Archives: Articles

“So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/Multiculturalists”. Anders Behring Breivik’s Manifesto

“. . . two more cells exist in my organization”. . . Ander Behring Breivik in police custody (Reuters 7/25/11)

Introduction:

The July 22, 2011, bombing of the office of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Labor Party Jen Stoltenberg, which killed 8 civilians, and the subsequent political assassination of 68 unarmed activists of the Labor Party Youth on Utoeya Island, just 20 minutes from Oslo, by militant neo-fascist Christian-Zionists, raises fundamental questions about the growing links between the legal Far-Right, the ‘mainstream media’, the Norwegian police, Israel and rightwing terrorism.

The Mass Media and the Rise of Rightwing Terrorism:

The leading English language newspapers, The New York Times (NYT), the Washington Post (WP), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and the Financial Times (FT), as well as President Obama, blamed “Islamic extremists”, upon the first police reports of the killings, publishing a series of incendiary (and false) headlines and reports, labeling the event as ‘Norway’s 9-11’,in terms, which echoed the ideological motivation and justifications cited by the Norwegian Christian-Zionist political assassin, Anders Behring Breivik himself. The July 23/24 front page of the Financial Times (of London), read “Islamist extremism fears: Worst Europe strike since 2005”. Obama immediately cited the terrorist attack in Norway to further justify his overseas wars against Muslim countries. The FT, NYT, WP and WSJ trotted out their self-styled “experts” who debated over which Arab/Islamic leaders or movements were responsible – despite Norwegian press reports of ‘the arrest of a Nordic man in police uniform’.

Clearly, the US mass media and political elite were eager to use the bombing and assassinations to justify ongoing overseas imperial wars, ignoring the burgeoning domestic extremist rightwing organizations and violent individuals who are the outgrowth of official Islamophobic hate propaganda.

When Anders Breivik, a known neo-fascist extremist, handed his weapons over to Norwegian police without resistance and claimed credit for the bombing and massacre, the second phase of the official cover-up took place: He was immediately described as “a lone wolf assassin”, who “acted alone” (BBC July 24, 2011) or as mentally deranged, downplaying his political networks, his American, European and Israeli ideological mentors and commitments, which led to his acts of terrorism. Even more outrageous, the media and officials ignored the fact that this complex, multiphase terrorist attack was beyond the capacity of one ‘deranged’ person.

Anders Behring Breivik had been a dues-paying member of a Far-Right political party, The Progress Party and a collaborator and contributor to an overtly neo-Nazi web site. He frequently focused his hatred on the ruling Labor Party for its relative tolerance of immigrants. He despised immigrants especially, Muslims, and was an ardent Christian-Zionist supporter of Israeli repression and terror against the Palestinian people. His criminal action was political in essence and embedded in a much wider political network.

The political elite and media have scrambled to deny the overlapping links between ‘legal’ ideological Islamophobes, like the American Zionists Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, the Dutch far-right Party of Freedom led by the hate-monger Geert Wilders and their counterparts in the Norwegian Progress Party who rail against the “Muslim threat”. The “direct action” terrorists take their cues from electoral parties, like the Progress Party, who recruit and indoctrinate activists, like Behring Breivik, who then leave the ‘electoral road’ to carry out their bloody carnage, allowing the ‘respectable’ hate-mongers to hypocritically condemn him… after the outrage.

The Lone Assassin: A Fascist Superman Travels Faster than a Speeding Bullet Versus the Police Moving Slower than an Arthritic Turtle

The case for the “lone wolf terrorist” defies credence. It is a tissue of lies used to cover up state complicity, intelligence malfeasance, and the sharp right-turn in the domestic and foreign policies of NATO countries.

There is no basis to accept Breivik’s initial claim that he acted alone for several outstanding reasons: First, the car bomb, which devastated downtown Oslo, was a highly complex weapon requiring expertise and coordination – the kind available to state or intelligence services, like the Mossad, which specialize in devastating car bombs. Amateurs, like Breivik, with no training in explosives, usually blow themselves up or lack the skill required to connect the electronic timing devices or remote detonators (like the unsuccessful ‘shoe’, ‘underpants’ and ‘Times Square’ bombers have proved) . Secondly, the details of (a) moving the bomb, (b) obtaining (stealing) a vehicle, (c) placing the device at the strategic site, (d) successfully detonating it and (e) then gowning up in an elaborate special police uniform with an arsenal of hundreds of rounds of ammunition and driving off in another vehicle to Utoeya Island, (f) waiting patiently while armed to the teeth for a ferry boat, g) crossing with other passengers in his police uniform, (h) rounding up the Labor youth activists and commencing the massacre of scores of unarmed youth and finally (i) finishing off the wounded and hunting for those trying to hide or swim away – cannot accord with the activity of a lone zealot. Even the combination of Superman, Einstein and a world class marksman could not perform those tasks.

The media and NATO leaders must view the public as passive morons to expect them to believe that Anders Behring Breivik “acted alone”. He is willing to take a 20 year prison sentence if it means, as he maintains, that their collective action is the spark that ignites his comrades and advances the agenda of the violent and legal far rightwing parties. Facing a Norwegian judge on July 25, he publically declared the existence of “two more cells in my organization”. According to witness testimony on Utoeya Island shots from two distinct weapons were heard from different directions during the massacre. The police say they are… “investigating”. Needless to say the police have found nothing; instead they put on a “show” to cover their inaction by raiding two houses far from the massacre and quickly released the suspects.

The most serious political implication of the terrorist action, however, is the conspicuous complicity of top police officials. The police took 90 minutes to arrive at Utoeya Island, located less than 20 kilometers from Oslo, 12 minutes by helicopter and 25 to 30 minutes by car and boat. The delay allowed the right wing assassins to use up the ammunition, maximizing the death toll of young, anti-fascist activists and devastating the Labor youth movement. The police chief, Sveinung Sponheim, made the feeblest excuse and cover-up, claiming “problems with transport”. Sponheim argued that a helicopter “wasn’t on standby” and they “could not find a boat” (Associated Press, July 24, 2011). Yet a helicopter was available; it managed to fly to Utoeya and film the ongoing slaughter, and over half of Norwegians, a seafaring people for millennia, own or have access to a boat. A police force, faced with what the Prime Minister calls the ‘worst atrocity since the Nazi occupation’, moving at the pace of an arthritic turtle to rescue youth activists, raises the suspicion of some level of complicity. The obvious question arises as to the degree to which the ideology of right wing extremism – neo-fascism – has penetrated the police and security forces, especially the upper echelons? This level of “inactivity” raises more questions than it answers. What it suggests is that the Social Democrats only control part of the Government – the legislative, while the neo-fascists influence the state apparatus.

The plain fact is that the police did not save a single life. When they finally arrived, Anders Behring Breivik had run out of ammunition and surrendered turning himself over to the police. The police literally did not fire a single shot; they did not even have to hunt or capture the assassin. An almost choreographed scenario: Hundreds wounded, 68 unarmed, peaceful activists killed and the Labor youth movement decimated.

The police can claim “crime solved” while the mass media prattles about a “lone assassin”. The far right has a “martyr” to mask a further advance in their anti-Muslim, pro Israel crusade. (It is reminiscent of the celebrated Israeli-American fascist mass murderer, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, who slaughtered dozens of unarmed Palestinian men and boys at prayer in 1994).

Only two days before the political murders, the head of the Labor Party Youth Movement, Eskil Pederson, gave an interview to the Dagbladet, Norway’s second largest tabloid, in which he announced a “unilateral economic embargo of Israel from the Norwegian side” (Gilad Atzmon, July 24, 2011).

The fact of the matter is that the Norwegian military has no problem promptly dispatching 500 troops to Afghanistan, half way around the world and providing six Norwegian Air Force jets and pilots to bomb and terrorize Libya. And yet they can’t find a helicopter or a row boat to transport their police a couple hundred

 

 

yards to stop a domestic right wing terrorist – whose murderous rampage was being described second by second by the terrorized young victims on their cell phones to their frantic parents?

The Imperial Roots of Domestic Fascism: Conclusion

Clearly, the decisions of Norway and other Scandinavian nations to participate in the US imperial crusades against Muslim and especially Arab people in the Middle East have aroused and energized the neo-fascist right. They now want to “bring the war home”; they want Norway to go further, to ‘cleanse the nation’ by expelling Muslims. They want to “send a message” to the Labor Party: Either it must accept a full neo-fascist pro-Israeli agenda or expect more massacres, more elected fascists, more followers of Anders Behring Breivik.

The “Progress Party” is now the second largest political party in Norway. If a “conservative” coalition defeats Labor, neo-fascists will probably sit in the Government. Who knows, after a few years of good behavior, they might find an excuse to commute their ex-comrades sentence . . . or proclaim him mentally rehabilitated and freed.

