line with Israel. So my first check was to see if that kind of glaring error appears in the SOHR list I investigate in this piece.

To my amazement, the entire list of victims from those two days were included in the SOHR casualty count – four from May 15 (#5160 to #5163) and 25 victims of Israeli fire from June 5 (#4629 to #4653). The list even identifies the deaths as taking place in Quneitra, which is in the Golan Heights.

It also didn’t take long to find the names of well-publicized pro-regime Syrians on the SOHR list and match them with YouTube footage of their funerals. The reason behind searching for funeral links is that pro-regime and anti-regime funerals differ quite starkly in the slogans they chant and the posters/signs/flags on display. Below, is a list of eight of these individuals, including their number, name, date and place of death on the casualty list – followed by our video link and further details if available:

#5939, Mohammad Abdo Khadour, 4/19/11, Hama, off-duty Colonel in Syrian army, shot in his car and died from multiple bullet wounds. Funeral link.

#5941, Iyad Harfoush, 4-18-11, Homs, off-duty Commander in Syrian army. In a video, his wife says someone started shooting in the mostly pro-regime al Zahra neighborhood of Homs – Harfoush went out to investigate the incident and was killed. Funeral link.

#5969, Abdo al Tallawi, 4/17/11, Homs, General in Syrian army killed alongside his two sons and a nephew. Funeral footage shows all four victims. The others are also on the list at #5948, Ahmad al Tallawi, #5958, Khader al Tallawi and #5972, Ali al Tallawi, all in Homs, Funeral link.

#6021, Nidal Janoud, 11/4/11, Tartous, an Alawite who was severely slashed by his assailants. The bearded gentleman to the right of the photo, and a second suspect, are now standing trial for the murder. Photo link.

#6022, Yasar Qash’ur, 11/4/11, Tartous, Lieutenant Colonel in the Syrian army, killed alongside 8 others in an ambush on a bus in Banyas, Funeral link.

#6129, Hassan al-Ma’ala, 4/5/11, policeman, suburbs of Damascus, Funeral link.

#6130, Hamid al Khateeb, 4/5/11, policeman, suburbs of Damascus, Funeral link.

#6044, Waeb Issa, 10/4/11, Tartous, Colonel in Syrian army, Funeral link.

Besides featuring on the SOHR list, Lt. Col. Yasar Qashur, Iyad Harfoush, Mohammad Abdo Khadour and General Abdo al Tallawi and his two sons and nephew also appear on two of the other casualty lists – the VDC and Syrian Shuhada – both used by the United Nations to compile their numbers.

Nir Rosen, an American journalist who spent several months insides Syria’s hot spots in 2011, with notable access to armed opposition groups, reported in a recent Al Jazeera interview:

“Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes. Of course, those deaths still happen regularly as well.”

“And, every day, members of the Syrian army, security agencies and the vague paramilitary and militia phenomenon known as shabiha [“thugs”] are also killed by anti-regime fighters,” Rosen continues.

The report issued in January by Arab League Monitors after their month-long observer mission in Syria – widely ignored by the international media – also witnessed acts of violence by armed opposition groups against both civilians and security forces.

The Report states: “In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the observer mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against government forces and civilians…Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children…In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers.” The observers also point out that “some of the armed groups were using flares and armour-piercing projectiles.“

Importantly, the report further confirms obfuscation of casualty information when it states: “the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.”

On February 3, the eve of the UN Security Council vote on Syria, news broke out that a massacre was taking place in Homs, with the general media assuming it was true and that all violence was being committed by the Syrian government. The SOHR’s Rami Abdul Rahman was widely quoted in the media as claiming the death toll to be at 217. The Local Coordination Committees (LCCs), which provide information to the VDC, called it at “more than 200,” and the Syrian National Council (SNC), a self-styled government in absentia of mainly expats, claimed 260 victims.

The next day, the casualty count had been revised down to 55 by the LCCs. (link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16883911)

Even if the count is at 55 – that is still a large number of victims by any measure. But were these deaths caused by the Syrian government, by opposition gunmen or in the crossfire between the two groups? That is still the question that needs to break through the deafening narratives, lists, and body counts.

