Just International

Organizers say Jerusalem march achieved goals

Saturday, 31 March 2012 / Ma’an News Agency – (Bethlehem) Organizers of the Global March to Jerusalem commemorating Land Day say the march on Friday made big strides as most of its goals were realized.

General coordinator of the march Ribhi Halloum told Ma’an from Jordan that the organizers put forward three major goals. The first goal, he said, was to lay the grounds for future activities in line with this goal. The rally was divided into two parts the first of which was organizing rallies and sit-in strikes in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.

Part two of this goal, added Halloum, was demonstrations and face-to-face confrontations with the occupation inside Palestine “to prove that the Palestinian people are still present and are still holding fast to their land.”

The second goal, according to Halloum, was to maintain that the question of Palestine is no longer the cause of the Palestinian people alone, but rather a global cause, and that was evident in the participation of solidarity activists from 84 countries.

The third goal was to show that occupation will eventually disappear no matter how long it might survive, he said.

The organizers, added Halloum, do not pay great attention to the number of participants in the rallies, but rather to the number of countries joining the protests, as that reflects the support for Palestine.

Halloum highlighted that for the first time in Jordan more than 57,000 Jordanian citizens joined in different activities commemorating Land Day.

For his part, member of the organizing committee from inside Israel aja Aghbariyya told Ma’an that the march achieved its goals at an international level and in Arab countries.

He highlighted that there are plans to organize similar rallies on May 15 commemorating the Nakba anniversary. Preparations are underway, he said.

By Ma’an News Agency

31 March 2012

Obama, “Friends of Syria” Press For Military Intervention Against Damascus

US President Barack Obama and international diplomats gathered at the “Friends of Syria” meeting in Tunis issued statements yesterday pressing for military intervention in Syria. They cited as a pretext escalating warfare between US-backed Syrian “rebel” forces and the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Obama spoke in Washington shortly after the end of the Tunis meeting, saying it was “imperative” to halt the fighting in Syria. “It is time to stop the killing of Syrian civilians by their own government,” he declared. He did not say, however, what action the US government was considering.

After the Tunis meeting, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the February 4 veto by Russia and China of a UN Security Council resolution moved by the Arab League demanding that Assad step down. She said, “It is quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto while people are being murdered—women, children, brave young men—houses are being destroyed. It is just despicable and I ask you whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian people.”

Clinton’s pose of outrage is a contemptible ploy. Its aim is to seize upon reports of fighting between the army and “rebel” forces to justify what would be an even bloodier, US-led intervention in Syria along the lines of last year’s NATO war in Libya.

It is possible to advocate such a policy only by engaging in the most shameless lying. On the one hand, US officials claim to be considering only “humanitarian” assistance for the Syrian people, while on the other they fan the flames of war—militarily backing a right-wing, Islamist-led insurgency. Their goal is the colonial re-subjugation of Syria, either by direct military conquest or by fomenting a palace coup by members of the regime who fear the loss of Russian and Chinese support.

Syrian opposition spokesmen at the Tunis meeting told Reuters: “We are bringing in defensive and offensive weapons… It is coming from everywhere, including Western countries and it is not difficult to get anything through the borders.”

Other diplomats speaking in Tunis also backed military intervention, choosing their words to avoid confirming that it had already begun. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called sending weapons and ammunition to pro-US forces in Syria “an excellent idea.” French and Qatari officials spoke in favor of sending forces into Syria to clear a path for “humanitarian corridors”—that is, conquering parts of Syria through which supplies can be sent to the “rebels.”

US officials’ statements made clear that, though they do not openly acknowledge it, they are supporting the Syrian “rebels” militarily. Speaking on Thursday in London, while meeting with British, French, German and Arab diplomats before the Tunis meeting, Clinton said Assad would face “increasingly capable opposition forces.” She added, “They will from somewhere, somehow find the means to defend themselves as well as begin offensive measures.”

Such comments expose the utterly deceitful character of the position of the US and its allies. Its hands dripping with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed and wounded in counter-insurgency campaigns by US occupation forces, the US government is preparing a new war on the basis of hypocritical claims that it considers Assad’s suppression of a foreign-backed insurgency to be intolerable. Responsibility for ongoing fighting in Syria lies primarily with the US and its allies.

The pose of “humanitarian” anguish by Clinton and her accomplices is but one more weapon in the US diplomatic arsenal, alongside sanctions, targeted assassinations, drone strikes and mass murder.

Yesterday, leading newspapers openly aired the plans being drawn up by imperialist diplomats and intelligence agencies for the conquest of Syria by the United States and its allies.

In a Financial Times comment, former CIA official Emile Nakhleh wrote: “The assistance should begin with establishing a haven for the opposition and the military personnel who defect from the regime, as in northern Iraq in 1991. Food, water, clothes, medical supplies and technical equipment should be dropped into the safety zone. Ankara [the Turkish government] would have to play a critical role in planning, and ultimately in maintaining and supplying the zone, as it would almost certainly have to be contiguous to Turkey. If Syrian forces violate the sanctuary, the West should arm the opposition and work with military defectors to organize more effective resistance.”

Similar plans were laid out by former US State Department official Anne-Marie Slaughter in the New York Times. Calling for the supplying of “anti-tank, counter-sniper, and portable anti-aircraft weapons” to the US-backed forces, she called for the establishment of “no-kill zones” in which US-backed Syrian forces could find sanctuary. Once Syrian government forces in these misnamed “no-kill zones” were “killed, captured or allowed to defect without reprisal, attention would turn to defending and expanding the no-kill zones.”

Such plans do not describe a “humanitarian” operation, but a US-led war of extermination against any Syrian forces that refuse to submit to the colonial-style subjugation of the country.

A substantial part of the Tunis meeting was devoted to trying to unify the disparate forces of the Syrian opposition into a viable proxy guerrilla force for US imperialism, similar to the National Transitional Council in the war in Libya. This has proven difficult amid deep tensions between three opposition factions: the National Coordination Committee (NCC), the Syrian National Council (SNC), and the Syrian Free Army (SFA), which largely consists of Syrian army defectors who fled to Turkey.

US officials have also reported ties between Al Qaeda and Islamist elements of the US-backed Syrian opposition. (See, “International tensions mount over Syria conflict”).

Negotiations with the “rebel” factions have highlighted the fact that none of the US proxies in Syria have mass popular support. The Financial Times itself complained that the Syrian opposition is “splintered along ethnic and social lines.”

The NCC, composed largely of Stalinist and Kurdish nationalist parties, did not attend the Tunis meeting, where diplomats declared the SNC—which is dominated by Islamist forces around the Muslim Brotherhood—to be a “legitimate interlocutor.”

The meeting declined to name the SNC a “representative of the Syrian uprising,” however, as some had initially proposed. This appears to reflect the hope that further negotiations can secure the NCC’s full participation in Washington’s plans. British officials told the press that they hoped to get the opposition to “set out a shared set of principles, with a strong message of inclusion to all ethnic groups in Syria.”

The character of the opposition highlights the politically criminal character of the imperialist intervention in Syria. Supposedly carried out to protect Syrian protesters, it is also presented as an extension of the revolutionary struggles that have swept the Middle East. In fact, US policy is a counterrevolutionary response to the working class struggles that overthrew US-backed dictators in Tunisia and Egypt last winter.

In Tunisia and Egypt, mass struggles of the working class spread throughout the country, weakening the loyalty of the armed forces to the regime and forcing the resignation of hated heads of state. Washington backed both Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt and worked feverishly to keep them in power.

In Syria, the US and its allies rapidly moved to turn regional protests, based in Sunni parts of the country and led by organizations with no mass base, into a right-wing insurgency with virtually no support in either of Syria’s two largest cities, Damascus and Aleppo. It is not a revolution, but a US-directed drive to oust a regime allied to Iran so as to further isolate that country and strengthen American hegemony in the oil-rich Middle East.

By Alex Lantier

25 February 2012

 

Obama Reiterates War Threats As Iran, Major Powers Agree To New Talks

Following a bellicose speech before the principal pro-Israel lobbying group on Sunday and a White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, President Barack Obama reiterated the readiness of the United States to go to war against Iran at a press conference on Tuesday.

At the same time, Obama defended his policy of continued diplomatic and political pressure on the Iranian regime backed by crippling sanctions, holding in reserve for now a military attack should Tehran reject the dictates of Washington and its European allies.

The first presidential press conference of 2012 was dominated by questions on Iran and Syria and tactical differences between the US and Israel. In talks with Obama and a speech Monday night at the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention in Washington, Netanyahu made clear that Israel was prepared to carry out unilateral military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and was hostile to further talks between Tehran and the P5 +1 countries—the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the US, Britain, France, Russia and China) plus Germany.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton announced Tuesday that the P5+1 powers had accepted an offer from Iran to resume talks on Iran’s nuclear program. The announcement coincided with two other moves by Iran aimed at easing tensions and facilitating talks.

The Iranian Supreme Court on Monday overturned a death sentence against former US Marine Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, who had been convicted of spying for the US. On Tuesday, a semi-official Iranian news agency said the country would grant International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors access to parts of the Parchin military complex, located 18 miles southeast of Tehran.

At Washington’s behest, the IAEA has demanded access to the site, which is a non-nuclear facility and not subject to the agency’s oversight. It has responded to Tehran’s previous denials by suggesting the site is being used to carry out secret nuclear weapons development.

At the press conference, Obama countered attacks by Republican presidential candidates, three of whom addressed the AIPAC conference on Tuesday and charged Obama with failing to sufficiently back Israel and procrastinating in attacking Iran. He did so first by reiterating the statement he had made to AIPAC and Netanyahu: “My policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them [Iran] from getting a nuclear weapon.”

He then accused his opponents of political grandstanding and taking a “casual” attitude toward war, noting some of the costs and dangers involved in an attack on Iran. He touted his own “success” in imposing brutal economic sanctions that are having a growing impact on the country, and isolating the Iranian regime diplomatically and politically.