Clearly what is needed is the immediate withdrawal of all troops from imperial wars and a systematic, coherent and organized fight against domestic right-wing terrorists and their intellectual godparents, in America, Israel and Europe. Labor youth must go press on with their demand that the Labor Government, under Prime Minister Jen Stoltenberg, recognize the nation of Palestine and implement a total boycott of Israeli goods and services. A national and international political-educational campaign must be organized to expose the links between respectable electoral fascists and violent terrorists. The Labor Youth martyrs of Utoeya Island should be cherished and their ideals taught in all the schools. Their far-right enemies and supporters whether overt, covert or directly complicit, should be exposed and condemned. The best weapon against the renewed neo-fascist onslaught is a political and educational offensive, taking up the anti-fascist, anti-Quisling (Norway’s notorious Nazi collaborator) fighting traditions of their grandparents’ era. It’s not too late – if the Labor Party, the Norwegian trade unions and the anti-fascist youth act now before the flood of resurgent fascism.

James Petras is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, TempsModerne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. His publishers have included Random House, John Wiley, Westview, Routledge, Macmillan, Verso, Zed Books and Pluto Books. He is winner of the Career of Distinguished Service Award from the American Sociological Association’s Marxist Sociology Section, the Robert Kenny Award for Best Book, 2002, and the Best Dissertation, Western Political Science Association in 1968. His most recent titles include Unmasking Globalization: Imperialism of the Twenty-First Century (2001); co-author The Dynamics of Social Change in Latin America (2000), System in Crisis (2003), co-author Social Movements and State Power (2003), co-author Empire With Imperialism (2005), co-author)Multinationals on Trial (2006).

31 July, 2011

Countercurrents.org

 

The march towards democracy proceeds amid suspicions that generals and Islamists are trying to slow it down

DURING the Egyptian summer tempers rise along with temperatures. Street fights erupt with alarming regularity. Purple faces, bulging veins and blood-curdling threats seem to portend carnage. Yet much of this is theatre, played out in the confidence that passers-by will intervene, separate combatants and make them reconcile.

Emerging from decades in a deep freeze of authoritarianism, Egyptian politics is showing a similar propensity to grow dangerously heated, then subside into calm as cooler heads intervene. In recent weeks the political scene, occupied by scores of passionate new actors produced by the big bang of revolution, has looked frighteningly polarised. It pits mostly secular forces, impatient for sweeping change, against wary conservatives who are backed by the ruling army high command and bolstered, ironically, by Islamist groups that faced repression under the pre-revolutionary regime. The tension has at times risen beyond rhetoric. On July 23rd pro-army vigilantes attacked a protest march in Cairo, leaving more than 300 people injured.

Yet fears that opposing forces may descend on Tahrir Square en masse, provoking open battles in the heart of Egypt’s capital, were quickly allayed. Islamists, led by puritan Salafist parties that have emerged as a powerful alternative to the relatively moderate Muslim Brotherhood, were quietly advised to withdraw a threat to call a million-man counter-march to assert Egypt’s “Islamic identity”. Politicians parlayed a truce, calling instead for a big joint demonstration on July 29th to deliver a short list of common demands to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the body of 19 generals that serves as a collective presidency.

Some of those generals had earlier raised eyebrows by accusing the April 6th Movement, a youth group that played a key part in mobilising thousands of followers during the revolution, of being an agent for foreign powers. The army’s annoyance was understandable. April 6th spearheaded a reoccupation of public squares in several cities in early July to push for speedier adoption of revolutionary reforms. Joined by a motley coalition of activists, including Salafist splinters and Muslim Brotherhood factions, the activists have increasingly targeted the generals as obstacles to change.

Their most bitter complaint is that, whereas some 10,000 civilians have been served harsh jail terms by military courts since the revolution, most officials of the former regime have so far escaped justice for decades of corruption and abuse of power, including the widespread use of torture and the killing of more than 800 people during the revolution. The toppled president, Hosni Mubarak, has languished in a fancy hospital in the resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh, hidden from view pending his trial on the feeble charge of having paid too little for a beach house.

Considering that the ruling generals have nurtured an image as neutral guarantors of revolutionary goals, their sudden hostility to one of the revolution’s primary instigators has jarred. Some attribute sinister motives to the army, pointing to evidence of attempts to plant plain-clothes agitators in protests and to mute the thriving independent press while encouraging state-owned media to portray protesters as hooligans. There are even whispers of a quiet alliance between the army and Islamist parties, aimed at securing a “Caesar option” whereby military rule will eventually be acclaimed by a weary people as a welcome alternative to chaos.

Such fears are overblown. Egypt’s military has little experience or understanding of civilian life, and even less preparation for its current role. Being by nature conservative, xenophobic and more disciplined than Egypt’s fissiparous secularists, Islamist groups may seem natural partners in keeping order. Unlike most other parties, the Islamists laud the generals’ plan to postpone forging a new constitution until after the election of a parliament, which would then be asked to form a 100-strong constitutional congress. Yet their support does not reflect love for the army. Rather, it stems from confidence that elections will produce an Islamist parliamentary bloc big enough to prevent the adoption of a constitution they would deem too secular.

Such tactics are worrying to the many Egyptians, not just the 8% Coptic Christian minority, who would prefer some separation of religion and state. Still more anxiety stems from the fact that rules for the poll, now set for November, are extremely complex, mixing party lists and individual candidacies. With the army set to ban foreign election monitors, the risk of a flawed or contested outcome has grown.

Despite all this, opinion polls suggest that Egyptians remain broadly hopeful of the future. The government under prime minister Essam Sharaf, a pious professor of traffic management, has generally responded to the revolutionary clamour. It has promised to speed trials of former officials, including Mr Mubarak, and open them to the public. Successive cabinet changes have replaced unpopular ministers. Further purges are expected, including policemen, provincial governors and university administrators. Perhaps, as with Egypt’s theatrical street fights, the mood of suspicion and recrimination will prove a prelude to lasting reconciliation.

 

 

30 July 2011

PARIS – It is difficult not to be struck by the contrast between the “Asian”-like energy of Israel’s economy and civil society and the purely defensive nature of its approach to political change, both within and outside the country. A recent law bars Israeli citizens from supporting Western boycotts aimed at reversing the country’s settlement policies and at backing an independent Palestinian state. While Israel has never been so affluent, dynamic, and confident, it also has never been so isolated internationally.

Israel could have embraced the Arab Spring as an opportunity, rather than as a profound risk. If Arab citizens could transform their culture of humiliation into a culture of hope, perhaps they would be able to reconcile themselves with Israel’s existence. But Israeli leaders reacted purely negatively to the Arab upheavals. In their estimation, a complex regional environment has now become even more dangerous, making prudence even more urgent.

For Israel, yesterday’s despots, like Egypt’s former president, Hosni Mubarak, were much more predictable than the “Arab masses.” While some of the demonstrators might be inspired by democratic ideals, let’s have no illusions, the Israelis seem to be saying: Islamist forces will emerge as the only winners, and they are much more hostile to Israel and the West than their predecessors were.

Of course, with the Syrian regime’s massacres of its own citizens, some in Israel say that the suffering of Gaza’s inhabitants pales in comparison, and thus fails to attract the same sympathy as it did last year. But this should not obscure the overall diplomatic picture for Israel, which remains essentially negative.

One of the more ironic results of the region’s changing political configuration is that Israel now perceives a strategic convergence with Saudi Arabia. Despite their political systems’ deep differences, they both favor the regional status quo, and they share an obsessive suspicion of Iran.

But why not dream of a new strategic triangle comprising Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, just as Israelis once dreamed of a non-Arab triangle between Israel, Turkey, and the Shah’s Iran? The Turks’ appalled reaction to the Syrian regime’s brutal behavior creates an opportunity that Israel should use to try to restore the privileged relationship with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government that existed before the Gaza blockade. But that would presuppose a small gesture towards the Palestinians, whom Israelis regard as being so deeply divided among themselves that no progress toward a peace settlement seems possible.

Israel’s leaders seem intent on gaining time both tactically, by resisting the soft pressure of US President Barack Obama’s administration, and strategically, by preparing the country for a new world in which emerging powers such as China play an increasingly important role.

That world, however, will be one in which Israel can no longer count on feelings of Holocaust guilt to influence major powers. It is a world in which monotheistic rivalries will be diluted in an ocean of polytheist faiths, and in which Israel will be able to depend only on its comparative merits in the eyes of cynical, realistic actors who will judge it solely on the basis of their own national interests.

Israel may be “of Europe,” and its main ally may well remain the United States for many years to come, but Israeli leaders must start thinking of how their country can thrive in a post-Western world. The most recent “President’s Conference,” held in June in Jerusalem under the patronage of Israeli President Shimon Peres, was highly symbolic of this evolution. In the opening session, Obama’s special envoy, Denis Ross, was greeted with resounding silence when he conveyed to the participants his boss’s warm wishes. By contrast, China’s culture minister was welcomed very warmly when he spoke, in typical fashion, of the growing need for global “harmony.”