In International Law, Detail Counts

While the overwhelming perception of Syrian casualties thus far has been that they are primarily unarmed civilians deliberately targeted by government forces, it has become obvious these casualties are also likely to include: Civilians caught in the crossfire between government forces and opposition gunmen; victims of deliberate violence by armed groups; “dead opposition fighters” whose attire do not distinguish them from regular civilians; and members of the Syrian security forces, both on and off duty.

Even if we could verify the names and numbers on a Syrian casualty list, we still don’t know their stories, which if revealed, may pose an entirely different picture of what is going on in Syria today

These questions are vitally important to understand the burden of responsibility in this conflict. International law provides for different measures of conflict: the two most frequently used gauges for this are the Principle of Necessity, i.e., using force only when it is necessary, and the Principle of Proportionality, i.e., the use of force proportional to the threat posed.

In the case of Syria – like in Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt and Libya – it is widely believed that the government used unnecessary force in the first instance. Syrian President Bashar Assad, like many of these Arab rulers, has as much as admitted to “mistakes” in the first months of protests. These mistakes include some shooting deaths and detaining a much larger number of protesters than expected, some of whom were allegedly tortured.

Let us assume, without question, that the Syrian government was over zealous in its use of force initially, and therefore violated the Principle of Necessity. I tend to believe this version because it has been so-stated by the Arab League’s observer mission – the first and only boots-on-the-ground monitors investigating the crisis from within the country.

However – and this is where the casualty lists come in – there is not yet nearly enough evidence, not by any measure acceptable in a court of law, that the Syrian government has violated the Principle of Proportionality. Claims that the regime has used disproportionate force in dealing with the crisis are, today, difficult to ascertain, in large part because opponents have been using weapons against security forces and pro-regime civilians almost since the onset of protests.

Assuming that the number of casualties provided by the UN’s OHCHR is around the 5,000-mark -the last official figure provided by the group – the question is whether this is a highly disproportionate number of deaths when contrasted directly with the approximately 2,000 soldiers of the regular Syrian army and other security forces who have been reportedly killed since April 2011.

When you calculate the deaths of the government forces in the past 11 months, they amount to about six a day. Contrast that with frequent death toll totals of around 15+ each day disseminated by activists – many of whom are potentially neither civilian casualties nor victims of targeted violence – and there is close to enough parity to suggest a conflict where the acts of violence may be somewhat equal on both sides.

Last Sunday, as Syrians went to the polls to vote on a constitutional referendum, Reuters reports – quoting the SOHR – that 9 civilians and 4 soldiers were killed in Homs, and that elsewhere in Syria there were 8 civilian and 10 security forces casualties. That is 17 civilians and 14 regime forces – where are the opposition gunmen in that number? Were none killed? Or are they embedded in the “civilian” count?

Defectors or Regular Soldiers?

There have also been allegations that many, if not most, of the soldiers killed in clashes or attacks have been defectors shot by other members of the regular army. There is very little evidence to support this as anything more than a limited phenomenon. Logically, it would be near impossible for the Syrian army to stay intact if it was turning on its rank-and-file soldiers in this manner – and the armed forces have remained remarkably cohesive given the length and intensity of the conflict in Syria.

In addition, the names, rank and cities of each of the dead soldiers are widely publicized by state-owned media each day, often accompanied by televised funerals. It would be fairly simple for the organized opposition to single out by name the defectors they include on their casualty lists, which has not happened.

The very first incident of casualties from the Syrian regular army that I could verify dates to 10 April 2011, when gunmen shot up a bus of soldiers travelling through Banyas, in Tartous, killing nine. This incident took place a mere few weeks after the first peaceful protests broke out in Syria, and so traces violence against government forces back to the start of political upheaval in the country.

“Witnesses” quoted by the BBC, Al Jazeera and The Guardian insisted that the nine dead soldiers were “defectors” who had been shot by the Syrian army for refusing orders to shoot at demonstrators.

Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, debunked that version on his Syria Comment website. Another surviving soldier on the bus – a relation of Lt. Col. Yasar Qashur, #6022 on the SOHR list, whose funeral I link to above – denied that they were defectors too. But the narrative that dead soldiers are mostly defectors shot by their own troops has stuck throughout this conflict – though less so, as evidence of gunmen targeting Syrian forces and pro-regime civilians becomes belatedly apparent.