In what the media has generally portrayed as an endorsement of diplomacy over war, Obama said, “At this stage, it is my belief that we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically…. To resolve this issue will require Iran to come to the table and discuss in a clear and forthright way how to prove to the international community that the intentions of their nuclear program are peaceful.”

In reality, this supposed defense of diplomacy reflects a further turn toward military action. The Obama administration has gone from speaking of the military option as a somewhat remote possibility to suggesting that there “still” remains a slight chance that it can be avoided.

Obama’s talk of a “window of opportunity” for Iran to carry out the impossible task of proving a negative—that its nuclear program is not for military purposes—as well as his profession of concern for the “costs of war” are eerily reminiscent of the statements of George W. Bush about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” in the run-up to the US attack on that country.

There are many indications that the Obama administration wants to delay a military attack on Iran until after the elections—in part to avoid the electoral fallout from an explosion in oil prices, in part to use negotiations to deliver Tehran ultimatums and then cite its “defiance” of the “international community” as justification for military aggression. The resulting war would aim to topple the current regime and install a puppet government, as in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

To this end, Obama was effusive in his speech to AIPAC on Sunday and remarks made prior to his talks with Netanyahu on Monday in declaring his unqualified support for Israel and citing his record of backing Israeli aggression against its Arab neighbors in Gaza and elsewhere. He made a point of explicitly rejecting a policy of containing a nuclear-armed Iran in favor of a policy of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and directly stating Washington’s commitment to using military means to do so if necessary. He also declared his support for Israel’s “sovereign right” to unilaterally attack Iran or any other country.

He told AIPAC that his administration was committed to “use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” This is an open-ended formulation that could include not only the current measures—economic warfare, terrorist attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists, and cyber-attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities—but also missiles, troops and even nuclear weapons. It should be recalled that the current secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, declared in 2009 that she would support the “annihilation” of Iran should it attack Israel.

This appears to be aimed at convincing Netanyahu to refrain from launching what Obama has referred to as a “premature” attack on Iran. Meanwhile, Washington is moving ahead with plans to attack the country. It has doubled the number of aircraft carrier battle groups stationed in the Persian Gulf area, deploying both the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Carl Vinson. In comments to the media last week, US Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz confirmed that plans for attacking Iran have not only been prepared, but have been sent to the president and the defense secretary.

“What we can do, you wouldn’t want to be in the area,” Schwartz declared. Pentagon officials said the options included wide-ranging attacks on every aspect of Iran’s military, security and intelligence apparatus.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the region, has requested the re-allocation of $100 million in military spending to step up war preparations against Iran.

By Barry Grey

7 March 2012

@ WSWS.org

Obama, Netanyahu And Esther

The Biblical Book of Esther that was given to President Obama by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday was far from being a cryptic message. The Book of Esther is a genocidal recipe. It is there to educate Jews how to infiltrate into foreign administrations. In my latest book The Wandering Who I explore the role of The Biblical text in shaping contemporary Jewish political Lobbying and its open attempt to dominate American and British foreign policies. In contemporary American politics we detect the following.

>> Esther’s and Mordechai’s role is played by AIPAC and American Jewish Committee (AJC) – Both openly push for a war against Iran.

>> President Obama is the Persian king Ahasuerus. Like the Persian king, Obama is asked to kill the ‘enemies of the Jews’

>> Haman, the ‘murderous Antisemite’ is clearly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian people. In the Biblical tale, both Haman and his sons end up massacred.

>> And sadly enough repudiated queen Vashti, is played by the American people and humanity. seemingly, our prayer for peace and harmony is clearly ignored.

The Book of Esther (The Wandering Who? by Gilad Atzmon, Chapter 19)

‘Haman said to King Achashvairosh, “There is a nation scattered and separated among the nations [the Jews] throughout your empire. Their laws are different than everyone else’s, they do not obey the king’s laws, and it does not pay for the king to tolerate their existence. If it pleases the king, let a law be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay to the executors ten thousand silver Kikar-coins for the king’s treasury.”’ (The Book Of Esther, Chapter 3)

The Book of Esther is a biblical story that forms the basis for the celebration of Purim, probably the most joyously celebrated Jewish festival. The book tells of an attempted Judeocide, but also of Jews who manage to change their fate. In the Book of Esther, the Jews rescue themselves, and even get to mete out revenge.

It is set in the third year of the reign of the Persian king Ahasuerus (commonly identified with Xerxes I). It is a story of a palace, a conspiracy, the aforementioned attempted Judeocide and a brave and beautiful Jewish queen – Esther – who manages to save her people at the very last minute.

Ahasuerus is married to Vashti, whom he repudiates after she rejects his command to show herself off to his assembled guests during a feast. Esther is selected from amongst many candidates to be Ahasuerus’s new bride. As the story progresses, Ahasuerus’s prime minister, Haman, plots to have all the Jews in the Persian empire killed in revenge for a refusal by Esther’s cousin Mordechai to bow to him in respect. Esther, now queen, plots with Mordechai to save the day for the Persian Jews. At the risk of endangering her own safety, Esther warns Ahasuerus of Haman’s murderous anti-Jewish plot. (As she had not disclosed her Jewish origins beforehand, the king had been unaware of them.) Haman and his sons are hanged on the fifty-cubit-high gallows he had originally built for Mordecai. As it happens, Mordecai takes Haman’s place as prime minister. Ahasuerus’s edict decreeing the murder of the Jews cannot be rescinded, so he issues another one allowing the Jews to take up arms and kill their enemies – which they do.

The moral of the story is clear. If Jews want to survive, they had better infiltrate the corridors of power. In light of The Book of Esther, Mordechai and Purim, AIPAC and the notion of ‘Jewish power’ appears to be an embodiment of a deep Biblical and cultural ideology.

However, here is the interesting twist. Though the story is presented as a record of actual events, the historical accuracy of the Book of Esther is in fact largely disputed by most modern Bible scholars. The lack of clear corroboration for any of the book’s details with what is known of Persian history from classical sources has led scholars to conclude that the story is mostly or even totally fictional. In other words, the moral notwithstanding, the attempted genocide is fictional. Seemingly, the Book of Esther encourages its (Jewish) followers into collective Pre-TSS, making a fantasy of ‘destruction’ into an ‘ideology of survival’. Indeed, some read the story as an allegory of quintessentially assimilated Jews, who discover that they are targets of anti-Semitism, but who are also in a position to save themselves and their fellow Jews.

Reading the Haman quotes above, while keeping Bowman in mind, the Book of Esther shapes an exilic identity. It sews existential stress and is a prelude to the Holocaust religion, setting the conditions that turn the Holocaust into reality. Interestingly a very similar, threatening narrative is explored in the beginning of Exodus. Again, in order to set an atmosphere of a ‘Shoah to come’ and a liberation to follow, an existential fear is established:

‘Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us; come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land.” Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses.’ Exodus 8-11

Both in Exodus and The Book of Esther, the author of the text manages to predict the kind of accusations that would be leveled against Jews for centuries to come, such as power-seeking, tribalism and treachery. Shockingly, the text in Exodus evokes a prophesy of the Nazi Holocaust. It depicts a reality of ethnic cleansing, economic oppressive measures that eventually lead to slave labour camps (Pithom and Raamses). Yet, in both Exodus and the Book of Esther it is the Jews who eventually kill.

Interestingly, the Book of Esther (in the Hebrew version of the Bible; six chapters were added to the Greek translation) is one of only two books of the Bible that do not directly mention God (the other is Song of Songs). As in the Holocaust religion, in the Book of Esther it is the Jews who believe in themselves, in their own power, in their uniqueness, sophistication, ability to conspire, ability to take over kingdoms, ability to save themselves. The Book of Esther is all about empowerment. It conveys the essence and metaphysics of Jewish power.

From Purim to Washington

In an article titled ‘A Purim Lesson: Lobbying Against Genocide, Then and Now’, Dr Rafael Medoff expounds on what he regards as the lesson bequeathed to the Jews by Esther and Mordechai: the art of lobbying. ‘The holiday of Purim,’ Medoff says, ‘celebrates the successful effort by prominent Jews in the capitol [sic] of ancient Persia to prevent genocide against the Jewish people.’[1] This specific exercise of what some call ‘Jewish power’ (though Medoff does not use this phrase) has been carried forward, and is performed by modern emancipated Jews: ‘What is not well known is that a comparable lobbying effort took place in modern times – in Washington, D.C., at the peak of the Holocaust.’[2]

Medoff explores the similarities between Esther’s lobbying in Persia and her modern counterparts lobbying inside FDR’s administration at the height of the Second World War: ‘The Esther in 1940s Washington was Henry Morgenthau Jr., a wealthy, assimilated Jew of German descent who (as his son later put it) was anxious to be regarded as ‘one hundred percent American.’ Downplaying his Jewish-ness, Morgenthau gradually rose from being FDR’s friend and adviser to his Treasury Secretary.’[3]

Clearly, Medoff also spotted a modern Mordechai: ‘a young Zionist emissary from Jerusalem, Peter Bergson (real name: Hillel Kook) who led a series of protest campaigns to bring about U.S. rescue of Jews from Hitler. The Bergson group’s newspaper ads and public rallies roused public awareness of the Holocaust – particularly when it organized over 400 rabbis to march to the front gate of the White House just before Yom Kippur in 1943.’[4]

Medoff’s reading of the Book of Esther provides a glaring insight into the internal codes of Jewish collective survival dynamics, in which the assimilated (Esther) and the observant (Mordechai) join forces with Jewish interests on their minds. According to Medoff, the parallels to modern times are striking: ‘Mordechai’s pressure finally convinced Esther to go to the king; the pressure of Morgenthau’s aides finally convinced him to go to the president, armed with a stinging 18-page report that they titled “Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews.” Esther’s lobbying succeeded. [Ahasuerus] cancelled the genocide decree and executed Haman and his henchmen. Morgenthau’s lobbying also succeeded. A Bergson-initiated Congressional resolution calling for U.S. rescue action quickly passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – enabling Morgenthau to tell FDR that “you have either got to move very fast, or the Congress of the United States will do it for you.” Ten months before election day, the last thing FDR wanted was an embarrassing public scandal over the refugee issue. Within days, Roosevelt did what the Congressional resolution sought – he issued an executive order creating the War Refugee Board, a U.S. government agency to rescue refugees from Hitler.’[5]

Doubtless Medoff sees the Book of Esther as a general guideline for a healthy Jewish conduct: ‘The claim that nothing could be done to help Europe’s Jews had been demolished by Jews who shook off their fears and spoke up for their people – in ancient Persia and in modern Washington.’ In other words, Jews can and should do for themselves. This is indeed the moral of the Book of Esther as well as of the Holocaust religion.