In the minds of a few Israeli strategic thinkers, Israel must resist firmly for two or three more generations in order to become an irreversible reality in the region and a legitimate “accomplished fact” of the international system. At that point, who would want to boycott a country whose technological prowess is needed all over the world?

In this context, the idea of a peace settlement with the Palestinians seems more abstract than ever. Indeed, it makes the current status quo seem comfortable. The gap between Israel’s rich and poor nowadays may recall Brazil, but who remembers the original Zionists’ social-democratic ideals?

The country’s prosperity is simply overwhelming. From Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, luxurious penthouses are multiplying. Are we in Singapore, Hong Kong, or São Paulo? Why challenge the certainties of the present with the uncertainties of the future?

Moreover, Israel has not only become much more prosperous; it has also moved decisively to the right. The second Intifada may very well have proven fatal to the Israeli left. Triumphant capitalism, idolatry of the land, and the comforts of the status quo produce a heady cocktail. But, high on the benefits of globalization, and waiting with a mixture of excitement and apprehension for the coming of a new post-Western world order, Israelis are dancing on the rim of a volcano.

2011-07-27

@ Project Syndicate

Dominique Moisi is the author of The Geopolitics of Emotion.

On July 9 I took part in a demonstration in front of the White House, the theme of which was “Stop Bombing Libya”. The last time I had taken part in a protest against US bombing of a foreign country, which the White House was selling as “humanitarian intervention”, as they are now, was in 1999 during the 78-day bombing of Serbia. At that time I went to a couple of such demonstrations and both times I was virtually the only American there. The rest, maybe two dozen, were almost all Serbs. “Humanitarian intervention” is a great selling device for imperialism, particularly in the American market. Americans are desperate to renew their precious faith that the United States means well, that we are still “the good guys”.

This time there were about 100 taking part in the protest. I don’t know if any were Libyans, but there was a new element — almost half of the protesters were black, marching with signs saying: “Stop Bombing Africa”.

There was another new element — people supporting the bombing of Libya, facing us from their side of Pennsylvania Avenue about 40 feet away. They were made up largely of Libyans, probably living in the area, who had only praise and love for the United States and NATO. Their theme was that Gaddafi was so bad that they would support anything to get rid of him, even daily bombing of their homeland, which now exceeds Serbia’s 78 days. I of course crossed the road and got into arguments with some of them. I kept asking: “I hate that man there [pointing to the White House] just as much as you hate Gaddafi. Do you think I should therefore support the bombing of Washington? Destroying the beautiful monuments and buildings of this city, as well as killing people?”

None of the Libyans even tried to answer my question. They only repeated their anti-Gaddafi vitriol. “You don’t understand. We have to get rid of Gaddafi. He’s very brutal.” (See the CNN video of the July 1 mammoth rally in Tripoli for an indication that these Libyans’ views are far from universal at home.)

“But you at least get free education and medical care,” I pointed out. “That’s a lot more than we get here. And Libya has the highest standard of living in the entire region, at least it did before the NATO and US bombing. If Gaddafi is brutal, what do you call all the other leaders of the region, whom Washington has long supported?”

One retorted that there had been free education under the king, whom Gaddafi had overthrown. I was skeptical of this but I didn’t know for sure that it was incorrect, so I replied: “So what? Gaddafi at least didn’t get rid of the free education like the leaders in England did in recent years.”

A police officer suddenly appeared and forced me to return to my side of the road. I’m sure if pressed for an explanation, the officer would justify this as a means of preventing violence from breaking out. But there was never any danger of that at all; another example of the American police-state mentality — order and control come before civil liberties, before anything.

Most Americans overhearing my argument with the Libyans would probably have interjected something like: “Well, no matter how much you hate the president you can still get rid of him with an election. The Libyans can’t do that.”

And I would have come back with: “Right. I have the freedom to replace George W. Bush with Barack H. Obama. Oh joy. As long as our elections are overwhelmingly determined by money, nothing of any significance will change.”

Postscript: Amidst all the sadness and horror surrounding the massacre in Norway, we should not lose sight of the fact that “peaceful little Norway” participated in the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999; has deployed troops in Iraq; has troops in Afghanistan; and has supplied warplanes for NATO’s bombing of Libya. The teenagers of those countries who lost their lives to the US/NATO killing machine wanted to live to adulthood and old age as much as the teenagers in Norway. With all the condemnation of “extremism” we now hear in Norway and around the world we must ask if this behavior of the Norwegian government, as well as that of the United States and NATO, is not “extremist”.

The Berlin Wall — Another Cold War Myth

The Western media will soon be revving up their propaganda motors to solemnize the 50th anniversary of the erecting of the Berlin Wall, August 13, 1961. All the Cold War clichés about The Free World vs. Communist Tyranny will be trotted out and the simple tale of how the wall came to be will be repeated: In 1961, the East Berlin communists built a wall to keep their oppressed citizens from escaping to West Berlin and freedom. Why? Because commies don’t like people to be free, to learn the “truth”. What other reason could there have been?

First of all, before the wall went up thousands of East Germans had been commuting to the West for jobs each day and then returning to the East in the evening; many others went back and forth for shopping or other reasons. So they were clearly not being held in the East against their will. Why then was the wall built? There were two major reasons:

1) The West was bedeviling the East with a vigorous campaign of recruiting East German professionals and skilled workers, who had been educated at the expense of the Communist government. This eventually led to a serious labor and production crisis in the East. As one indication of this, the New York Times reported in 1963: “West Berlin suffered economically from the wall by the loss of about 60,000 skilled workmen who had commuted daily from their homes in East Berlin to their places of work in West Berlin.” 1

In 1999, USA Today reported: “When the Berlin Wall crumbled [1989], East Germans imagined a life of freedom where consumer goods were abundant and hardships would fade. Ten years later, a remarkable 51% say they were happier with communism.” 2 Earlier polls would likely have shown even more than 51% expressing such a sentiment, for in the ten years many of those who remembered life in East Germany with some fondness had passed away; although even 10 years later, in 2009, the Washington Post could report: “Westerners say they are fed up with the tendency of their eastern counterparts to wax nostalgic about communist times.” 3

It was in the post-unification period that a new Russian and eastern Europe proverb was born: “Everything the Communists said about Communism was a lie, but everything they said about capitalism turned out to be the truth.” It should also be noted that the division of Germany into two states in 1949 — setting the stage for 40 years of Cold War hostility — was an American decision, not a Soviet one. 4

2) During the 1950s, American coldwarriors in West Germany instituted a crude campaign of sabotage and subversion against East Germany designed to throw that country’s economic and administrative machinery out of gear. The CIA and other US intelligence and military services recruited, equipped, trained and financed German activist groups and individuals, of West and East, to carry out actions which ran the spectrum from juvenile delinquency to terrorism; anything to make life difficult for the East German people and weaken their support of the government; anything to make the commies look bad.

It was a remarkable undertaking. The United States and its agents used explosives, arson, short circuiting, and other methods to damage power stations, shipyards, canals, docks, public buildings, gas stations, public transportation, bridges, etc; they derailed freight trains, seriously injuring workers; burned 12 cars of a freight train and destroyed air pressure hoses of others; used acids to damage vital factory machinery; put sand in the turbine of a factory, bringing it to a standstill; set fire to a tile-producing factory; promoted work slow-downs in factories; killed 7,000 cows of a co-operative dairy through poisoning; added soap to powdered milk destined for East German schools; were in possession, when arrested, of a large quantity of the poison cantharidin with which it was planned to produce poisoned cigarettes to kill leading East Germans; set off stink bombs to disrupt political meetings; attempted to disrupt the World Youth Festival in East Berlin by sending out forged invitations, false promises of free bed and board, false notices of cancellations, etc.; carried out attacks on participants with explosives, firebombs, and tire-puncturing equipment; forged and distributed large quantities of food ration cards to cause confusion, shortages and resentment; sent out forged tax notices and other government directives and documents to foster disorganization and inefficiency within industry and unions … all this and much more. 5

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, of Washington, DC, conservative coldwarriors, in one of their Cold War International History Project Working Papers (#58, p.9) states: “The open border in Berlin exposed the GDR [East Germany] to massive espionage and subversion and, as the two documents in the appendices show, its closure gave the Communist state greater security.”