The VDC – another of the UN’s OHCHR sources for casualty counts – alleges that 6,399 civilians and 1,680 army defectors were killed in Syria during the period from 15 March 2011 to 15 February 2012. All security forces killed in Syria during the past 11 months were “defectors?” Not a single soldier, policeman or intelligence official was killed in Syria except those forces who opposed the regime? This is the kind of mindless narrative of this conflict that continues unchecked. Worse yet, this exact VDC statistic is included in the latest UN report on Syria issued last week.

Humanitarian Crisis or Just Plain Violence?

While few doubt the Syrian government’s violent suppression of this revolt, it is increasingly clear that in addition to the issue of disproportionally, there is the question of whether there is a “humanitarian crisis” as suggested by some western and Arab leaders since last year. I sought some answers during a trip to Damascus in early January 2012 where I spoke to a select few NGOs that enjoyed rare access to all parts of the country.

Given that words like “massacre” and “slaughter” and “humanitarian crisis” are being used in reference to Syria, I asked International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Spokesman Saleh Dabbakeh how many calls for urgent medical assistance his organization had received in 2011. His response was shocking. “Only one that I recall,” said Dabbakeh. Where was that, I asked? “Quneitra National Hospital in the Golan,” he replied, “last June.” This was when Israeli troops fired on Syrian and Palestinian protesters marching to the 1973 armistice line with the Jewish state. Those same protesters that ended up on SOHR’s casualty list.

A Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) worker confirmed that, recalling that his organization treated hundreds of casualties from the highly-publicized incident.

As the level of violence has escalated, however, the situation has deteriorated, and the ICRC now has received more calls for medical assistance – mainly from private hospitals in Homs. The SARC today has nine different points in Homs where it provides such assistance. The only two places they do not currently serve are the neighborhoods of Baba Amr and Inshaat “because the security situation does not allow for it – for their own safety, there is fighting there.”

During a phone call last Thursday, one NGO officer, explained that the measure for a “humanitarian crisis” is in level of access to basic staples, services and medical care. He told me off the record that “There is a humanitarian crisis in (i.e.) Baba Amr today, but not in Syria. If the fighting finishes tomorrow, there will be enough food and medical supplies.”

“Syria has enough food to feed itself for a long time. The medical sector still functions very well. There isn’t enough pressure on the medical sector to create a crisis,” he elaborated. “A humanitarian crisis is when a large number of a given population does not have access to medical aid, food, water, electricity, etc – when the system cannot any longer respond to the needs of the population.”

But an international human rights worker also cautions: “the killing is happening on both sides – the other side is no better.”

People have to stop this knee-jerk, opportunistic, hysterical obsession with numbers of dead Syrians, and ask instead: “who are these people and who killed them?” That is the very least these victims deserve. Anything less would render their tragic deaths utterly meaningless. Lack of transparency along the supply-chain of information and its dissemination – on both sides – is tantamount to making the Syrian story all about perception, and not facts. It is a hollow achievement and people will die in ever greater numbers.

By Sharmine Narwani

1 March 2012

@ Al-Akhbar

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani

John Swinton, the doyen of the New York press corps, upon his recent retirement, made the following speech:

“There is no such thing, at this stage of the world’s history in America , as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my papers, before twenty four hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting of an independent press? We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

I do understand that you have to eat like all of us and therefore must keep your mouth shut. You are Jewish and so am I. (Sephardic).

For the sake of truth, I will give you here another side to the Libyan story. Just imagine a country where there is no electricity bill. Electricity is free to all its citizens. There is no interest on loans, banks were state owned and loans given at zero percent interest by law. Having a home was considered a human right. All newlyweds received US$ 50 000 from the govt to buy their first apartment and to help them start a family. Education and medical treatments were free. Before Qaddafi, 25 % of the population were literate. Today this figure is 83 percent. Should Libyans want to take up farming, they would receive land, a farmhouse, equipments, seeds and livestock to kick start their operation, absolutely free of charge.

If citizens could not find the education or medical facilities they needed, the govt would fund them to go abroad, free of charge, and would get some US$2,300 per month for accommodation and car allowance. Cars were government subsidized to the tune of 50%. Fuel prices were $0.14 per litter. The country had no external debt and its reserves amounted to some $170 billion, now frozen globally plus some 27 tons of gold, which the new regime found safely in the National Bank. Any graduate unable to find a job would get the average salary for the profession, as if he/she was employed, until employment found. A portion of oil sales were credited once a year to every citizen bank account. A mother who gave birth, immediately got some $5000. Forty loaves of bread cost $0.15. 25% of citizens have a university degree. An immense project bringing water from aquifers in the south made it available all over the country, free of charge.