What Jews should do for themselves is indeed an open question. Different Jews have different ideas. The neoconservatives believe in dragging the US and the West into an endless war against Islam. Some Jews believe that Jews should actually position themselves at the forefront of the struggle against oppression and injustice. Indeed, Jewish empowerment is just one answer among many. Yet it is a very powerful one, and dangerous when the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and AIPAC act as modern-day Mordechais and publicly engage in an extensive lobbying efforts for war against Iran.

Both AIPAC and the AJC are inherently in line with the Hebrew Biblical school of thought. They follow their Biblical mentor, Mordechai. However, while the Mordechais are relatively easy to spot, the Esthers – those who act for Israel behind the scenes – are slightly more difficult to track.

Once we learn to consider Israeli lobbying within the parameters drawn by the Book of Esther and the Holocaust religion, we are then entitled to regard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the current Haman/Hitler figure. In addition to the AJC and AIPAC, President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Lord Levy are also Mordechais, Obama is obviously Ahasuerus, yet Esther can be almost anyone, from the last Neocon to Dick Cheney and beyond.

[1] Medoff, Rafael, ‘A Purim Lesson: Lobbying Against Genocide, Then and Now’; see http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2004-03-purim.php

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

By Gilad Atzmon

8 March 2012

@ Gilad.co.uk

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born musician, writer and anti-racism campaigner..His New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

 

 

Obama, Netanyahu Discuss Iran War Options

US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a two-hour meeting at the White House Monday, including a half-hour one-on-one discussion with no aides present. Their talks focused on the joint US-Israeli drive to target Iran for economic warfare and military assault.

The meeting was held in the aftermath of Obama’s appearance Sunday before the convention of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the principal pro-Israel lobbying group, where he made an extraordinary pledge of support for Israel in any future military confrontation with Tehran.

Obama said that his administration was committed to “use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” This formulation has an ominously open-ended character. “All elements” necessarily include not only economic sanctions and terrorist attacks in the streets of Tehran—a feature of the past three years—but also special ops forces, air strikes, ground troops and even nuclear weapons.

In a statement responding to the speech to AIPAC, Netanyahu said he “very much appreciated” Obama’s “position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that all options are on the table.”

In an effort to minimize reported differences between the Obama administration and Netanyahu, the president and prime minister held a joint photo-op for the press and made brief statements before their meeting rather than going before the press corps afterwards and answering questions on their discussions.

Neither Obama nor Netanyahu varied from their scripts in their preliminary public remarks. Obama was effusive, declaring, “I want to assure both the American people and the Israeli people that we are in constant and close consultation. I think the levels of coordination and consultation between our militaries and our intelligence—not just on this issue, but on a broad range of issues—has been unprecedented. And I intend to make sure that that continues during what will be a series of difficult months, I suspect, in 2012.”

Netanyahu replied that “Israel and America stand together,” while declaring that Israel “must reserve the right” to attack Iran regardless of US concerns. “When it comes to Israel’s security, Israel has the right, the sovereign right, to make its own decisions,” he said. He added that “my supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate.”

There are tactical differences between Washington and Israel, although much of the public conflict may be more a “good cop, bad cop” routine aimed at exploiting fissures in the Iranian regime than actual policy conflicts.

Netanyahu has proposed as the “red line” for military action that Iran should be compelled to halt all nuclear enrichment and be deprived of the “capability” of building nuclear weapons—a demand that if taken literally would require the extermination of most Iranian physicists and ballistic missile engineers.

Obama has rejected this as an effort to prevent any negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 countries—the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US) plus Germany—and set as his own “red line” a verifiable decision by the Iranian government to build a nuclear weapon. Since this would be “verified” by US intelligence agencies, it still gives considerable room for provocation and the manufacture of pretexts for war, should Washington decide to do so.

Israel lacks the military power to do more than incidental damage to Iranian targets, unless its leaders are prepared to murder tens of millions through the use of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Short of that, they must coordinate action with the United States, which has the forces in place in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere to carry out sustained and repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear reactors and enrichment facilities.

A full-scale war against Iran, a country with three times the population of Iraq and three times the land area, would require an all-out US military mobilization, including restoration of the draft and conscription of hundreds of thousands of new and unwilling soldiers.

What is striking is the degree to which both governments, the Israeli and the American, are acting in defiance of broad popular opposition to war in both their countries.

A poll of Israelis last month conducted by the University of Maryland found only 19 percent favoring a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran, and only 42 percent favoring military action even in conjunction with the United States.

Several polls in the United States have shown overwhelming popular opposition to yet another US war in the Middle East. A poll by the Hill newspaper conducted March 1 found only 21 percent very supportive of a US attack on Iran and 20 percent somewhat supportive, while 52 percent were somewhat or very much opposed. The poll also found 57 percent opposed to any US intervention in the civil war in Syria, Iran’s principal ally.

Even more remarkable is the Pew Research Center poll in February that found a narrow majority believing the United States should remain neutral in a war between Iran and Israel. Less than 40 percent said the United States should side with Israel, an astonishing figure given that 100 percent of the corporate-controlled media and almost 100 percent of the Democratic and Republican politicians would back the US joining Israel in such a war.

Obama’s speech to AIPAC produced a telling response in the American media. The Wall Street Journal, normally a strident ultra-right critic of the White House, published an editorial hailing “Obama’s Hawkish Iran Turn.” It praised the speech, “whose strong talk on Iran kept the audience coming to its feet,” while noting the ominous comment of one Israeli official that the Netanyahu-Obama meeting “will be the last time they can speak face-to-face before a decision is taken.”

The liberal Nation magazine published a commentary by Robert Dreyfuss which declared: “Despite President Obama’s election-inspired rhetoric about the US-Israeli alliance, which filled the president’s speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, there’s zero chance that Obama will endorse either an Israeli attack on Iran or an American one, either in 2012 or later.”

The political voice of the super-rich nods approvingly that Obama is coming around on Iran. The liberal cheerleaders for Obama delude their audience with a guarantee that there will be no war. In different ways, both are preparing to back the American president in the event he initiates one of the greatest crimes in world history—an unprovoked war of aggression on a country of 80 million people.

By Patrick Martin

6 March 2012

@ WSWS.org

The author also recommends:

Obama hardens threat of war against Iran

[3 March 2012]

US, Britain gear up for war against Iran

[28 February 2012]

The New York Times and the drive to war against Iran

[13 January 2012]

Obama keeps friends and foes guessing

The world community can heave a sigh of relief since there might not be an outbreak of wars led by the United States between now and November. That was one message of President Barack Obama’s press conference in the White House on Tuesday.

Obama spoke on the two Middle Eastern “hotspots” – Iran and Syria – with a common thread: while he is tenaciously looking for ways to pursue policies that serve American interests, his preferred option is not to resort to the use of force.

Obama launched a frontal offensive on the Republican right, saying they were being irresponsible and vacuous in beating the war drums on Iran and Syria. Obama knows he is in sync with the mood of the American public, which is preoccupied with the economy.

The press conference came a day after Obama’s talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he visibly took pleasure in giving a knockout punch to media hype (inspired largely by the Israelis) that his re-election bid might be in jeopardy unless he agreed Iran was fast nearing the “zone of immunity” in its nuclear program.

Obama warned that any premature action by Israel would have “consequences” for the US as well and that a “careful, thoughtful, sober approach” was needed.

The intriguing part is that Obama knew very well that he was also speaking to another foreign audience – in the highest echelons of power in Tehran – who were listening attentively when he said:

“Now, the one thing that we have not done is we haven’t launched a war. If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so. And they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.” [Emphasis added.]

On the one hand, Obama sounded even more hopeful than in the week before about engaging Iran:

“At this stage … we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically. That’s not just my view. That’s the view of our top intelligence officials … The Iranians just stated that they are willing to return to the negotiating table. And we’ve got the opportunity … to see how it plays out.”

But on the other hand, he spelt out his expectations:

To resolve this issue will require Iran to come to the table and discuss in a clear and forthright way how to prove to the international community that the intentions of their nuclear program are peaceful. They know how to do it … It obviously has to be methodical. I don’t expect a breakthrough in a first meeting … And there are steps that they can take that would send a signal to the international community and that are verifiable, that would allow them to be in compliance with international norms, in compliance with international mandates, abiding by the non-proliferation treaty, and provide the world an assurance that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

The Iranians would be justified in estimating that Obama is setting the pace. Ali Larijani, former nuclear negotiator and influential speaker of the outgoing Majlis (parliament), reacted on Wednesday saying it would be counter-productive if “the West continues to put Iran under pressure”.

“If they [the West] seek to go with their previous course of action and try to force concessions under pressure, negotiations will yield no results”, Larijani, who is close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned. But then, he also reiterated that Iran is not after nuclear bombs.

Iran’s deputy foreign minister in charge of Europe and America, Ali Asghar Khaji, in turn urged the West to be “innovative” and to come up with “more initiatives”. Clearly, sparring has begun.

One at a time

Moving on to Syria, Obama said there isn’t going to be a unilateralist US military intervention in that country. However, the strategy will be to seek regime change. In short, call “regime change” by any other name if you will, and, second, it will have to be by means other than a US invasion of Syria.