Throughout the 1950s, the East Germans and the Soviet Union repeatedly lodged complaints with the Soviets’ erstwhile allies in the West and with the United Nations about specific sabotage and espionage activities and called for the closure of the offices in West Germany they claimed were responsible, and for which they provided names and addresses. Their complaints fell on deaf ears. Inevitably, the East Germans began to tighten up entry into the country from the West, leading eventually to the infamous Wall. However, even after the wall was built there was regular, albeit limited, legal emigration from east to west. In 1984, for example, East Germany allowed 40,000 people to leave. In 1985, East German newspapers claimed that more than 20,000 former citizens who had settled in the West wanted to return home after becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system. The West German government said that 14,300 East Germans had gone back over the previous 10 years. 6

Let’s also not forget that Eastern Europe became communist because Hitler, with the approval of the West, used it as a highway to reach the Soviet Union to wipe out Bolshevism forever, and that the Russians in World War I and II, lost about 40 million people because the West had used this highway to invade Russia. It should not be surprising that after World War II the Soviet Union was determined to close down the highway.

We came, we saw, we destroyed, we forgot

An updated summary of the charming record of US foreign policy. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States of America has …

1. Attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of which were democratically-elected. 7
2. Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries. 8
3. Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries. 9
4. Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries. 10
5. Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. 11

In total: Since 1945, the United States has carried out one or more of the above actions, on one or more occasions, in the following 69 countries (more than one-third of the countries of the world):

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Australia
Bolivia
Bosnia
Brazil
British Guiana (now Guyana)
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo (also as Zaire)
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Fiji
France
Germany (plus East Germany)
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iran Iraq
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Libya
Mongolia
Morocco
Nepal
Nicaragua
North Korea
Pakistan
Palestine
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Portugal
Russia
Seychelles
Slovakia
Somalia
South Africa
Soviet Union
Sudan
Suriname
Syria
Thailand
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam (plus North Vietnam)
Yemen (plus South Yemen)
Yugoslavia

(See a world map of US interventions.)

The occult world of economics

When you read about economic issues in the news, like the crisis in Greece or the Wall Street/banking mortgage shambles are you sometimes left befuddled by the seeming complexity, which no one appears able to untangle or explain to your satisfaction in simple English? Well, I certainly can’t explain it all myself, but I do know that the problem is not necessarily that you and I are economic illiterates. The problem is often that the “experts” discuss these issues as if we’re dealing with hard and fast rules or laws, not to be violated, scientifically based, mathematically sound and rational; when, in fact, a great deal of what takes place in the real world of economics and in the arena of “expert” analysis of that world, is based significantly on partisan party politics, ideology, news headlines, speculation, manipulation, psychology (see the utter meaninglessness and absurdity of the daily rise or fall of stock prices), backroom deals of the powerful, and the excessive power given to and reliance upon thoroughly corrupt credit-rating agencies and insurers of various kinds. The agencies like Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s are protection rackets — pay our exorbitant fees or we give you a bad rating, which investors and governments then bow down to as if it’s the result of completely objective and impressive analytical study.

Then there’s the exceptions made for powerful countries to get away with things that lesser countries, like Greece, are not allowed to get away with, but all still explained in terms of the unforgiving laws of economics.

And when all other explanations fail to sound plausible, the experts fall back on “the law of supply and demand”. But that law was repealed years ago; just try and explain the cost of gasoline based on it, as but one example.

So there’s a lot to cover up, many reasons why the financial-world players can’t be as open as they should be, as forthright as the public and investors may assume they are.

Consider the US budget deficit, about which we hear a great deal of scare talk. What we don’t hear is that the most prosperous period in American history occurred in the decades following the Second World War — from 1946 to 1973. And guess what? We had a budget deficit in the large majority of those years. Clearly such a deficit was not an impediment to growth and increasing prosperity in the United States — a prosperity much more widely shared than it is now. Yet we’re often fed the idea of the sanctity of a balanced budget. This and other “crises” are typically overblown for political reasons; the current “crisis” about the debt ceiling for example. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, now an independent columnist, points out that “regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised the US government is not going to go out of business. … If Goldman Sachs is too big to fail, certainly, the US government is.”

In economic issues that occupy the media greatly, such as the debt ceiling, one of the hidden keys to understanding what’s going on is often the conservatives’ perennial hunger to privatize Social Security and Medicare. If you understand that, certain things become much clearer. Naomi Klein points out that “the pseudo debate about the debt ceiling … is naked class war, waged by the ultra rich against everyone else, and it’s well past time for Americans to draw the line.”

Consider, too, the relative value of international currencies. Logically, reasonably, if the British pound is exchangeable for two dollars, one should be able to purchase in Washington goods and services for two dollars which would cost one pound in London. In real life, this of course is the very infrequent exception to the rule. Instead, at places called “exchanges” in New York and Chicago and London and Zurich and Frankfurt a bunch of guys who don’t do anything socially useful get together each day in a large room, and amidst lots of raised voices, busy computers, and numerous pieces of paper, they arrive at a value for the pound, as well as for a barrel of oil, for a pound of porkbellies, and for various other commodities that affect our daily lives. Why should these speculators and parasites have so much influence over the real world, the real economy, and our real lives?

As a general rule of thumb, comrades, as an all-purpose solution to our economic ills, remember this: We’ll keep going around in crisis circles forever until the large financial institutions are nationalized or otherwise placed under democratic control. We hear a lot about “austerity”. Well, austerity has to, finally, visit the super-rich. There are millions (sic) of millionaires and billionaires in the United States and Europe. As governments go bust, the trillions of dollars of these people must be heavily taxed or confiscated to end the unending suffering of the other 95% of humanity. My god, do I sound like a (choke, gasp) socialist?

 

29 July 2011

Killinghope.org

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire.

Asian powers jostle for position amid vast mineral reserves and strategic oil pipelines, while West keeps bombing.

Afghanistan is not often perceived as a mineral Holy Grail.

But, as it turns out, between $1-3 trillion in mineral wealth lies unexplored across the Hindu Kush. There’s enough uranium, lithium, copper and iron ore to potentially turn Afghanistan into a commodities powerhouse.

The Pentagon knows all about it – how could it not? And the Russians have known about it since at least the 1970s, when they mapped out all the uranium riches of northern Afghanistan.

Washington may have complex geopolitical energy reasons to remain in Afghanistan – as explored in a previous Al Jazeera article that generated enormous reader response.

For its part, Islamabad is still obsessed with viewing Afghanistan as a pliable satrap. But the going gets much juicier when one looks at key Eurasian players such as Russia, India and China and their own, non-Pentagonised reasons to come to this mineral Walhalla.

Business suits, not bombs

Early next month a crucial bidding war begins in Kabul. It concerns Hajigak, the world’s biggest iron ore deposits, which are located in central Afghanistan (at least 1.8bn tons, according to a Soviet estimate made in the 1960s). To the sound of much predictable Taliban grumbling, all 15 bidding companies are from India – including giants Tata Steel and JSW, the country’s third-largest private steel company.

A stable, business-friendly Afghanistan is absolutely essential for India – a gateway to oil and gas from Iran, Central Asia and the Caspian. India is building power stations and strategic roads, such as the one linking Afghanistan with the Iranian port of Chahbahar.

Few may know it, but it’s not only Africa that is the object of a fierce India-China business “war”. Afghanistan is also a key chessboard. There are five types of minerals on the Afghan horizon – gold, copper, iron ore, and inevitably, oil and gas – and the Indians and the Chinese are all over them.

China Metallurgical Corporation already got a big prize in 2008 – the Aynak copper mine in Logar, southeast of Kabul – for $3.4bn. Why? Because Western companies were asleep at the wheel (or paranoid with “security”); because the Chinese wasted no time; and, according to the Afghan Ministry of Mines, “because of their package” (in characteristic Chinese style, that includes building a whopping $6bn railway connecting northern Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan with western China).

Kabul will get up to $350m a year in royalties. At least 5,000 jobs will be created, with added benefits such as health clinics, roads and schools. Security may indeed be a huge problem; there’s a war going on and safe transit routes are a mirage. But as war-weary Afghans are poignantly stressing, that’s already a start.

The business track in Afghanistan now runs parallel to the political track.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari visited Tehran twice within only three weeks. He had two face-to-face meetings with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The House of Saud, to put it mildly, freaked out.

After all, this Islamabad-Tehran lovefest totally smashes the myth that the so-called “Shia crescent” is the greatest threat to Sunnis in the Middle East and South Asia.

Washington, predictably, was also hardly fond of it. The occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq can be seen as an attempt by the US to encircle Iran from both east and west (that’s certainly Tehran’s view), and Washington believed Pakistan would play the same role on Iran’s southeast border.

In a fascinating exchange that must have choked many a throat across the Potomac, Khamenei told Zardari that Pakistan’s “real enemy” was the West, “and the US on top of it”, while Zardari told Khamenei that Iran was a “model of resistance and path to progress”. What next? Karachi taxis sporting Khomeini magnets?

But the most fascinating part is that Tehran and Islamabad are now discussing not only security matters but also business, such as an upcoming free-trade agreement and a currency swap scheme that would move both countries away from the US dollar.