That is what that “tyrant” Qaddafi gave to his people. There are some 150 tribes in Libya and a strong hand was necessary if the country was to remain in one piece. Every citizen was in possession of a military weapon. Qaddafi was not frightened of his own people. The so called rebels who took over, so we are told, would not have lasted a few days without NATO air power, British and French commandos and thousands of mercenaries. Those are the winners.

Now another Karzai has been installed in Tripoli , and the country can be plundered at the victors’ whim and fancy. It takes $1 to extract a barrel of Libyan oil and today’s price is over $100. Total the French company has already grabbed some 30% of the Libyan state oil company. BP is starting exploration. And of course massive contracts for the reconstruction of Libya will be handed over to US and European companies. Of the sovereign fund, only some 1.2 billion have been released out of the $170 billion. With the state of the European economy, I doubt very much if Libya will see the rest any time soon. Now Libyans are free as you say, but as Janice Joplin used to say…freedom is just another word for nothing else to lose, as Libyan queueing for funds at their bank’s door are finding out. Qaddafi is gone and so are the perks. What will be left is a terrible civil war. The price of democracy!

“It is the joyous jiggling dance Americans do – USA ! USA !- when their government slaughters someone illegally. It is primitive, but it is positively Libyan”.

Wrong. It is positively American! Just saw a movie on the training of the US Army before going to Iraq . Soldiers running and singing:”Kill the women! Kill the children! “Then we are shown the results when civilians are gunned down in the streets by those braves. All on film. When they come back home, realising what they have done, they just commit suicide! These are ordinary Sunday soldiers with families.

We can hide the truth with prison sentences, but the truth eventually comes through, and unfortunately for us we cannot plug the dyke any longer.

By Staff Reporter of The Nation, Pakistan

9 December 2011

@ The Nation

Like a pebble dropped in a pond, everything we do affects the people in our lives, and their reactions in turn affect others. The choices we make will have far-reaching consequences. Each of us carries within us the capacity to change the world in small ways for better or worse.

I once read that, “short of genius, a rich man cannot imagine poverty.” Perhaps. But these days, wealthy imaginations are not as narrow as they used to be as all walks of life (the rich included) witness the massive poverty increase in the land of plenty. Could it be that, for most Americans (the 99%), the blessed era of fruitful sustainability is coming to a close?

Numbers don’t lie. The economic injustice that fuels poverty is very real. And with unemployment soaring, even those lucky enough to have jobs are either working part-time or lumbering through long hard hours for a paltry check that is rarely enough to pay the bills. This is not quality of life. This is not the way it’s supposed to be in a civilized society. Along with the physical aspects, chronic depression and loneliness is an ever-present life-degrading condition during hard times, and the numbers are staggering. In fact, with economic absurdities piled upon stress, it makes a strong emotional case that fragile minds now feel like worn-out slaves profoundly living on a huge modern-day plantation. This is especially true with crushing debt burdens, high inflation, job lay-offs and ongoing austerity measures in this full-blown era of psycho-economic “globalization.” It doesn’t take a mental giant to figure out how the system works and for whom. For details on what to expect here in the U.S., see the tragic mess in Greece. It’s not pretty.

The reality on the ground is grave. People are homeless and way too many bread baskets are empty. All walks of life are affected, including children, the elderly and the disabled. Inequities continue to widen and people are without crucial medicine, dental, vision or other basic healthcare needs. For the penniless, the sick and the disfranchised — government policymakers are definitely not up to snuff when it comes to serving our best interest.

However, poverty has awakened the national psyche. All doubt has melted away and we now know for sure that most politicians are blowhards without virtue, offering little more than “fascism” for a corporate empire filled with swelled egos who woefully believe the rest of us are small inferior bottom-feeders … and that big ol’ them deserve more, more and more. Although our representatives try to convey the foolish idea that they are our champions, we know who is bearing the blunt of policies that slash at already threadbare safety nets.