Obama said the issue is not whether or if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would go, “it’s a question of when”. However, he made a careful distinction between what happened in Libya and the Syrian situation.

The international community is yet to be mobilized on Syria; no mandate from the United Nations Security Council is available; the “full cooperation” of the Arab states is not yet realized; and, the project may not even be achievable in a “relatively short period of time”. All of this makes the Syrian situation much more complicated.

All the same, the US will continue to work on the project with “key Arab states and key international partners” and is planning “how do we support the opposition; how do we provide humanitarian assistance; how do we continue the political isolation [of Bashar]; how do we continue the economic isolation.”

Obama avoided explicitly committing on any form of military assistance to the Syrian opposition, although Foreign Policy magazine claimed separately on Tuesday on the basis of extensive deep briefings by unnamed senior US officials that Washington is edging close to doing that.

One factor could be that a number of diplomatic moves are under way. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is about to engage the Arab League on Saturday; Beijing has mooted a six-point plan on Syria; yet another Chinese special envoy arrived in Damascus on Tuesday.

Besides, Kofi Annan, joint special envoy of the UN and Arab League, was expected to commence his mediatory mission in Cairo on Wednesday before reaching Damascus in the weekend; last but not the least, Syria has agreed to schedule a visit by Valerie Amos, UN under-secretary for humanitarian affairs.

Alongside, a revised US draft resolution on Syria has just been mooted in the UN Security Council, on which Washington hopes to negotiate Russian and Chinese acceptance.

Clearly, Obama made no overtures to Russia or China. Nor did he evince any interest to work with them, leave alone acknowledge their robust efforts at peacemaking. Plainly put, he showed indifference towards the Russians and Chinese.

The US diplomacy could be estimating that while the Russian and Chinese diplomatic efforts on Syria converge in many respects, they also may have an independent character. But both Moscow and Beijing insist on dialogue and oppose foreign interference; they also endorse Assad’s reform program.

Russia’s Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, accused in an open meeting of the Security Council on Syria in New York on Wednesday, “We have received information that in Libya, with the support of the authorities, there is a special training center for the Syrian revolutionaries and people are sent to Syria to attack the legal government. This is, according to international law, completely unacceptable.”

The Russian imputation couldn’t have been lost on Washington, although Churkin didn’t exactly point a finger at who could be putting the fragile Libyan government through such a high-risk enterprise. Meanwhile, the Russian foreign ministry specifically warned the West not to expect any change in Moscow’s Syria policy following the election victory of Vladimir Putin. (Putin made global meddling by the US one of his campaign themes.)

The foreign ministry said, “Russia’s position on a Syrian settlement was never subject to political considerations and is not formed under the influence of electoral cycles, unlike those of some of our Western colleagues. Our approaches to a resolution of internal conflicts are based on international law and the UN Charter. We are talking primarily about strict adherence to the principle of inadmissibility of interference from the outside.”

Obama’s intention, partly at least, would have been to grandstand before the American public on a Super Tuesday when the Mitt Romney campaign moved aggressively. Nonetheless, without resorting to propaganda blast or showing signs of hand-wringing, he struck a diplomatic balance by stressing negotiations with Iran, while largely maintaining the tough course on Syria.

And if there were indeed any linkage between the situation around Iran and the Syrian crisis, Obama wouldn’t talk about it. One at a time – that’s the Obama way. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. (Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd

9 March 2012

By M K Bhadrakumar

@ Asia Times

Obama Hardens Threat of War Against Iran

In his most explicit threat against Iran to date, US President Obama declared yesterday that he would “not hesitate to use force” to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. The speech was pitched not just to his immediate audience—the pro-Israeli American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—but to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who he meets today.

Obama spelled out the meaning of his oft-repeated phrase that “all options are on the table” in relation to Iran. “That includes all elements of American power,” he said, “a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”

Obama’s only note of caution was against “too much loose talk of war”, as he urged Israel to allow time for punitive sanctions to force Tehran into negotiations. However, he also left no doubt that the US was prepared to attack Iran. Citing US President Theodore Roosevelt’s maxim “speak softly and carry a big stick,” Obama added menacingly: “Rest assured that the Iranian government will know of our resolve.”

Obama’s comments come after months of intensifying pressure on Iran, which includes the imposition of an embargo on Iranian oil by the European Union and US sanctions aimed on the Iranian banking system aimed at blocking its oil exports. These measures, which are on top of a broad range of existing penalties, come into full force in July.

The US military has also been building up its forces in the Persian Gulf, including the stationing of two aircraft carrier battle groups in the area.

In comments to the media last week, US Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz, confirmed that plans for attacking Iran had not only been prepared, but had now been sent to the president and the defence secretary. “What we can do, you wouldn’t want to be in the area,” he declared. Unnamed Pentagon officials told the press that the options included wide-ranging attacks on every aspect of Iran’s military, security and intelligence apparatus.

Israel is also making barely disguised threats to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. In his meeting with Obama today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will press for the US to spell out “red lines” that would trigger American military strikes against Iran.

Speaking in Canada on Friday, Netanyahu insisted that “the international community” should lay down requirements for any negotiations with Iran. “I think the demands on Iran should be clear: dismantle the [Fordow] underground nuclear facility in Qom, stop [uranium] enrichment inside Iran and get all the enrich uranium out of Iran.” Such preconditions virtually assure that Tehran would not agree to talks.

Sections of the Israeli military and political establishment have been pressing for an attack on Iran in the coming months. An article in the British-based Telegraph on Saturday reported that Israeli “military planners have concluded that never before has the timing for a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities been so auspicious.”

The Telegraph pointed to the “near civil war” in Iran’s ally Syria as a key factor in Israeli military calculations about Tehran’s ability to retaliate against an Israeli attack. “Iran’s deterrent has been significantly defanged. As a result some of those opposed to military action have changed their minds,” a source close to Israel’s defence chiefs told the newspaper.

In discussions with Obama, Netanyahu will exploit the threat of an Israeli strike to extract US guarantees and “red lines” for an American attack on Iran. Iran has denied that it is building a nuclear weapon, and there is no evidence that it is doing so. Israel, however, is intent on destroying any Iranian potential to construct a nuclear bomb, thus preserving its own military supremacy as the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons.

A pre-emptive attack by Israel or the US would be in complete breach of international law. Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and its nuclear programs meet its obligations on the treaty. Waging an unprovoked war of aggression was the chief crime for which Nazi leaders were convicted at the Nuremburg Trials following World War II.

The AIPAC lobby group has been pressing the Obama administration to accede to Israeli demands. Much of Obama’s speech yesterday was devoted to the record of his administration’s unequivocal support for Israel, including the staunch US defence in the UN of Israeli crimes such as the 2008 invasion of Gaza and its supply of advanced weaponry, which includes bunker buster bombs that would be used in any attack on Iran.

In a lengthy interview with the Atlantic last week, Obama reiterated his determination to halt Iran’s nuclear program, by military means if need be. “I don’t bluff,” he declared. Obama did, however, warn against any immediate Israeli strike, declaring: “At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally [Syria] is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?”

Obama’s comments also underscored the fraudulent character of US/Israeli allegations about Iran’s nuclear programs. “Our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know if they are making that attempt,” he admitted.

A New York Times article yesterday went further, noting: “Recent assessments by American spy agencies have reaffirmed intelligence findings in 2007 and 2010 that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.”

Commenting on previous tensions with Netanyahu, Obama told the Atlantic that any differences that had emerged were “tactical and not strategic.” While Israel has been hinting at an attack on Iran within months, the Obama administration has urged that the US and EU sanctions due to come into full force in July be given time to take effect.

Obama is clearly calculating that a war on Iran before the November presidential election would send oil prices skyrocketting, creating further social distress and impacting on his chances for re-election.

Whatever the exact outcome of today’s haggling between Obama and Netanyahu, it has the character of two gangsters plotting the details of their next crime. Any attack on Iran would be an utterly reckless enterprise that would inevitably inflame tensions throughout the Middle East and has the potential to trigger a broader regional and international conflict.

By Peter Symonds

5 March 2012

@ WSWS.org

Obama Apologizes For Kandahar Massacre: But Not His Own Killings

How shall the world view the apology by President Obama for the massacre of 16 Afghan villagers allegedly by a lone U.S. serviceman in Kandahar Province when the President is himself personally responsible for the extra-judicial killing of hundreds of civilians by means of drone aircraft strikes whose crime he defends? Army Staff Sgt., Robert Bales, of Lake Tapps, Wash., is being held in prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. Mr. Obama is free to travel the campaign trail.

“We’re heart-broken over the loss of innocent life,” the president said of the Kandahar massacre. His seeming expression of contrition rings hollow, though, particularly if one considers how Mr. Obama goes about his daily routine ordering drone strikes and seemingly is unaffected by the “loss of innocent lives” they cause, as well as by the hated companion night raids on Afghan homes, also the result of his policy.

As The New York Times reported March 17th, President Hamid Karzai said “many civilians have died in the (night) raids,” adding, “This has been going on for too long. It is by all means the end of the rope here. This form of activity, this behavior, cannot be tolerated.”

Obama is more than willing to investigate anyone other than himself for war crimes. “I can assure the American people and the Afghan people that we will follow the facts wherever they lead us, and we will make sure that anybody who was involved is held fully accountable with the full force of the law.” To “follow the facts” the president need look no further than his own mirror. Not surprisingly, he termed the drone strikes “very precise, precision strikes against al-Qaeda and their affiliates.” Given the facts, this is a falsehood.

As investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill writes in the March 5/12 issue of “The Nation,” “President Obama’s first known authorization of a missile strike on Yemen, on Dec. 17, 2009, killed more than 40 Bedouins, many of them women and children, in the remote village of al Majala in Abyan.”