On the security front, Islamabad has proposed what would be an Integrated Border Management Regime – that is, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan fighting together against drug trafficking. That also happens to be Russia’s number-one priority in Central and South Asia. Over twelve tonnes of pure heroin – that’s over 3bn single doses – reach Russia every year from Afghanistan.

On the business front, it was all about the crucial Pipelineistan gambit, the Iran-Pakistan (IP), also known as the “peace pipeline”. IP may supply as much as 50 per cent of Pakistan’s energy needs.

There are delays, of course. By the end of 2012, Iran will have built its whole stretch of pipeline up to the Pakistani border. Yet Pakistan will only start working on its own stretch by early 2012.

But by 2015 IP should be online, forming a strategic umbilical cord between Shia Iran and majority-Sunni Pakistan and rocking the Eurasian geopolitical equation. IP will cross ultra-strategic Balochistan, which is not only dripping with resources but which also, as a transit corridor, provides the shortest access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea.

Iran and Pakistan as allies?

So look for another unintended consequence of Washington’s obsession with the war on terror: Iran and Pakistan as increasingly close allies. One can already foresee Tehran sharing on-the-ground intelligence with Islamabad on Washington’s myriad covert ops inside Pakistani territory.

Another unintended consequence – unthinkable only two or three years ago – is that now Tehran, which is tremendously influential in northwest Afghanistan, views the Taliban the Mullah Omar way: as an indigenous “national resistance” movement against US/NATO occupation and perpetual military bases. Moreover, Tehran is also in sync with Islamabad in their support for the wily Hamid Karzai, who has increasingly distanced himself from Washington.

There are huge problems, of course. Although Zardari told Khamenei that Islamabad supports Karzai and an “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” peace process, hardly any progress can be made without a substantial reversal of Pakistan’s official Afghan policy, which considers Afghanistan as little more than “strategic depth” in a confrontation with India, and which does everything to contain India’s influence in Afghanistan.

Moreover, regional priorities differ. Moscow worries about its own “war on drugs,” wants NATO out of its backyard, and does not want US military bases in Afghanistan. Beijing worries about the Taliban influencing the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Tehran will keep cultivating its privileged relationship with Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks – and not Pashtuns.

What is certain is that any unilateral Made-in-USA road map for Afghanistan, of the “surge, bribe and stay” variety, is doomed to failure without input from these key Eurasian players.

Tragedy aside, the US/NATO war in Afghanistan is now seriously flirting with surrealism – witness the Taliban’s accusation that the West hacked their website, their phones, their emails and spread false rumours of Mullah Omar’s death. Forget about “medieval towelheads on hash”; these are iPhone-friendly Taliban who tweet and post on Facebook – and command quite a following. Unsurprisingly, gloomy war-machine NATO “declines to comment”.

It will be fascinating to watch what schemes the House of Saud will concoct to smash the new business-friendly Tehran-Islamabad axis; after all, Saudi Arabia essentially treats Pakistan as a sort of political/economic annex.

But not as fascinating as watching which Russian, Chinese and Indian companies will make a killing off of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth while the Atlanticist West bomb themselves to irrelevancy.

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for the Asia Times. His latest book is Obama Does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

29 July 2011

@ Al Jazeera

The attacks in Norway on July 22 were a tragic illustration of madness empowered in our modern society. They showcased just how crazy an individual and our society can both be, and they raise some important issues we need to face and manage going forward. And I do mean going forward, not going backward.

Power to the people?

We have all heard the mantras of empowering people, repeated endlessly in the egalitarian societies of Northern Europe and North America, and trumpeted across the globe as THE way to manage people in communities and in organizations. Never mind the fact that only 9% of the world’s population live in egalitarian societies and 91% live in hierarchical societies, the egalitarians think they have it right, and everybody else has it wrong. It has come to the extreme of trying to impose “Northern” values on the rest of the world by employing military force.

The truth is, no culture in itself is better than any other. They are not “right” or “wrong”, they are just different.

To each and every culture there are “positive” and “negative” aspects that must be acknowledged and dealt with. No set of cultural values should be imposed on another community.

For decades the Scandinavian model has been touted as an utopia by many media voices. The tragedy in Norway puts the spotlight on some of its shortcomings. The tragedy also raises important issues about the “right” versus “left” movements in politics and about leading change and managing integration in modern society, in all cultures.

Technological advances in communication (the web, social networking, mobile devices) has given enormous power to individuals. This enables people to find their friends and keep in contact, instantly, no matter where they are. This empowerment of the individual has been hailed by the individualistic and egalitarian media as the apex of “Northern” values come to life, utopia becomes reality: everyone is powerful and free to express themselves as individuals.

The popular revolts I the Arab World have been hailed by such pundits as “Facebook Revolutions” and welcomed as a shift towards egalitarian and individualistic values, leaving hierarchical and collectivistic values behind.

However, we need to realize that social networking is not a value in itself. It is just a technology, and it may be equally used for evil purposes as well as for noble purposes. You can find your friends to conspire, to commit crimes against humanity, just as well as you simply agree to meet on Saturday night to have fun together.

Empowerment of individuals may not necessarily be a good thing, when it also empowers the crazies of Oslo and of Arizona, as well as the jihadists and Al Quaeda. The real issue is not “Facebook”, but rather what is it being used for.

People have criticized the Chinese government for trying to control the internet, but the issue all societies need to tackle is: how do you strike the balance between individual freedom and collective harmony? And how do you resolve the dilemma between equal distribution of power and respect for authority?

Every society has to resolve these dilemmas, and each has done so in a different way. That is the basis of the research and analyses made by Hofstede, Trompenaars and the many social scientists who study culture.

Dark Side of Individualism

The dilemma between Individualism and Collectivism, as enounced by Hofstede, or between individual freedom and group harmony, has actually been approached by many philosophers throughout history. It is sometimes summarized as “my rights go as far as where the rights of my neighbor begin”. Hofstede’s research went as far as measuring exactly how far do societies go in terms of choosing between extremes, and he identified (through factor analysis) five dimensions of cultural values, one of which is precisely the “Individualism versus Collectivism” dimension.

Looking at that research we can see how 100 different countries score as compared to each other, and we can see that the cultures who most treasure individual freedom are the Anglo-Saxon, the Dutch-Scandinavian and the Germanic. These are also very egalitarian cultures, as opposed to the collectivistic and hierarchical cultures found in places such as Guatemala and Malaysia, to mention just two examples on the opposite side of the spectrum.

My point here is that extremes tend to be dysfunctional, no matter on which side they are. When you are sitting in one of those extremes, culture-wise, you tend to think that the other side has got it “wrong”, while you have it “right”. However, it is very important to look at the downside of these extreme cultural choices, as we strive to develop cultural values that will make our world a better place for generations to come.

Individualistic and egalitarian societies offer many benefits to individuals, such as freedom of expression and a sense of empowerment. They also value individual accountability and the respect of individual privacy. However, the downside is sometimes the isolation of individuals and a feeling of loneliness in the crowd.

The empowerment of these societies means that anyone is free to buy automatic weapons and “express himself” by shooting random people. Of course, no society deliberately endorses that, but we need to realize that distortions result from the values we espouse.

Whenever a madman goes on a rampage (Oklahoma, Tucson, Oslo, etc) or when we suddenly find that an individual has kept someone as a prisoner in his basement for years (Austria, Germany, California, etc.), we ask each other: how could that happen? How could this have been averted? Why was this not detected earlier?

The answer lies precisely in the values treasured by these cultures. The extreme valuing of freedom goes overboard and the respect for privacy translates into “not noticing” that someone next door is keeping prisoners captive for 20 years. (!)

Similarly, a guy acts crazy, starts sending all kinds of signals that he is psychotic or a psychopath, but people around fail to see that, or fail to act on that.

People fail to see the signs, because they have been brought up to look at explicit communication, rather than implicit communication. They look for content, rather than format. While people in Guatemala and Malaysia (just to use my previous examples) have been brought up to strive for “group harmony” and therefore are keen on body language, non-verbal communication and implicit signs of expression, people in Scandinavia, the Us and in Germany disregard such signs and focus on the explicit content of messages.

People fail to act on the signals they perceive (if they perceive them) because of the respect for privacy and the unconscious voice that tells them “I am responsible for my own actions, not for anybody else’s… this is none of my business”.

And then disaster happens.

This “individual responsibility” taken to extremes leads to social isolation and even lack of solidarity. It breeds individuals who go crazy and turn against those around them.

The opposite example was shown to me recently in Singapore, where a Chinese presenter stressed the importance of “mindfulness” when leading groups in Action Learning. To my request for clarification, she explained that “mindfulness” is “an awareness of the people in the room, of the situation as it unfolds, being sensitive to what is going on”. Collectivistic cultures (such as the Chinese) foster this “mindfulness” in everyone, since childhood. Individualistic cultures do not.