Numbers don’t lie. According to census data, 47 million Americans now live below the poverty line — the most in half a century (since the last great depression) — fueled by years of high unemployment, home foreclosures, the stock market crash and a diminishing manufacturing base that has jettisoned American livelihoods in every direction outside our border. There’s no pretending anymore, this is the economic agenda favored by transnational corporations and the folks on Wall Street — as businesses, services and other commerce drift away from our shores. And with no good jobs to be had, opportunity will continue be out of reach until we reverse course. Therefore, a great American triumph must be realized. We must rise above the destructive ideology of “outsourcing” … and rebuild America’s manufacturing base and put Americans back to work. And it must be done now!

And so the story goes — the “news media” has little concern for publicizing the struggles of the little guy, regardless of the consequences that those cited above have engineered. Because, when it comes to playing us like like a fiddle under the big tent, media clowns perform on cue. Indeed, they have taken their “corporatutional” oath to do us harm in all sectors of newsworthy information, but it really hits home — economically — when it comes to their silence on America’s manufacturing base “fire-sale” to foreign nations.

In terms of their commitment to such kindred spirits such as Mr. Rupert (wiretap) Murdock, the media’s endless spy/spin cycle will not be receding anytime soon. However, once in a while a few discordant images gets through the laughable theme of a robust economic “recovery.” It’s usually not music to corporate ears, but nonetheless … it does capture the effect of today’s widespread social sickness that surrounds us like a thick fog. Here’s a few blunt snapshots rarely caught in that disappearing lens called “mainstream” media.

For the Children: The ongoing economic crisis has negatively affected the livelihoods of millions of Americans, but the effect it has on children and youth is especially tough to bear. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012), the unemployment rate is 8.3 percent as of January 2012. Of course, we already know this number is low-balled at best. For example…

>> U.S. Census data reveals that from 2009 to 2010, the total number of children under age 18 living in poverty increased to 16.4 million from 15.5 million. Child poverty rose from 20.7 percent in 2009, to 22 percent in 2010, and this is the highest it has ever been since 1993.

>> Racial and ethnic disparities in poverty rates persist among children. The poverty rate for Black children was 38.2 percent; 32.3 percent for Hispanic children; 17 percent for non-Hispanic White children; and 13 percent for Asian children.

>> The National Center for Children in Poverty reports that 17.2 million children living in the U.S. have a foreign-born parent, and 4.2 million children of immigrant parents are poor. It is reported that child poverty in immigrant families is more closely related to low-wage work and barriers to valuable work supports.

>> The Population Reference Bureau (2010) reports that 24 percent of the 75 million children under age 18 in the U.S. live in a single-mother family. The poverty rate for children living in female-householder families (no spouse present) was 42.2 percent in 2010; 7 in 10 children living with a single mother are poor or low-income, compared to less than a third (32 percent) of children living in other types of families. A staggering 50.9 percent of female-headed Hispanic households with children below 18 years of age live in poverty (48.8 percent for Blacks; 31.6 percent Asian, and 32.1 percent non-Hispanic White).

>> Single-mother headed households are more prevalent among African American and Hispanic families contributing to ethnic disparities in poverty.

The number of those affected speaks for itself. Poverty is color-blind.

I have no catchy euphemisms or metaphors to describe the horrific hardship that has shattered the bond-of-trust between our nations’ people and those who govern in public office. Shame on them! And although some of them do have their priorities in the right place, sadly, there is not enough of them to create the change we so desperately need. Overwhelmingly, most representatives have sold us out and we are nearly destroyed because of it. The poor souls pictured here will always be in my prayers. To some degree, I have exploited them, but for a worthy purpose in order to draw attention to their plight. Their struggle is our struggle, it’s a full-blown human-rights disaster that must be addressed by all of us.

Our Forgotten Solders: And so it would seem, nothing is sacrosanct in this degenerating environment. Even our brave soldiers returning home from battle are mystified at what has happened to their country while they were gone. Most are completely blown away to say the least! Images such as this, the military routinely sweeps under the rug, because It’s not exactly a moral booster for “enlistment” purposes.

The rate of homeless veterans is a manifestation on the rise. Only eight percent of the general population can claim veteran status, but nearly one-fifth of the homeless population are veterans. Based on statistics gathered by the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, there are currently over 67,000 homeless veterans in this country and this number rises higher each day. Roughly 56 percent of all homeless veterans are African American or Hispanic, despite only accounting for 12.8 percent and 15.4 percent of the U.S. population respectively. About 1.5 million other veterans, meanwhile, are considered at risk of homelessness due to poverty, lack of support networks, and dismal living conditions in overcrowded or substandard housing.