And the Bureau of Investigative Journalism based at City University, London, put the number of Pakistani children killed in drone strikes at 168. In one raid directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, a drone was dispatched to kill the headmaster of a school, which it did—but 60 children attending classes there were killed as well. “Even one child’s death from drone missiles or suicide bombings is one child too many,” a UNICEF spokesperson said. President Obama takes a very different view. He claims drones have “not caused a huge number of civilian casualties” and it is “important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.”

Since 2004, the U.S. has made nearly 300 drone attacks just in N.W. Pakistan alone, killing between 1,700 and 2,800 individuals, of whom an estimated 17 percent were said to be civilians, not so-called “militants,” according to the New America Foundation of Washington, D.C.

In Somalia, last October 14th alone, U.S. drones killed 78 and injured 64 in one raid and killed 11 civilians and wounded 34 more the same day in another. And from March 3-12, the U.S. killed 64 people in Yemen by drone strikes. The government called them “militants” but local residents countered they were civilians.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon reportedly is building 60 drone bases across the world and its clamor for more planes is so great that contractors cannot keep up with demand. Rather than halt the use of these indiscriminate killing machines, indications are the Pentagon sees them as the future weapon of choice, and by some accounts they have now been used in six countries.

On the website of Iraq Veterans Against the War, the AP reports, organizer Aaron Hughes declared that Afghan war veterans “believe that this incident is not a case of one ‘bad apple’ but the effect of a continued US military policy of drone strikes, night raids, and helicopter attacks where Afghan civilians pay the price.’’

Mr. Obama has continued and expanded the criminal drone policies begun by his predecessor George W. Bush and both warmongers are eminently qualified to stand trial for their crimes.

By Sherwood Ross

@ Countercurrents.org

(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

 

Nuclear watchdog chief accused of pro-western bias over Iran

Former officials warn of parallels between IAEA approach to Iran and mistakes over Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction

International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukiya Amano, right, with the former US ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte. Amano is at the heart of the west’s confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme Photograph: Rudi Blaha/AP

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear watchdog at the heart of the growing Iranian crisis, has been accused by several former senior officials of pro-western bias, over-reliance on unverified intelligence and of sidelining sceptics.

Yukiya Amano, a veteran Japanese diplomat, took command of the IAEA in July 2009. Since then, the west’s confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme has deepened and threats of military action by Israel and the US have become more frequent.

At the same time, the IAEA’s reports on Iranian behaviour have become steadily more critical. In November, it published an unprecedented volume of intelligence pointing towards past Iranian work on developing a nuclear weapon, deeming it credible.

However, some former IAEA officials are saying that the agency has gone too far. Robert Kelley, a former US weapons scientists who ran the IAEA action team on Iraq at the time of the US-led invasion, said there were worrying parallels between the west’s mistakes over Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction then and the IAEA’s assessment of Iran now.

“Amano is falling into the Cheney trap. What we learned back in 2002 and 2003, when we were in the runup to the war, was that peer review was very important, and that the analysis should not be left to a small group of people,” Kelley said.

“So what have we learned since then? Absolutely nothing. Just like [former US vice-president] Dick Cheney, Amano is relying on a very small group of people and those opinions are not being checked.”

Other former officials have also raised concern that the current IAEA is becoming an echo chamber, focused on suspicions over Iran’s programme, without the vigorous debate that characterised the era of Amano’s predecessor Mohamed ElBaradei.

They point to Amano’s decision, in March last year, to dissolve the agency’s office of external relations and policy co-ordination (Expo), which under ElBaradei had second-guessed some of the judgments made by the safeguards department inspectors.

Expo cautioned against the publication of IAEA reports that the Bush administration might use to justify military action. Some inspectors believed that amounted to censorship and western governments said it was not the agency’s job to make political judgments.

ElBaradei’s advisers from Expo were moved sideways in the organisation, and the department’s functions have been absorbed by the director-general’s office. “There has been a concentration of power, with less diversity of viewpoints,” a former agency official said, adding that Amano has surrounded himself with advisors who have the same approach to Iran.

Hans Blix, a former IAEA director general, also raised concerns over the agency’s credibility. “There is a distinction between information and evidence, and if you are a responsible agency you have to make sure that you ask questions and do not base conclusions on information that has not been verified,” he said.

“The agency has a certain credibility. It should guard it by being meticulous in checking the evidence. If certain governments want a blessing for the intelligence they provide the IAEA, they should provide convincing evidence. Otherwise, the agency should not give its stamp of approval.” Blix said he could not say for certain whether that had happened under Amano’s watch.

The IAEA would not comment on the criticisms, under a policy which avoids entering public debate.

Western diplomats in Vienna, where the IAEA has its headquarters, defended Amano’s management, pointing out that much of the material on weaponisation had been previously raised when ElBaradei ran the agency, albeit in less detail, and was based on 1,000 pages of documentation.

“It is arguable that ElBaradei was a slightly more benefit-of-the-doubt operator than Amano,” one diplomat said. “He might have fretted more about making judgments on evidence because he didn’t have 100% confirmation. Amano says, ‘I don’t have 100% certainty, but it makes no sense saying nothing until a smoking gun is visible.’ “

Some of the controversy around Amano’s management dates to his election in 2009, when he narrowly beat Abdul Minty, a South African diplomat who championed the interests of developing countries organised in the Non-Aligned Movement, in a campaign which became a geopolitical contest between North and South.

“Amano’s director-generalship began under a bad star,” said Mark Hibbs, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The election was extremely polarised and bitter. Minty clearly appealed to states who see themselves as underdogs and have-nots. Amano was supported by the US and others who saw him as rolling back the IAEA’s political aspirations under ElBaradei to a more technical agency.”

The acrid taste left by the election was heightened by the US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks which revealed Amano’s assiduous courting of American support. In an October 2009 cable, the US charge d’affaires, Geoffrey Pyatt, wrote: “Amano reminded [the] ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the developing countries group], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the US court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”

In an earlier cable in July that year, the Americans recount discussions with Amano on the future of officials, particular in Expo, “some of whom have not always been helpful to US positions”. Last year, the named officials were moved to other jobs, out of the inner core which drafts the quarterly reports, like the controversial one on Iran in November.

Hibbs argues that some degree of reorganisation was desirable and inevitable given the heated public battles under ElBaradei. “Many states’ diplomats were appalled that a small number of officials in the two [IAEA] departments were at war with each other and at the extent they were prepared to use the media to get their points across,” he said.

Under Amano, internal debates have generally not leaked, and he has centralised the organisation, insisting that most public statements come from his office. But this has not stop controversy from enveloping the agency, just as it did under ElBaradei. In the first major crisis of the Amano tenure, the Fukushima nuclear disaster following the Japanese tsunami a year ago, he was widely blamed for not acting quickly and aggressively enough.

Criticism over the agency’s outspoken comments on Iran has also focused on the director-general. Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a Washington-based non-proliferation organisation, said: “The main beneficiaries of the Amano reign have been US policy and the Japanese nuclear power industry. There has been no space between Amano and Barack Obama, and he withheld serious criticism of the industry during the Fukushima crisis.”

He added: “On Iran, the difference is like night and day. ElBaradei constantly sought a diplomatic solution, while Amano wields a big stick and has hit Iran hard and repeatedly.”

On the other hand, Cirincione added, ElBaradei’s more restrained approach had not succeeded in persuading Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium in line with UN security council demands.

The facts of that accelerating enrichment programme are generally not disputed, only the intentions behind it. Cirincione also said new information has come to the IAEA’s attention during Amano’s stewardship, which may warrant the more detailed report on the possible military dimensions of the programme issued in November.

Even Kelley, a fierce critic of the agency, said in a recent commentary that “[Iran] claims to have given up its nuclear weapons ambitions, yet repeatedly acts as if it has something to hide. I am a sceptic; I suspect the Iranians may have an ongoing weaponisation programme. And the uncertainty must be resolved.”

Kelley argues that with war and peace in the balance, as well as the IAEA’s credibility, anything it publishes must be thoroughly verified. In particular, he questions the agency’s focus on a bus-sized steel vessel supposedly installed in an Iranian military site at Parchin in 2000, which the November report said was for “hydrodynamic experiments” – testing shaped, high-explosive arrays used to implode the spherical fissile core of a warhead and start a chain reaction. Kelley disputes the agency’s logic.

“You don’t do hydrodynamic testing of nuclear bombs in containers,” he said. “All of such tests would be done at outdoor firing sites, not in a building next to a major highway.”

Kelley also says the suggestion in the November report that weapons experimentation could be continuing is based largely on a single document, which ElBaradei had rejected as dubious. In his memoir, The Age of Deception, ElBaradei talks about documents supplied in 2009 by Israel, the authenticity of which was questioned by the agency’s experts.

Western government officials argue that with the use of advanced fibre optics, a containment vessel could be used to perfect the timing of explosive arrays, and say that evidence that has surfaced during Amano’s tenure had added to the credibility of the Israeli document. However, the judgment of the US intelligence community is that weapons development ceased in 2003.

Jim Walsh, an expert on the Iranian nuclear programme at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that US intelligence had become more certain over recent years in its judgment that Iran ceased weaponisation work in 2003.

“Amano has been way out in front of the US on this,” Walsh said. “I think if the agency is going to be a neutral player in this – and we need a neutral player to make the sort of judgements that have to be made – it will have to be more conservative that the national governments on this.”

The issue is critical. While there is no doubt that Iran is in contravention of US security council resolutions, and there is substantial evidence that the country had an organised weapons project up to 2003, the claim that work has continued has added to the sense of urgency that has fuelled the western oil embargo, due to take effect in less than four months, and threats of military action.

Laban Coblentz, ElBaradei’s former speechwriter and a collaborator on The Age of Deception, said that huge stakes could rest on the nuances with which the IAEA director-general interprets the evidence.