Best Of All Worlds

I am not saying that the Chinese culture is better than the Norwegian. Nor am I saying the opposite. Let’s just stop advocating that this cultural model is better than that one. Let’s start by becoming aware of our own culture bias and how they lead to prejudice. Let’s start looking at the pros and cons of our respective cultures, and let’s explore ways in which we could make them less extreme, in both sides of the respective spectrum.

Right after the Norway tragedy, BBC reporters where suggesting that Norway should “change its policies” regarding police not wearing guns and lacking surveillance and control of public spaces. These reporters did not realize that they were asking Norwegians to become more British, in terms of reacting to the incident as if they were British. They failed to see that they were judging the situation from their own cultural perspective, rather than trying to take an impartial stance or simply asking open questions and allowing the interviewees to express themselves freely.

Perhaps I am asking too much when I long for news reporters who do not strive to push their own agendas as they broadcast from different parts of the world… That would show some real respect for people!

What I am asking for is for us to look at our values and to discuss ways of improving the way we teach our children the notion of “right” and “wrong”, beyond what we were taught by the previous generations. Globalization means that we have the opportunities to explore and learn from all cultures. Globalization is not “Americanization”, it means exploring the full spectrum in each cultural dimension and forging different futures for each community.

It does not mean moving towards a “single global culture”, but it does mean tapping on the richness of exposure to all cultures, understanding where your own culture is coming from, and shaping your community’s future.

Fear Of Change

The biggest obstacle in all this is balancing support and challenge, balancing the need for continuity to maintain identity and the need for change to adapt for new realities. On one side of the spectrum you have “progressives” who push for change, on the opposite you have “conservatives” who resist change.

This is a different dimension from being “right wing” or “left wing”. Conservatives are basically fundamentalists, and the “clash of civilizations” between “West” and “East” is actually a misnomer… In reality it is a clash between conservative Christians and conservative Muslims.

Progressives have nothing to do with that. Progressives are about integrating religions and values to build a better future. Conservatives are about fearing the future and thinking that the past was better, therefore we should preserve it and try to return to it. Progressives are about “up, up and away”; conservatives are about “back, back and stay”.

We need both identity AND change. We need to balance both in order to move forward without loosing our minds and going crazy.

In that sense, the craziness of Oklahoma and Oslo are a signal that, for some people, progress is going too far, too fast, too soon. That doesn’t mean we should stop social progress. It does not mean we should stop immigration and miscegenation, it does not mean we should go back to the notion of “pure” races and Nazism.

It does mean that we must address the social discontents and misfits who turn to violence, that we must manage social change in such a way as to avoid that the Geert Wilders of today turn into the Adolf Hitlers of tomorrow. We need to acknowledge that the “Tea Party” movements all over the world are expressions of the fear of progress, and these movements, when not addressed, may spin out of control (even out of control of their own creators and leaders) and generate mass murder, genocide and even destruction of the whole planet.

In the US and UK media people talk about avoiding that “rogue governments” or “terrorists” (as in Muslim terrorists) gain access to nuclear weapons or chemical weapons and wreak havoc and destruction among millions. I am equally concerned that some crazy Christian fundamentalist in Utah may do the same thing!

People who are afraid of social progress can be very dangerous, whether they pray in a mosque, in a synagogue, or in a cathedral. To avoid the madness we must turn to acknowledging it, recognizing it, understanding it and treating it. It’s no use trying to control it by force, by imposing an Orwellian police state. We do need to address it through education (and I mean radically changing traditional education practices), through social and political debate, through innovative approaches and policies.

If we ignore the craziness next door, we run the risk of becoming their next victim, or worse: we run the risk that our children become the victims of the social craziness we did not address.

28 July 2011

From the time Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister he had indulged in many activities to entice the Indians back to the BN fold. He visited Batu Caves during Thaipusam,visited India and took pains to paid a courtesy call on the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, personally launched the Makkal Sakti party after the big loss of the MIC at the last elections, managed to force Samy Velu to step down as MIC president and recently appeared to have heeded the call by MIC to release of the 6 PSM leaders detained under the Emergency Ordinance. He even agreed to alter the university semester to cater for the Deepavali festival and provide buses to transport Hindu students in campuses to temples on Fridays.

He readily appointed Datuk G.Palanivel,the current President of MIC to a full minister in his cabinet, something which the MIC had been fighting for a very long time without success. However this came so abruptly which caught everyone by surprise as it was granted without any pressure now.

Why has Najib to go out of the way to court the Indians, who just comprise less than 8% of the population and who have hardly any political or economic power in the country? If at all they have any power it is their perceived “divine” power. The reason is not very difficult to decipher. His support from the Chinese can be written off and that from the Malays is eroding fast. With this situation and with the elections looming what choice does he have other than to entice the Indians back?

The moves by Najib may be signs of his goodwill to the Indian community but will they be enough to convince the Indians? It would have in the past but not anymore. In fact many see his moves as being too little too late and others question the sincerity of his motives. His latest move to appoint Palanivel is seen as a desperate move to please the Indians which is not being well received by the community, as most Indians feel an additional cabinet post is the least the Indians need now.

By his appointment Palanivel and the MIC may have got what they wanted, but is it want the Indians themselves wanted? What they want is to be accorded their social, economic and political rights and dues as legitimate citizens of the country. They want to be treated with respect as rightful citizens who want to coexist harmoniously with the other races in peace and unity.

The pathetic state of the Indians in Malaysia cannot be overcome by mere gestures of goodwill by the government especially at times of elections. It has to be addressed as a Malaysian problem and not as an isolated Indian one. The problem is a complex socio-economic one that need careful planning and bold execution to overcome it.

The Indians alone cannot solve their problems in isolation. They need the concerted actions of all and a government that adopts a more concerned multiracial attitude to solve their problems not as Indians but as citizens belonging to an impoverished group of Malaysians. It is sad that Najib and his Umno-BN is not willing to that now anytime now.

At the same time the Indians must adopt a new mindset to consider themselves as Malaysians first and fight for their rights together with the other communities as Malaysians not as Indians fighting for Indian rights. We have to accept the fact that we are all Malaysians and no one community can live happily with another in dire poverty and distress. Rise or fall we will together no matter how strong or rich one may be.

2 August 2011

Dr. Chris Anthony is a practicing surgeon by profession.A medical doctor since 1978.

Kamlesh, a 9 year old Dalit girl from a village called Trauali Jhanauti in Mathura District of Uttar Pradesh in North India, was thrown onto a burning bush by an upper caste man on April 29, 2008. She suffered 80% burns. It was her punishment for walking on the path reserved for upper caste communities in her village.

The news of the incident shocked the world, appeared in national and international newspapers and television channels. The man accused was booked under India’s criminal law and imprisoned for six months.

Surprisingly, the accused was set free by the lower court in Mathura due to a lack of witnesses. Kamlesh’s mother is illiterate and could not testify against the accused as the court termed her mentally unfit to give witness despite the lack of medical proof. Kamlesh was left without proper medical attention until Operation Mercy India Foundation revisited her in December 2010.

A ray of hope dawned for Kamlesh as Operation Mercy India Foundation began campaigning for justice. Well wishers came forward to help her financially with a post-burn surgery at the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi on June 3, 2011. Her hands and fingers have become normal but she still needs to wear a special garment and do regular massage and exercises for the next three months.

She will still have to go through more plastic surgery to correct burns on her back, knee and both hands. This will be done after recovering from the first of multiple surgeries.

Operation Mercy India Foundation, on behalf of Kamlesh and her father and mother, would like to thank you for concern and financial help given toward her first multiple post-burnt contracture surgery.

Operation Mercy India Foundation has committed to rebuild Kamlesh’s life first by giving medical treatment, secondly by appealing to the High Court for her justice, and third, helping provide education. Education for Kamlesh is a long term commitment, and we will not able to do it without the help from well wishers.

To make the ray of hope complete for Kamlesh, we are setting up a project in her name, “KAMLESH’S ASHA” an initiative of Operation Mercy India Foundation, for well wishers to take part in rebuilding her life. The project includes her medical treatment, a campaign for legal justice, and rebuilding her life through education.

The shelter home of Operation Mercy India Foundation at Delhi has begun giving home tuition to Kamlesh and her sister Pinky, 13 years old, preparing them for admission for the next school session.

Would you like to be a part of rebuilding Kamlesh’s life, which was shattered for simply being born an untouchable? We need your commitment to stand with Kamlesh and help financially toward her educational cost. Any interested well-wishers may contact me at following address.

1 August 2011

Countercurrents.org

 

 

Mullen says his forces must be given immunity from prosecution as Baghdad politicians hold talks on US withdrawal.

Mullen says the Iraqi president and prime minister have promised to quickly consider the US offer [Reuters]

Admiral Mike Mullen, the US military chief, has said Iraq must decide as soon as possible whether it wants US troops to stay in the country, and also whether to include provisions on immunity for US soldiers.