In addition to the complex set of factors influencing all homelessness — extreme shortage of affordable housing, livable income and access to health care — a large number of displaced and at-risk veterans live with lingering effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse, which are compounded by a lack of family and social support networks. Although this obligation is not being met, A top priority for homeless veterans should be secure, safe and clean housing that offers a supportive environment free of drugs and alcohol. Having a father who still suffers the lasting affects of PTSD (a most honorable combat veteran who served during WWII and Korea), I can relate to the importance of providing a safe, supportive environment.

Also, In a 2009 article published in USA Today, it was reported that veterans stayed in shelters longer, on average, than non-veterans. The median length of stay for single veterans was 21 days, while non-veterans stayed for 17 days. Most homeless veterans — 96% — are alone rather than part of a family. Among all homeless people, 66% are without families. The 136,334 veterans who spent at least one night in a shelter during the year studied amount to one of every 168 veterans in the USA and one of every 10 veterans living in poverty.

I would add, many veterans became financially devastated while serving our country in foreign combat zones. To me, this is especially unacceptable when we consider the sacrifices they made.

There is a better way for us to move forward. Issues such as poverty, corruption, collapse, homelessness, war, starvation and the like appear to be “symptoms” born out of an outdated social structure. Our principal focus should include recognizing that the majority of social problems which plague our nation at this time are the result of institutional corruption, corporate monopolies, austerity political policy and a flaw of irresponsible management from the top down.

We need to find optimized solutions, and we must to do it now! And if that means marching in the street to get it, so be it. Our allegiance should be to each other in the grand scheme of things and we should not rely on traditional political platforms or parties to do it for us. No one should be left behind. The path forward is self-evident, we must tackle the challenges ahead and make sure all basic resources are affordable and available to everyone, not just a select few at the top of the food chain.

We Are One Humanity.

We are all connected in this tapestry called “life.” Like a pebble dropped in a pond, everything we do affects the people in our lives, and their reactions in turn affect others. The choices we make will have far-reaching consequences. Each of us carries within us the capacity to change the world in small ways for better or worse. I say let us be the heroes we always hoped we could be. Let’s heal humanity! God bless.

Vincent L. Guarisco is a freelance writer from Arizona, a contributing writer for many web sites, and a lifetime founding member of the Alliance of Atomic Veterans. The 21st century, once so full of shining promise, now threatens to force countless millions of us at home and abroad into a dark abyss of languishing poverty and silent servitude; a lowly prodigy of painful struggle and suffering that could stream for generations to come. I’m wishing for a miracle, before it is too late, the masses will figure it out and will stand as one and roar. So, pass the word — it’s past time to take back what is ours — the American Dream where the pursuit of happiness, the ability to live in a free and peaceful nation is a reality. We bought it, and we paid for it. It’s time to take it back.

By Vincent Guarisco

7 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

In testimony before a Senate committee Wednesday, the Pentagon’s civilian and uniformed chiefs confirmed that they are drawing up war plans against Syria at the request of the Obama White House.

The statements by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey came amid mounting evidence that Washington and its key European allies, working in conjunction with the right-wing monarchical regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are escalating a covert intervention aimed at bringing about Syrian regime-change.

Much of the media coverage of Wednesday’s hearing focused on the jingoistic intervention of Arizona’s Senator John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate. He is demanding US air strikes against Syria to carve out “safe havens” in which Western-backed armed groups can prepare military strikes against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“How many additional civilian lives would have to be lost in order to convince you that the military measures of the kind we are proposing necessary to end the killing and force Assad to leave power?” McCain demanded of Panetta.

The defense secretary responded by asserting, “We are not divided here.” He insisted that the Pentagon is “reviewing all possible additional steps that can be taken” to hasten the downfall of the Assad regime, “including potential military options if necessary.”

General Dempsey cautioned that a US intervention in Syria would be more difficult than the NATO war in Libya given the country’s “far different demographic, ethnic, religious mix.” However, he assured the Senate panel, “Should we be called upon to defend US interests, we will be ready.” The Joint Chiefs chairman added that military operations under consideration included the imposition of a “no-fly zone,” the opening up of a “humanitarian corridor,” a naval blockade of the Syrian coastline and air strikes.