“It is a very difficult place to be sitting,” Coblentz said. “Amano and ElBaradei were looking at the same allegations. They have both said to their people: please pursue this. All that is the same. The other thing that is the same is that so far the most substantial allegations have not been verified. What has changed is the willingness to publish those allegations that have not been verified as a tool to pressure the Iranians to come to the table.”

Timeline

July 1968 Iran joins nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT)

August 2002 The rebel group the National Council for Resistance in Iran reveals the existence of undeclared nuclear sites, including an enrichment plant in Natanz and a heavy-water production plant in Arak. Iran acknowledges existence of sites and asks the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect them

June 2003 The IAEA rebukes Iran for not declaring plant but does not find it in violation of the NPT

October 2003 Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment and to allow a regime of unannounced IAEA inspections

September 2005 The IAEA finds Iran in non-compliance with the NPT, because of failure to report its nuclear activities

December 2005 Security council imposes the first set of sanctions on Iran for its refusal to accept a resolution calling for a suspension of enrichment

January 2006 Iran breaks IAEA seals on Natanz plant and other nuclear sites

February 2006 The IAEA reports Iran to the UN security council for non-compliance

December 2006 UN imposes first round of sanctions, resolution 1737, which called on states to block Iran’s import and export of “sensitive nuclear material”

December 2007 A US national intelligence estimate concludes that Iran had stopped its weapons development programme in 2003

September 2009 Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy announce that their intelligence agencies have found a new Iranian enrichment plant dug into the side of a mountain near Qom, at a site called Fordow. Iran had revealed its existence to the IAEA days earlier, but western officials say that was because it knew it had been discovered

October 2009 An apparent breakthrough at a meeting in Geneva, in which Iran agreed to export 1,200kg of its low-enrichment uranium, 75% of the total, in return for foreign-made, 20%-enriched fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). The deal breaks down three weeks later in Vienna

February 2010 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces that Iran has made its own 20%-enriched uranium

May 2010 Brazil and Turkey broker a deal on the TRR fuel swap along same lines as the Geneva proposal. However, US and its allies reject the deal as too late, in view of Iran’s nuclear progress since Geneva

January 2011 An attempt to restart international negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme breaks down in Istanbul

November 2011 The IAEA issues a report citing extensive evidence of past work on nuclear weapons, confirming that Iran had tripled its production of 20% uranium and made the underground Fordow site fully operational

January-February 2012 IAEA inspectors visit Tehran to investigate evidence pointing to a past weapons programme, but say they did not receive sufficient co-operation

By Julian Borger and Katy Roberts

22 March 2012

@ The Guardian

• This timeline was corrected on 23 March 2012 because the date given for Iran joining the NPT was April 1998 instead of July 1968.

No One Form Of Resistance Is Going To Succeed:: Arundhati Roy

Diana Mavroleon in conversation with Arundhati Roy and Professor Robert Biel

Recorded ‘Live’ on Resonance 104.4fm., 8th June 2011

DM: lntroduction:

Arundhati Roy catapulted to international fame by the publication and subsequent award of the coveted Booker Prize in 1997 for her acclaimed (first) novel ‘The God of Small Things’. This year coincided with lndia celebrating its 50th anniversary year of independence from British colonial rule in 1947. Prior to this Arundhati wrote screenplays for film and television. Perhaps her notoriety began in 1994 with her critical review entitled: ‘The Great lndian Rape Trick’ when she questioned the rights of Shekhar Kapur’s film ‘Bandit Queen’ which re-staged the rape of a living woman without her consent. Roy charged Kapur with… “Exploiting Phoolan Devi and mis-representing both her life and its meaning”.

This critique now seems to have been poised as the early stirrings of Roy’s deep, strong and fiercely committed work of the last fourteen years; her political activism having taken hold of her voice and pen through the acute observations of the tribal people of lndia, in a worse state in our present day than probably ever before: 80% are still suffering from chronic malnutrition, that is 350 million lndian citizens living below the poverty line and with little chance of ever rising above it.

After a national struggle from colonialism, a war is now being waged between the ferocious, insatiable appetite of globalization, together with the state and multi-national corporate collusion against the marginalized millions of mainly the rural poor of lndia. Whilst vast areas of central lndia are actively pursued by corporate and state funded investment projects, literally millions of people have become displaced. Deprived of their land and farms and of all terms of equity, they are herded away, many into camps, resulting in their traditional ways of agrarian life perhaps being lost forever.

Roy’s support for Kashmiri nationalism, her campaigning alongside the Narmada Bacho Andolen (NBA) against the Sardar Sarovar great dam project fuelled by huge, some would say, un-payable national loans from North America and speculative, wolfish multi-nationals… all this now indubitably amounting to nothing less than ecocide and financial terrorism against India’s poor.

DM: Arundhati, you’re braving all for what you believe in. You represent India’s lowest rung on the caste system, the Dalits, and the definitely worsening situation for the under-classes of lndia, the disposed and the displaced. All this against the glittering banner of ‘Neo-liberalism’, a term that we’re going to be de-constructing throughout the show; it is waived in a sickening sort of fashion by what is now the expanding and broadly quite nonchalant middle classes of lndia who can be heard singing in chorus: “lndia is Shining!”.

This seems to be the banner that we’re getting here in the West. I’d like to welcome Arundhati Roy to Resonance, also Professor Robert Biel. Robert is saying that he’s not exactly a ‘specialist’ on lndia, although his three main books are certainly valid for this show. They more or less form a trilogy: ‘Euro-centralism and the Communist Movement’, ‘The New lmperialism’ and ‘The Entropy of Capitalism’. The fundamental point throughout all these works is to explore the struggles of the most repressed people.


“lndia being at the forefront of social change because it has been propelled into a certain role by global capitalism which is in itself on the brink of catastrophe”. (RB).

The Entropy of Capitalism is very contemporary and explores the content of a collapsing capitalist world order and its implications for the social movements that we will have to inherit.

DM: Arundhati, how did you initially become involved in the NBA movement that was in opposition of the great dam being built? I think it’s the third largest in the world?

AR: Before l answer that question l’d just like to say that l don’t really see myself as ‘representing’ anybody but myself. l’m not a politician. I do write about these things as a political writer, but l don’t think l have the right to say l represent anybody.

To answer your question about how l got involved with the Narmada movement, actually the NBA, which means ‘Save the Narvada’.

The Narmada is a river in central lndia. It’s been one of the most spectacular Ghandian movements in post-independence lndia and the arguments against the building of the big dams are politically, ecologically and economically amongst the most profound arguments l feel l have ever written about.

Directly l got involved because the movement was at its peak sometime in ’93-94, and it had become one of the first ‘Peoples’ movements to actually chase the World Bank out. The World Bank itself commissioned a report called the ‘Morse Committee Report’

And the report came out saying….

“This is an absolute disgrace, and that the World Bank should pull out of it”, which it did and then the Indian government took over the funding. At that time the repression in the valley against the fact that this dam was going to submerge, displacing something like 200,000 people just by the reservoir alone, a lot of them tribal people. The police repression (and so on) had increased to a point, and the movement decided to go to Court. The Supreme Court ordered a ‘Temporary Stay’ on the building of the dam. That was celebrated for a few years, but then in 1999 the court suddenly lifted the ‘Stay’ creating a great deal of despair, because in those intervening years the movement had somehow dispersed, not entirely, but it had lost a lot of its momentum. l decided to travel to the valley to write about it and l wrote an essay called…“The Greater Common Good” in which l argued that the dams were an absolutely disastrous policy to follow.

DM: It’s worth mentioning that over the last 50 years of dam building there’s a modest estimation of 33 million that could be expanded to 56 million people in India who have been displaced, through not just the mega-dam building, but 1000’s of smaller dams being built and that in India 80% of the land is agrarian land. The life, the main vein of India runs through its farming; a rural life, and the people who are being displaced at the moment are in the central states, but the dams are going throughout. And so the dams alone are a sort of ironic analogy of what you would like to think of as water running through the veins of the land, but in fact it’s gone disastrously wrong. A lot of the dams actually don’t work do they?

AR: Well, the fact is that after that struggle, which in a way is still going on, but in a way is now just a struggle for compensation (and things like that), but in the north-east in the state of Arunachal they are planning hundreds of dams. Other than that they are going even further and planning something called ‘The River Linking Scheme’ where they are trying to link all of India’s rivers as if there is a sort of drainage system. Just the business of building the dams gives so much money to those who build them. They are now amongst the richest industrialists in the world, the dam builders. The figure is between 33-50 million displaced. India has something like 3,000 big dams and they are planning several hundred more. When they know that the dams don’t work; when they know that the dams are silting up; when they know that the areas affected by dams are now becoming salt effected and water logged. So it’s a case of knowing that what you are creating is an ecological disaster and on an un-imaginable scale, but doing nothing to stop it but pushing the project further and further.

DM: Just to endorse what you have just said, a quote from (your book) ‘Power Politics’,

“Quite apart from the human cost of big dams, there are staggering environmental costs; over 3 million acres of emerged forests, ravaged eco-systems, destroyed rivers, de-funct silted up reservoirs, endangered wildlife, disappearing bio-diversity and 24 million acres of agricultural land that is now water-logged and saline. Today there are more drought prone and flood prone areas in India than there were in 1947. Not a single river in the plains has potable water. Remember – 200 million Indians have no access to safe drinking water”.

So basically, apart from the ecological disaster on a rural and agricultural level, is there any going back?

I’d like to bring Robert Biel into this now. Robert you have an intense interest in agriculture. You have been active in practical experiments in ‘Low Level Food Growing’. What is your take on the vast amount of forestry that is actually submerged now? If you put a halt to it, have you any idea how one would be able to salvage the damage and the loss that has actually taken place; and how would you propose to go forward with a system that might just work?

RB: I think you have to hand knowledge back to the farmers and to the basic producers. The traditional approach to agriculture was always to understand how the natural system worked and to work with it, and to understand it you need a deep amount of knowledge, and then you can minimize the physical input because you want not to interfere with how the natural system works, but to work in sympathy and symbiosis with it, and l think that was the traditional approach. What you have in any system of ‘domination’ is to siphon knowledge to the top of the system to take it away from the people, and so the fundamental solution is to re-distribute knowledge and allow experimentation to flourish from below.