Iraqi political leaders are meeting in Baghdad to discuss whether to keep US troops in the country beyond a December 31 deadline.

Mullen, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday in the Iraqi capital that US troops must be given immunity from prosecution as part of any agreement to keep them in Iraq and that this protection must be approved by the country’s parliament.

After talks on Monday evening with Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, and President Jalal Talabani, Mullen said he was confident they were aware of the urgency of the issue, but added that they faced internal political challenges to reach a deal.

“Time is quickly running out for us to be able to consider any other course,” Mullen said at the US military’s Victory Base Camp on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Mullen and other US officials have been pushing Iraq to decide whether they would want additional American forces to stay in the country past their departure date, and the immunity issue has been one of the key sticking points.

“An agreement, which would include privileges and immunities for our American men and women in uniform will need to go through the Council of Representatives [Iraqi parliament],” he said.

Mullen said in Baghdad that Talabani and al-Maliki had both promised to consider the offer quickly.

“A significant part of this is just a physics problem. You get to a point in time where you just can’t turn back and all the troops must leave. That’s why it’s so important to make the decision absolutely as soon as possible,” he said.

Al Jazeera correspondent Jane Arraf, reporting from Baghdad, said: “There’s lack of clarity so far on the issue of whether US troops should stay.

“Essentially what Mullen is talking about is an agreement to ask the US to start negotiations and not an agreement to ask US troops to stay.”

US troops unpopular

US officials have said repeatedly that they need to know soon whether Iraq wants them to stay longer so they can figure out which of their forces must stay and which must go.

Right now, about 46,000 US forces remain in the country, but their departure will gain momentum this autumn onwards.

The US has offered to let up to 10,000 US troops stay for training Iraqi forces on tanks, fighter jets and other military equipment.

But Iraqi politicians and government officials have been undecided about taking a public stand on whether they want American forces to stay or go.

The troops are still unpopular with many Iraqis who are tired of eight years of war, and Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Muslim leader, who is one of Maliki’s important allies, has made it his mission to drive them from the country, leaving the prime minister in a tough position.

Maliki said in a statement on his website late on Monday that he hoped Iraqi political blocs would be able to reach a consensus on Tuesday night when they are expected to meet.

He stressed that regardless of the decision on US troops, he wanted the two countries to continue co-operation, especially in the area of air defence.

Violence increased

Meanwhile, a car parked outside a church in Baghdad exploded injuring up to 23 people, including five worshipers.

“Level of violence has increased compared to last year, and Mullen’s comment that northern Iraqi city of Mosul, which is still violent, was “peaceful and prosperous” is a news to a lot of Iraqis,” our correspondent said.

“We have to remember though, senior US officials don’t get out on the ground most often,” she said.

“There is quite a large difference between people concerned that there is not real stability so far and US military officials, who say compared to bad dark days of civil war things are pretty good.”

2 August 2011

WRITTEN STATEMENT

MICHAEL POSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, AND

JEFFREY FELTMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS

HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE

MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

July 27, 2011

Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Ackerman, Distinguished Members of the Committee: thank you for inviting us to appear before you today to discuss the Iranian and Syrian governments’ continuing and worsening abuses against their own people.

As people across the region are taking stock of their governments, we see in the Syrian and Iranian regimes a parallel failure to respond to or respect the will of their citizens. Our concerns about these countries’ horrendous human rights abuses are longstanding, but never has their repression been more flagrantly at odds with the realities of the region – the irrepressible demands for democracy and fundamental human rights that have already swept two leaders from power. The United States has played an essential leading role in demanding an end to this repression, enlisting the international community’s support for fundamental human rights in the region, and leveraging our resources to support the peoples’ demands for justice, freedom and dignity. We have used new authorities to single out and sanction those most responsible for these abuses and have encouraged other countries to do join us in this effort. Going forward, the United States will expand our efforts to answer the call of Syrian and Iranian citizens that their governments be held accountable for their actions.

As a prime example of its contempt for dissent, the Iranian regime has held the de facto leaders of the Green Movement, former presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, under house arrest without charges since February. Many from the second-tier leadership of the Green Movementaffiliated entities remain imprisoned or have fled Iran, and their family members have been intimidated, attacked, and detained. This has left the Green Movement beleaguered and scattered. Although demonstrations are rarer, government intimidation didn’t stop the Green Movement last February from demonstrating in solidarity of their kindred spirits protesting government oppression across the Arab world.

In Syria, a committed, peaceful grassroots opposition movement has rapidly emerged in response to the Asad regime’s brutality. Last March, security forces fired upon demonstrators calling for the release of children held for weeks for simply writing political graffiti. That brutal act sparked the collective outrage of the long-oppressed Syrian people. The growing momentum for change, which has drawn people from across Syria to participate in peaceful demonstrations, is now well into its fourth month.

President Asad and his regime have responded with gunfire, mass arrests, torture and abuse. Human rights organizations report that more than 1,800 Syrians have been killed and over ten thousand jailed, while security forces hold the Syrian people hostage to a widening crackdown. Through high-level intervention, Ambassador Ford and Embassy Damascus have secured the release of ten Americans who had been detained on security grounds since January.

Amnesty International has reported killings and torture by security forces in the town of Tell Kalakh near the Lebanese border in May. Residents reported seeing scores of males including some elderly and under18 being rounded up. Detainees described brutal torture, including beatings, prolonged use of stress positions and the use of electric shock to the genitals. Human Rights Watch interviewed 50 witnesses to the weeks of violence in Daraa, and reported that member of various branches of the mukhabarat security forces and snipers on rooftops deliberately targeted protestors and that victims had lethal head, neck and chest wounds.

But in spite of this intense repression, the Syrian people have lost their fear. They have not backed down.  They are continuing to take to the streets to demand freedom, respect for their basic rights, and a transition to democracy. Beyond demonstrations, we have also seen the opposition organize itself and begin to articulate an agenda for Syria’s future, recognizing that the strongest Syria is one in which all citizens, regardless of faith or ethnicity, are equal participants. And for our part, the Obama administration has articulated clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing invested in the  Bashar al-Asad regime, which has clearly lost legitimacy, most importantly in the eyes of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who have taken to the streets. A peaceful and democratic transition would be a positive step for Syria, the region, and the world.

It is up to the Syrian people to determine what the next chapter holds for Syria, as the pages turn toward a new future for this country. President Asad can delay or obstruct it but he cannot, however, stop it. As Syrians chart their own future, we hope to see the participation of and respect for all of Syria’s ethnic and religious groups. The United States, and the international community, want to see a Syria that is unified, where tolerance, respect for human rights, and equality are the norm. This is the message that Ambassador Ford is delivering to the Syrian leadership and the Syrian people.

Even as the Syrian military and security forces have besieged communities, conducted mass arrests, targeted emergency medical responders, tortured children, shot peaceful protestors with impunity, cut off water, internet and telephone services, and barred an independent media, people have found ways to get their word out, through reports, images and videos taken by brave demonstrators and smuggled out.

In bearing witness to these terrible abuses, the United States has and will continue to play a crucial role. Demonstrators have peacefully protested for over a month in Hama, where over 10,000 Syrians were killed in 1982 by President Asad’s father Hafez Asad. The people of Hama kept their peace despite their tragic history and the provocation of the government forces besieging the city. We know this precisely because our representative to the Syrian people, Ambassador Ford, toured Hama and reported seeing no protestors carrying weapons, nor damage to government buildings. We also know through Ambassador Ford’s reports that, contrary to the promises from President Asad to end the emergency law and follow proper judicial procedures, the government has carried out sweeps and arrested dozens of peaceful demonstrators in Hama, and reports of torture in custody are well documented. Our diplomatic presence and watchfulness is an important way for us to gain independent knowledge of the facts, to show support for Syrians’ rights, and to speak directly and plainly to the Syrian government about the need to change course.

Returning to Iran, more than two years since that country’s disputed presidential election, Iranian authorities persist in harassment, arbitrary detention, torture, and imprisonment of their citizens, as well as some of ours. Targets include those who demand accountability from their government and who stand up for the rights of their fellow citizens; ethnic and religious minorities; journalists, women’s rights activists, bloggers and students.

Unfortunately, the situation has only further deteriorated in 2011. Protestors were killed in Tehran in February and in ethnically-Arab areas in April; political prisoners are held in deplorable conditions with convicted murderers in former stockyards; those released from prison are forced to pay exorbitant bail sums or often released with conditions such as long bans on travel or work in their field; additional sentences were levied on those already in prison merely for sending letters to family members; mass executions of mainly ethnic minority prisoners have been carried out without their families’ knowledge; at least 190 people have been executed this year, more than in any other country in the world except China; restrictions on speech have intensified; journalists and bloggers continue to be targeted by the regime for daring to write the truth; teachers and other workers are harassed and incarcerated when they seek freedom of association and payment of wages owed; trade union leaders remain imprisoned on questionable charges; politically-active students have been banned from universities; entire university faculties deemed un-Islamic face threat of closure; and, recently, female journalists and artists have been arrested for merely practicing their profession.