Panetta and Dempsey both echoed statements made the day before at a White House press briefing by President Obama that it would be a “mistake” to “to take military action unilaterally.”

None of them, however, raised a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing use of military force as a pre-condition for US military intervention in Syria.

An unnamed senior Defense Department official made it clear to CNN that the administration does not see a UN resolution—which has so far been blocked by Russia and China, which both wield veto power on the Security Council—as indispensable. “Some kind of mandate from a regional organization” would suffice, the official indicated, or any multi-lateral cover for US intervention, such as the “coalition of the willing” the Bush administration cobbled together before the Iraq war.

Particularly important in this regard is Turkey, which is hosting a conference of the “Friends of Syria” this month. While formally opposing a military intervention by any military force “from outside the region,” Turkey has called for Assad’s downfall and demanded that Syria allow the opening up of “humanitarian aid corridors.”

Similarly, the United Nations has prepared a 90-day “emergency contingency plan” to deliver food aid to Syrian civilians. The US State Department seized on the plan, demanding “immediate, safe and unhindered access” to all “affected areas” in Syria.

In response, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said that his government would resist any foreign intervention. “Humanitarian corridors mean military corridors,” he said. “You can’t have humanitarian corridors without military protection.”

During his testimony, Panetta was asked whether the US would provide “communications equipment” to the armed groups seeking to topple the Assad government. Panetta responded that he would “prefer to discuss that in a closed session,” while allowing that the administration is “considering an array of non-lethal assistance.”

In fact, there are multiple reports indicating that the US administration has already gone well beyond that.

In a report on Tuesday, Foreign Policy cited senior administration officials confirming that a meeting of the Deputies Committee of the National Security Council had already adopted a policy “for expanding US engagement with Syrian activists and providing them with the means to organize themselves.”

“US policy is now aligned with enabling the opposition to overthrow the Assad regime,” one official told the journal. “This codifies a significant change in our Syria policy.”

This official added that steps are being taken to support the military committee formed recently by the Syrian National Council, which Washington sees as a more reliable puppet force than the Free Syrian Army. “There is recognition that lethal assistance to the opposition may be necessary, but not at this time,” he said.

However, an email released by WikiLeaks as part of the internal documents obtained from the private US intelligence firm Stratfor indicates that such “lethal assistance” has been in place for months.

The December 2011 email was from Reva Bhalla, Stratfor’s director of analysis. It recounts a meeting with military intelligence officers at the Pentagon, including one British and one French officer. The officers, part of the US Air Force’s strategic studies group, suggested that “SOF [special operations forces] teams are already on the ground focused on recce [reconnaissance] mission and training opposition forces.”

The officers, according to Bhalla, said that the aim of the special forces teams was to “commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.”

The day before Panetta’s and Dempsey’s appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Marine Gen. James Mattis, the head of US Central Command (Centcom) in charge of all US forces in the Middle East, addressed the same panel and gave a candid assessment of US aims in Syria.

“If we were to provide options, whatever they are, to hasten the fall of Assad,” Mattis testified, “it would cause a great deal of concern and discontent in Tehran.”

Declaring Iran “the most significant threat in the region,” Mattis added, “It would be the biggest strategic setback for Iran in 20 years, when Assad falls.”

Behind all of Washington’s posturing about defending civilians in Syria, the real methods and aims of US imperialism begin to emerge clearly. It is waging a terrorist campaign in Syria in preparation for more direct military intervention.

It seeks Assad’s overthrow not out of any interest in human rights or democracy, but rather to advance US strategic interests by weakening Iran, Syria’s ally, which Washington views as the principal obstacle to its bid to assert hegemony over the oil-rich regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. Thus, contained within the steadily escalating American intervention in Syria are the preparations for a far wider war, with global consequences.

By Bill Van Auken

9 March, 2012

@ WSWS.org

Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon

Note: This statement was first published by the US Palestinian Community Network (USPCN) and is authored by all of the undersigned.

For many years now, Gilad Atzmon, a musician born in Israel and currently living in the United Kingdom, has taken on the self-appointed task of defining for the Palestinian movement the nature of our struggle, and the philosophy underpinning it. He has done so through his various blogs and Internet outlets, in speeches, and in articles. He is currently on tour in the United States promoting his most recent book, entitled, The Wandering Who.