I think what we’ve done from by distancing ourselves from Nature, by alienating ourselves and trying to control it and impose some sort of rule over it is to create a system where we have to put in too much energy. This notion of ‘The Entropy of Capitalism’ which l put forward, one of the things it means, is the drying up of energy that enters into the system. The most obvious way in the ecological debate is fossil fuel energy which is what we talk about quite a lot, and obviously if fossil fuel energy is drying up and we still have this very high energy demand then we’re going to have to go into a kind of mad quest for supposedly renewable forms of energy. We can see this with the bio-fuel ideas. For example: if you look at Brazil which is a kind of equivalent to India in that it’s making an insane bid to be a new ‘super power’ premised on creating bio-fuel plantations with immense ecological damage. The phenomenon of dams is another aspect – a false quest for pseudo, sustainable energy to meet this energy gap.

DM: There was a spectacular struggle by NBA beginning in 1993, and what l can decipher is that the Supreme Court would halt the plans and then they would lift injunctions and the whole case would open up again. This seems to be much the case in Indian politics that these cases would go on for years and years and give hope to the people and to their movement. We’re going to go onto the subject of the area of Chhattisgarh and the displacement of the Adivasi in the forests a bit later on in the show, but in the case of the NBA, could you try to describe what that movement’s impact was on first of all halting it (the dam), and what are the effects of it now and where are we as it actually stands?

AR: Well, first of all, if you look at what is known as the ‘Narmada Valley Development Project’. lt consists of thousands of dams built on this one river that was to change this whole river into a sort of step reservoir, and the movement of the Adivasi, the indigenous tribal people in the hills and the bigger farmers in the plains, to stop these dams was a movement that, in a way, did much to catch the imagination of many people across the world. It was a non-violent movement and appealed to every institute in India’s democracy, and yet it ended up being completely side lined. This doesn’t mean it didn’t have any success. I would say that the main success was a sort of awakening in the minds of people, that they did have the right to resist and that they did have the right to question. However, the Indian government listened to nothing. It toyed with them; it played around with them for many years. So did the courts. They had several committees and secret reports. All of that happened and eventually it side-lined the movement, leaving people with a question and with what has led to a great deal of violence: “Which democratic institute in this country, in India, can an ordinary person appeal to and expect justice from?”

I think that is the fundamental question today, because it’s not just an accumulation of ‘knowledge’ of course, it’s an accumulation of ‘water’. All civilizations have tried to control water, but here the accumulation of these huge reservoirs of water are actually a part of a very particular part of a political vision where the Home Minister of India today says he wants to see 75 – 80% of India’s people living in these huge cities, (of course they are also chased out of the cities), but in order to have that movement of 75% of the people you are talking about moving 500 million people which means you need a militarized society to achieve that. Then you control the people in the cities; you control the water in the rivers; you control the resources and decide, ‘who is expendable and who isn’t?’… That is what is going on now.

DM: If we talk a little about the ‘re-settlement plans’, one thing l see is that people are herded away onto land that isn’t even agricultural, and so they can’t sustain themselves, and so it seems that at the end of the day they are even flooding land that is supposed to be sorted for re-settlement. Where does the voice of the Indian people, on a grass roots level, actually go?

The Supreme Court, and l’m not actually at this stage saying that they are acting in collusion, but if their (the peoples’) voices are not heard, what is actually happening to these people now Arundhati?

AR: Well, once again, if you look at the Narvada project, there was something that had as much power as the Supreme Court, a sort of Narvada water disputes tribunal which came out with what sounded like a pretty reasonable rehabilitation plan, to those who believe that tribal people can be up-rooted, which is a genocidel suggestion in the first place. Let’s put that aside for later. lt said that the villagers who’d be displaced would be given “land for land” that “villages would be settled as villages”.

What of course did not count were the many people who were going to suffer as ‘projected effected’. For example those who were effected by the canals were not ‘projected effected’; those who didn’t have land, Dalits or Untouchable castes; fishing people; sand miners… these were people who were not considered, but even those who were considered ’project effected’ eventually ended up being scattered around. For example one of the first few villages was re-settled in 120 different places, and that’s just one village, and then others were simply not. Then the Courts said, “Let’s just forget about ‘land for land’ and give them ‘cash compensation”. 

Give ‘who’ cash compensation? Who qualifies for that?

DM: And what can they spend the money on?

AR: The men get the money. They drink, they buy motorbikes that they can’t even run because they don’t have money for fuel after two months, and a whole society is destroyed. But l think for political movements it was difficult to explain to people that when a dam is being built so far away, that actually your house is going to go down under water. Often the tribal people would say…

”lt can’t be. That can’t happen. Our river wouldn’t allow that to happen!”.

But it happened. Today the situation is that nobody believes these things anymore. Nobody believes the bullshit about…

”We’ll give you jobs; you’ll modernize and you’ll get the fruits of modern development”, which is one of the favourite phrases that are being banded around. So you have, gradually, lndia that is becoming more or less un-governable. You have insurrections, some armed, some un-armed, all over the place. You have an increasing deployment of paramilitary and of course today, the terrifying prospect of the wars that were fought in Kashmir, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, migrating to the heart of lndia. They are planning to deploy the Army and even the Air Force against the indigenous people’s struggle in Chhattisgarh that is in the centre of lndia, and where the corporates want the lands for mining.

(MUSIC INTERLUDE: extract supplied by the Adivasi Arts Trust of the Pardhan Gond tribe based along the Narvada River in Madya Pradesh, playing a traditional song on the Bana fiddle, called the Karma dance.)

DM: l’d like to make a mention of ‘Disappearing Worlds’ that is the title of the photographic exhibition currently being held at SOAS in the Brunei Gallery, by Robert Wallis, about the ancient traditions of the adivasi/tribal people of lndia being under threat.

What we are seeing now is collusion between the lndian state and the national and multi-national corporates who are honing in on the fact that the rural and poorest parts of lndia are actually home to some of the richest in natural resources.

Arundhati, you have worked extensively in these rural parts, you have seen what is going on there first hand. There’s a Maoist insurgence; the ‘Salwa Judum’ has just been disbanded but in place of that is ‘Operation Green Hunt’ …which seems to be even more terrifying. Could you give us some background as to why a State funded, armed, local militia like Salwa Judum was put in there in the first place, and what position the Maoists are in, in the rural parts of lndia today?

AR: That’s quite a long and far ranging question to answer. Let me try to do it on a few levels. First, as we know that from Independence to the late 1980s to the early 90s, India was following a Nehruvian, Soviet model of development where the economy had the commanding heights and there came the displacements; the big dams; the big state infra-structure projects. But in the late 80s, basically after Capitalism won its ‘Jehahd’ over Soviet Communism in Afghanistan, India re-aligned itself and became completely aligned, and saw itself as a natural ally of Israel and America, and opened its markets. At exactly the same time it also opened the locks of a 14c mosque called the ‘Barbri Masjid’ which had been a disputed site between the Hindu and Muslim communities, where the Hindu’s said that their god ‘Ram’ had been born there. When both these locks had been opened, the locks of the Indian market and the locks of the Barbri Masjid, it un-leased two kinds of totalitarianism; one was the Indian right wing totalitarianism; the other was a sort of economic totalitarianism, both of which at the end of their process manufactured these two so called kinds of terrorism: the Islamist terrorists for the Hindu Right, and you had the Maoist terrorists for the Economic Right. Both parties: the Hindu Fundamentalist Party called the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), and the Congress party used this bogus of terrorism to continuously militarize, and the laws; the liberalism; the privatization and the corporatisation of the infra-structure and public institutions actually drove up the economic growth rate. lt created a huge a huge middle class in terms of numbers which became a market that was coveted by the economic and business communities across the world, but that middle class was created at the cost of a massive under-class and the victims are not only the tribals.

So it’s not just that we are fighting to preserve some tribal community but a huge under-class of people, the tribal people in the forests and other villagers in the plains being massively dis-possessed. lf you look at a map of India today, the Maoists; the minerals; the tribals and the forests are all in the same place, and the governments have signed hundreds of ‘Memorandums of Understanding’ (MOU’s) with private corporations, handing over that tribal territory, even though it is expressly against the Indian Constitution. lnitially they tried to displace the tribals with what was called the Salwa Judum, which is a government, armed militia who are not necessarily the tribal elite. Some of them are victims of the government who are armed, made into police officers and told to go in and burn villages and rape women. lt was a policy of strategic hamleting where some 600 villages were forcibly emptied; 50,000 people came out to live in roadside camps and 350,000 people were off the radar. Half of them were in the forests; some ran to other states for look for jobs, but all of them were labelled as ‘Maoists’. The Maoists who were in the forests, and had been there for several years having been driven out of the neighbouring state of Andhara Pradesh, suddenly expanded their strength because tribal people had watched their brothers and sisters being killed and raped, their villages being burnt. The Maoists then formed their Gorilla Army and fought the Salwa Judum, and fought them quite successfully. So then the government then upped the anti and announced ‘Operation Green Hunt’ where it formerly sent in something like 200,000 paramilitary forces to the states of these adivasi populations living on mineral rich land.

Operation Green Hunt also didn’t really succeed, so now they are sending in the Army, pretending that they are just sending them to create a big army training centre but in actual fact of course everyone knows that the Army and the Air Force are going to be deployed by the world’s largest democracy against its own people.

DM: We have a situation where there are organizations; non-violent, civil organizations working within these areas, for example the PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties), which is now under serious threat of being branded an ‘illegal’ organization. These organizations work against civil and human rights violations that are being purged against the poor and the displaced, and who have no real way of contacting the outside world. How trapped and isolated these people are. You can hardly imagine the cult of terror that is actually taking place in vast amounts of India today. lt seems that the elite, mega rich of India and the expanding rich middle classes have actually become the State.