Particularly troubling is the deepening persecution of religious minorities. On May 1, the Revolutionary Court in the northern city of Bandar Anzali tried 11 members of the Church of Iran, including Pastor Abdolreza Ali-Haghnejad and Zainab Bahremend, the 62-year-old grandmother of two other defendants, on charges of “acting against national security.” This month, Iranian courts ruled that Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani must recant his Christian faith or face the death penalty for apostasy. In March, over 200 Gonabadi Sufis were summoned to courts around the country to answer allegations that they were insulting Iranian authorities. In April, eight other Sufis were re-arrested on charges of disrupting public order – charges for which they had been punished with flogging and imprisonment. The Iranian government also continues to arrest and harass members of the Baha’i faith.

As the Iranian and Syrian regimes have expanded their repressive tactics, we have expanded the scope of our efforts to challenge these governments’ deplorable human rights violations. We have designated 11 Iranian officials and three government entities for serious human rights abuses in accordance with the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act and, as the act requires, we are actively seeking more information on possible targets. Separately, on July 8, the United States and the United Kingdom imposed visa restrictions on officials of the Government of Iran and other individuals who have participated in human rights abuses in Iran. Iranian officials subject to this visa ban include government ministers, military and law enforcement officers, and judiciary and prison officials.

Responding to the atrocities in Syria, President Obama signed two executive orders. The first, E.O. 13572, signed on April 29, targets those responsible for human rights abuses and the repression of the Syrian people. The second, E.O. 13573, signed on May 18, targets senior officials of the Syrian government because of the ongoing crackdown and refusal to implement political reform. These two authorities were used to impose sanctions against President Asad and senior Syrian officials responsible for human rights abuses. In addition to President Asad, the sanctions so far have designated the Vice President, Prime Minister, ministers of interior and defense, the head of Syrian military intelligence, and director of the political security directorate. Other U.S. sanctions target President Asad’s brother and two cousins, the Syrian military and civilian intelligence services, its national security bureau and the air force intelligence, as well as Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Qods Force and senior Qods force officers that have assisted the Asad regime in suppressing Syrian civilians.

It is no coincidence both Iran and Syria have responded to their citizens with similar contempt and brutal tactics. As the latter designation shows, we know that the Syrians have employed Iranian help in curbing dissent. This has exposed a strident hypocrisy on the part of the Iranian regime, which has tried unsuccessfully to take credit for democratic movements in Egypt and elsewhere and laud protesters when it suited its strategic interests, but has materially helped the Syrian government crush its own protestors in order to preserve their ally. The Iranian regime’s false narrative is further exposed even as the regime continues to smother its own domestic opposition.. Nevertheless, hundreds of brave Iranian citizens continue to engage in the most basic but critical of human rights work, documenting and reporting on abuses, with the hope that one day Iranian government officials will be held accountable for crimes they have committed against their fellow citizens.

In the case of Syria, we have seen the regime play a cruel double game designed to divert attention away from people’s demands and justify the regime’s monopoly on power. Asad is exploiting fears of sectarianism and factionalism by surreptitiously fomenting violence of an intentionally sectarian nature, while at the same time cautioning Syrians not to rock his carefully guided boat. As a consequence, deadly violence has at times taken a purportedly sectarian shade. This has only left more blood on Asad’s hands.

We view these incidents as further evidence that President Assad’s government continues to be the real source of instability within Syria. He has promised reforms but delivered no meaningful changes. He talks about dialogue, but continues to engage in violence that proves his rhetoric hollow. Assad has made clear that he is determined to maintain power regardless of the cost. And the human toll is mounting.

Nevertheless, the Syrian people will not be distracted – they have shown they will not cease their demands for dignity and a future free from intimidation and fear, and they are countering the regime’s propaganda falsely accusing them of seeking that division and ethnic strife. Asad has made occasional conciliatory gestures, but to date these starts have not been credible, sustained, or made in good faith. The regime’s promises of reform have been shown to be false by the continued arrests and shootings of peaceful demonstrators.

The European Union and other nations have joined the United States in enacting sanctions on key regime figures in Iran and Syria to hold their leaders accountable for the violence. We continue to urge more nations to join our call, in bilateral and multilateral settings, to shine a spotlight on these countries’ gross violations of human rights. We also urge other countries to press Iran on its abuses in their bilateral diplomacy. An international consensus is forming to mobilize greater diplomatic pressure on these regimes. We successfully prevented both governments from joining the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) after they had announced their candidacies and have appropriately used this forum to draw the world’s attention to their offenses. And in the U.N. General Assembly last year, we helped win passage of a Canadian-led resolution condemning Iran’s human rights abuses by the largest margin in eight years. At the March session of the HRC, we led a successful effort to establish a Special Rapporteur on Iran, the first country-specific human rights rapporteur created since the Council came into being, and last month, the Council confirmed former Foreign Minister for the Maldives Ahmed Shaheed at that position. This historic action sent an unmistakable signal to Iran’s leaders that the world will not stand passive in front of their systematic abuse of their own citizens’ human rights. More importantly, the Special Rapporteur serves as a critical voice for those Iranians whose own voice is repressed because of their political, religious, and ethnic affiliations.

In a Special Session in April, the HRC also condemned the ongoing violations by the Syrian authorities. The Council called on Syrian authorities to release prisoners of conscience and those arbitrarily detained, and to end restrictions on Internet access and journalists. It also established an international investigation led by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, though President Asad refuses to allow the monitors mandated by the Council to enter Syria. In the June HRC session, the United States joined Canada and more than 50 other countries in a forceful joint statement that again condemned violations committed by the Syrian authorities and called for credible, independent, and transparent investigations into these abuses, accountability for those who perpetrated such abuses, and unfettered access to the UN High Commissioner’s mission to investigate the many allegations of human rights abuses. The High Commissioner will present a report on the human rights situation in Syria in the September session.

We have been working assiduously with other members on the UN Security Council to obtain a resolution condemning the ongoing atrocities being committed by the Asad regime. We are aware that some key Council members oppose such a resolution, but we are moving to forge consensus and will press for a vote.

Our efforts to support the Iranian and Syrian people as they seek to exercise their rights have been consistent and sustained. Just as we do throughout the region, we work with civil society organizations to support their efforts to defend human rights and to advocate for change. We help them expand political space and hold their government accountable. We provide training and tools to civil society activists in Iran and Syria, and throughout the world, to enable citizens to freely and safely exercise their freedoms of expression, association, and assembly on the Internet and via other communication technologies. In cases like Iran and Syria, where governments have good reason to fear the spotlight on their activities, access to technological tools allows the people to tell their story to the world. Despite both government’s ramped up activities to try to suppress information flows, the days are gone when governments could brutalize their people without the world knowing.

As Secretary Clinton has said, “we stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. …This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic.” Our Internet freedom programming is aimed at making sure that voices for peaceful democratic reform across the region can be heard. Countering such regimes’ increasingly active Internet surveillance and censorship efforts requires a diverse portfolio of tools and training. State Department grants will support more advanced counter-censorship technologies, including circumvention tools in Farsi and Arabic, secure mobile communications, and technologies to enable activists to post their own content online and protect against cyber attacks. We also have trained 5,000 activists worldwide, including many from the Middle East, in cyber-self defense. And we plan to expand these efforts to teach democratic activists, journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and others how to protect their online privacy and their data – so that they in turn can train others. Given the evolving state of technology, no single tool will overcome the efforts of Internet-repressive regimes, and that is why we have invested in incubating a diverse portfolio of technologies and digital safety training. This way, even if one particular tool is blocked, other tools will still be available. Likewise, we work to prevent all repressive governments from acquiring sensitive technology to repress its citizens.

A strong, representative government can be responsive to popular demands; an autocratic one is threatened by empowered publics. But these crackdowns also indicate a basic lack of understanding that free speech – whether it’s supportive speech or subversive speech – is harder than ever to suppress in the Digital Age. The young people who have taken to the streets across the Arab world this year understand what their governments are suppressing. It’s not just the Internet, it is people – it’s their demands for dignity and a say in the political and economic future of their countries.

The United States will continue to stand with those who struggle to assert their fundamental humanity. It is essential that these brave people know that the international community supports them, just as it is essential that human rights abusers in Damascus and Tehran know that we are watching them. Until such time as they are held accountable by domestic authorities, it is our responsibility to hold them accountable at the international level.

Similarly, we hope that today’s hearing will serve as further evidence that the American people and our government in Washington stand united in our admiration and support for those across the region who have boldly assumed the duty and made the sacrifices to advance their rights. For this opportunity, we wish to thank the Committee again, and welcome your questions.