With this letter, we call for the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people, and note the dangers of supporting Atzmon’s political work and writings and providing any platforms for their dissemination. We do so as Palestinian organizers and activists, working across continents, campaigns, and ideological positions.

Atzmon’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion that serves as springboard for vicious attacks on anyone who disagrees with his obsession with “Jewishness”. He claims that all Jewish politics is “tribal,” and essentially, Zionist. Zionism, to Atzmon, is not a settler-colonial project, but a trans-historical “Jewish” one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a Jew. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist. We could not disagree more. Indeed, we believe Atzmon’s argument is itself Zionist because it agrees with the ideology of Zionism and Israel that the only way to be a Jew is to be a Zionist.

Palestinians have faced two centuries of orientalist, colonialist and imperialist domination of our native lands. And so as Palestinians, we see such language as immoral and completely outside the core foundations of humanism, equality and justice, on which the struggle for Palestine and its national movement rests. As countless Palestinian activists and organizers, their parties, associations and campaigns, have attested throughout the last century, our struggle was never, and will never be, with Jews, or Judaism, no matter how much Zionism insists that our enemies are the Jews. Rather, our struggle is with Zionism, a modern European settler colonial movement, similar to movements in many other parts of the world that aim to displace indigenous people and build new European societies on their lands.

We reaffirm that there is no room in this historic and foundational analysis of our struggle for any attacks on our Jewish allies, Jews, or Judaism; nor denying the Holocaust; nor allying in any way shape or form with any conspiracy theories, far-right, orientalist, and racist arguments, associations and entities. Challenging Zionism, including the illegitimate power of institutions that support the oppression of Palestinians, and the illegitimate use of Jewish identities to protect and legitimize oppression, must never become an attack on Jewish identities, nor the demeaning and denial of Jewish histories in all their diversity.

Indeed, we regard any attempt to link and adopt antisemitic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism. In addition to its immorality, this language obscures the fundamental role of imperialism and colonialism in destroying our homeland, expelling its people, and sustaining the systems and ideologies of oppression, apartheid and occupation. It leaves one squarely outside true solidarity with Palestine and its people.

The goal of the Palestinian people has always been clear: self determination. And we can only exercise that inalienable right through liberation, the return of our refugees (the absolute majority of our people) and achieving equal rights to all through decolonization. As such, we stand with all and any movements that call for justice, human dignity, equality, and social, economic, cultural and political rights. We will never compromise the principles and spirit of our liberation struggle. We will not allow a false sense of expediency to drive us into alliance with those who attack, malign, or otherwise attempt to target our political fraternity with all liberation struggles and movements for justice.

As Palestinians, it is our collective responsibility, whether we are in Palestine or in exile, to assert our guidance of our grassroots liberation struggle. We must protect the integrity of our movement, and to do so we must continue to remain vigilant that those for whom we provide platforms actually speak to its principles.

When the Palestinian people call for self-determination and decolonization of our homeland, we do so in the promise and hope of a community founded on justice, where all are free, all are equal and all are welcome.

Until liberation and return.

Signed:

Ali Abunimah

Naseer Aruri, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

Omar Barghouti, human rights activist

Hatem Bazian, Chair, American Muslims for Palestine

Andrew Dalack, National Coordinating Committee, US Palestinian Community Network

Haidar Eid, Gaza

Nada Elia, US Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel

Toufic Haddad

Kathryn Hamoudah

Adam Hanieh, Lecturer, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London

Mostafa Henaway, Tadamon! Canada

Monadel Herzallah, National Coordinating Committee, US Palestinian Community Network

Nadia Hijab, author and human rights advocate

Andrew Kadi

Abir Kobty, Palestinian blogger and activist

Joseph Massad, Professor, Columbia University, NY

Danya Mustafa, Israeli Apartheid Week US National Co-Coordinator & Students for Justice in Palestine- University of New Mexico

Dina Omar, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine

Haitham Salawdeh, National Coordinating Committee, US Palestinian Community Network

Sobhi Samour, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London

Khaled Ziada, SOAS Palestine Society, London

Rafeef Ziadah, poet and human rights advocate

By Many Authors

14 March 2012

@ Uspcn.org