We could also talk a bit about the DflD (UK’s Department for lnternational Development) having invested millions of pounds of funds into India, (lndia being the largest recipient of DflD aid having received over £1 billion in bi-lateral aid between 2003-2008), under the auspices of trying to help it develop internally. What seems to be happening now is that the suppression of voice, even of an NGO whether it be from a foreign country or a homegrown organization, is being called ‘a voice to crush’.

And so how do you see the Media being able to make any ground in order to support these people? ls there any Media support for them? lt would seem as though everybody stands the risk of being arrested and imprisoned on trumped up charges. We’re going to be talking a little about Dr Binayak Sen who is out on bail at the moment, but he was given a life sentence (by a Raipur Session Court in Chhattisgarh) on trumped up charges, basically for investigating Salwa Judum, and trying to see that the in-balance (of health care) be re-addressed. And so what is the media focus on what is going on there now? There must be some sort of discourse going on in India?

AR: There is a debate of sorts going on, but what has happened is that we have to look at it in this way: that there is a band width of resistance movements, the Maoists are the armed end of it inside the forest, and there are non-violent and militant movements being waged very bravely against paramilitary forces by villagers outside of the forest. But what has happened is that the government has passed a series of laws, particularly the ‘Unlawful Activities Act’, which if you read the ‘Chhattisgarh Special Security Safety Act’, laws like these which make even thinking an anti-government thought, a criminal offence. So under these laws of ‘Sedition’ and ‘Waging Wars Against the State’, what is happening is that everybody, whether they are inside or outside the forest is being called a Maoist and being imprisoned.

The role of the media, and of course there is a media that does cover it sometimes, but generally the problem is that 90% of the turnover of the media’s profits comes from corporate advertising. And so often you will have a situation in which some media houses have direct mining interests; or you have huge corporates like the Tata’s or Essar who have mining interests in that area and who actually run magazines and newspapers, and so in many ways are in a position to control the content. You have the deliberate hunting down of all activists outside of the forest who express any kind of sympathy, or any kind of condemnation of what is going on. The effort is really to isolate people in their villages or in the forest. You have people who are seriously malnutritioned, living in conditions of famine, but they can’t come out of the forest; they can’t buy medicines; they can’t buy food. And so it is an extremely serious situation.

Apart from the Army and the Paramilitary, the other huge effort is to break the movement by using ‘informers’… paying really poor people to go in, and to come out with information so that the Movement breaks from within. lt’s an extremely dire situation, a sort of ancient war being fought but in a very modern way, using the media as a weapon as well.

DM: Robert, where would you say ‘Democracy’ might stand here? There isn’t a vertical description of it, but where are we able to discern where the ingredients of a truthful democracy might be in India today, and where do you see this term going? Can we even properly use the term ‘democracy’ for India?

RB: l think that globally, democracy should mean ‘the right for people to make an input into the future; to vision what the future is going to be’. At the moment there is a very strong, dominant discourse which is kind of siphoning within itself, all the right to determine what the definitions of the society are and what the future is going to be, and l think it’s that kind of challenge which is really important.

MUSIC interlude: from the album ‘Goddess’ released on Arc Music, composed by Baluji Shrivanath. Linda Chanson, vocals. Baluji Shrivanath, sitar.

DM: Arundhati, what are your observations of globalization’s impact, firstly on India and the reverberations on what is being described as an upward-bound super power? What is the reality of globalization?

AR: Well, as I said, in the process of what they called ‘freeing’ or ‘liberating’ the markets began in the early 1990s, and democracy has come to be synonymous with the free market and yes, of course it drove up the growth rate, but how does that growth rate continue to grow? Lt continues to grow because they are selling off public infrastructure including minerals and obviously water supply and telecommunication etc. The scandals are now in billions of dollars. They are selling minerals to corporations for just a small royalty; the government gets almost nothing and the corporations are making such huge amounts of money they can buy everybody. They buy judges; journalists; politicians, newspapers….

DM: That’s a coalition of world super-powers isn’t it? Therein lies the mattress.

AR: Yes, and what is the end result of India? ls it doing the majority of people any good? Surely it has created a middle class, but it has also resulted in 836 million people living on less than 20 rupees a day, which is 30 cents a day; it has made India a country with more poor people than all the poorest countries in Africa put together; it has resulted in the suicides of, I think, 175,000 farmers who have been in debt; it has the world’s largest population of malnutritioned children.

So if you could see that we were moving in a direction where yes, some people are going to suffer but eventually things would be okay, that would be fine. But you see it moving in exactly the opposite direction, and some of us have been saying this for years, not because we are rocket scientists but because we could see it happening. Today we have a country in which there is a civil war which the corporate media is doing its best to hide, and anybody who is speaking about it is being jailed or imprisoned, or in some way threatened, or maligned, or smeared in some pretty dangerous ways.

DM: Your book ‘Listening to Grasshoppers’ (2009), has the sub-title ‘Field Notes on Democracy’. Just looking at that term now, how does it apply? lt certainly doesn’t apply on an horizontal plain, but are there any vertical points that you could pin down, an element where democracy is actually working and could effect that band of middle class who I used the term ‘nonchalant’ to describe earlier, because it would seem that unless certain sections of a middle class join with the masses, that mass movement is inevitably going to be crushed by the forces that be, as we’ve seen in Chhattisgarh. They are now placing an army right on the fringes of the forests there and calling it ‘Training in Forestry Military Tactics’. They are always going to come up with these new titles for suppressing and crushing the voices of dissent, whether they are Maoists or villagers or whoever. ls it that there is such a climate of terror that even if people wanted to speak out, are the middle classes frightened would you say, of being able to voice opinion, even if they were against all these state corruptions and collusions?

AR: I think that what has happened in India is that the institutions of democracy, whether it is the press, or the courts, or the parliament… all of it has been hollowed out by this huge flush of corporate funding. The political parties are run by corporations, and so even if they appear to disagree with each other, on Wikileaks you had them re-assuring the Americans with, ”Look, it’s just theatre. You know we actually agree with everything that is being said!”

What has happened though, is that five years ago l would have said…

“Yes, the middle class is vested in this process; that it is impervious; it is nonchalant; it will not look in that direction of horror”.

But today l think what has happened is that the middle classes have begun to smell the blood in the air, and the danger to themselves in a way, the danger to a fractured future in which this country just breaks up into a very un-safe and very un-civil place. So I think on several issues middle class opinion has fractured and that is what is worrying the government deeply; that is people like Binayak Sen were put in jail, and then released, also in the hope that it would make the middle class feel that… 

“It was just about an individual, he has been released now, it’s okay!”

Whereas in fact he represents something far deeper and people have begun to feel very uneasy about what is going on. That is why increasingly you have the hunting down of middle class activists and intellectuals; what I call the ‘Urban Altar of Operation Green Hunt’.

DM: lf people (listening) want to keep on track of the issues Arundhati Roy is raising, her latest publication is entitled: ‘Broken Republic’ (2011), and the conversations she has held with various people are in: ‘The Shape of the Beast’ (2008).

Robert, your take on democracy and what the impact of globalization is having on India today?

RB: I think it’s to do with having a say on what the future is going to be. lf we ask in relation to the Maoists which we were talking about earlier, the origins of Maoism was in the late 1960s and 70s. This was the time when the Soviet brand of Communism was saying that there should be popular struggles that should rock the boat, and the future would be settled by the Soviet Union winning a battle, competing against the Western economy on the same terms. That was always a very false assumption, and so the origins of the Maoist movement were just people saying “No”, that they were going to stand up and struggle for what they thought was right and not kind of subordinated to that kind of restraint. That’s something historical. So if we ask, “What is the basis for these kinds of radical movements now?”, I think there has to be a de-generation of the global capitalist system, and l’m using this term ‘Entropy’, which means not just the drying up of energy but the loss of information; the loss of diversity. You can see this both in the sense of there’s homogenization through globalism which sort of creates uniform culture and stamps out the kind of differences of tribal peoples and so on. The other way you can see this is that there is actually a lot of information around; there is a lot of creativity and exciting ideas around, but the ruling order either can’t see it or doesn’t want to see it. And so there is always a tendency to destroy what you don’t understand, and from the standpoint of the ruling order there are two ways you can do it. You either create an enclave of what you do understand which is the ‘gated community’ kind of idea, or you try to imprison what you don’t understand in strategic hamlets (or something like this), and so these two aspects go hand in hand.

I think the notion of terrorism, in part has always been used as an excuse to suppress popular movements, but it also does reflect a real fear of the ruling system; that everything is kind of slipping out of control of what it can understand.

DM: And finally Arundhati, ‘Satyagraha’ or ‘Non violent resistance’: Do you feel that it is possible at the stage things are at now in India; can a non violent resistance actually succeed in what is now clearly becoming a civil war? People are going to the State.

AR: I think that no one form of resistance is going to succeed. Like you cannot have a monoculture forest, you need a diversity of resistance. lnside the forest where there is a tribal village, when a thousand security forces go and surround it and start to burn it and kill people, they can hardly be expected to go on hunger strike because non violent resistance is a form of ‘theatre’, sometimes an effective form of theatre, but it needs an audience and a sympathetic audience. Outside of the forests these armed, military resistance movements are not being able to function. These Maoists have been wiped out, so you need a bandwidth of resistance in order to succeed.

DM: I’d like to thank the IWA (lndian Workers Association, UK) for helping to put this show together; Tara Douglas, Director of the Adivasi Arts Trust for the sound track of the Pardhan Gond; my managers here at Resonance fm, Chris Weaver and Richard Thomas, and to Arundhati Roy and Robert Biel.

PLAY OUT MUSIC: ‘Moving Away’ from the album ‘How many Prophets’ by Tunde Jegede and the Nomadic Mystics (2009).

(Transcribed from the original radio show by Diana Mavroleon).


20 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Produced, Researched and Presented by Diana Mavroleon.