Just International

Obama keeps friends and foes guessing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One at a time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 March 2012

By M K Bhadrakumar

@ Asia Times

Obama Hardens Threat of War Against Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Peter Symonds

5 March 2012

@ WSWS.org

Obama Apologizes For Kandahar Massacre: But Not His Own Killings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sherwood Ross

@ Countercurrents.org

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

 

Nuclear watchdog chief accused of pro-western bias over Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Julian Borger and Katy Roberts

22 March 2012

@ The Guardian

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

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

Diana Mavroleon in conversation with Arundhati Roy and Professor Robert Biel

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

DM: lntroduction:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the report came out saying….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DM: And what can they spend the money on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


20 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Produced, Researched and Presented by Diana Mavroleon.

 

 

News From Syria And France

News on Syria is being disseminated in a charged style. A news tilted as part of disinformation signifies preparation for deeper and more forceful involvement by external actors in the Middle Eastern country. At the same time, Turkey’s plan for a buffer zone inside Syria, the war game in the region, and incidents in France, far away from Syria, are no less annoying. Are not these preludes to a gathering storm in the Middle East?

ABC News said on March 19, 2012: An “anti-terror squad” from the Russian Marines and two Russian ships have arrived in Syria. ABC and a section of media headlined the news in their preferred manner – Russian troops in Syria.

ABC cited Russian news reports and Al Arabiya, and Al Arabiya referred to an Israel-based open-source military intelligence website. However, ABC pointed out that Russia’s Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov denied the reports.

On the other hand, citing Russian officials The New York Times reported with a restrained tone: The “Russian officials denied an ABC News report that one of their warships had docked in the Syrian port of Tartus with a squad of Russian antiterror marines; the report fed speculation that Russia was actively helping Mr. Assad by supplying military experts. A spokesman for the Defense Ministry was quoted by the Interfax news service as saying he was perplexed by the report, which he said might have referred to […] a Russian tanker that had docked in Tartus 10 days earlier. He said security guards were aboard the [tanker] because it supplies fuel to Russian ships participating in international anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden.”

Associated Press also reported the same. It said the tanker is carrying a civilian crew and a team of servicemen protecting it.

A comparison of the three news-reports, of ABC, and of NYT and AP, expose a style of a section of media to fan up tension by presenting news in tilted and confusing manner.

Reuters reported: Syria’s arms imports surged nearly 6-fold between 2007 and 2011.

However, El Pais noted that “despite the increase, total arms imports in Syria were not much greater than those to Jordan – a country of 6 million people compared to Syria’s population of 20 million.”

Obviously, size of population does not always provide rational for quantity of arms import and production. Despite the fact – a larger Syrian population compared to Jordan – the information provided by El Pais presents a yardstick for comparison in presenting news. A country’s situation due to external intervention is a major logic regarding quantity of arms being imported/produced.

The tilted Russian antiterror marines and surge in arms import news accompany news on a planned move by Turkey.

Turkey is planning to establish a buffer zone inside Syria. It’s a dangerously significant plan to cripple and dismember a country. The materialization of the plan would involve Turkish troops into Syria. The move if implemented carries possibility of escalation of conflict between armies of the two countries. The Turkish government’s call to its nationals to leave Syria reflects a step to initiate the move.

A major development happened in Moscow. Russia and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have called for a daily two-hour humanitarian ceasefire in Syria without delay – “a daily humanitarian pause” that would allow convoys to provide medical care and evacuation for the wounded. The ICRC head Kellenberger’s Moscow travel to discuss a Syria-ceasefire clearly shows the need to consider Moscow’s geostrategic position in Syria.

Russia’s geostrategic position regarding Syria is the outcome of its present internal and external world position and Libya-experience. Russia’s choice is to abide by existing contracts to deliver weapons to Syria, and as Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov said, Russia finds “no reason […] to reconsider it.” The Russian minister dismissed allegations that Russia has sent special forces officers to assist Syrian government forces: “There are no (Russian) special forces with rifles and grenade launchers running around”, he said. “The Syrian people should determine who will lead their country and so the opinion of some of our foreign partners will hardly foster a solution”, Mikhail Bogdanov, Russian deputy foreign minister told a news conference.

But, ultimately, the external players will not allow the Syrian people to determine their path in their own peaceful manner. The world masters’ external intervention is perfectly accomplishing a number of tasks of crisis-ridden world masters.

“Internal Look,” the two-week war game was not assuring for peace. Rather it scares all peace-loving people. Consequences of any confrontation or war in the Middle East will be dire for all.

The killings in France are annoying also. In France, a number of paratroopers not during combat duty were killed a few days ago. The incidents were followed by killing of four persons including three children aged 3, 6, and 8.

The act of killing cannot be considered part of political fight. An environment of hatred and fear distorts and hinders political fight, and strengthens forces of reaction. Targeting children cannot be considered part of political fight. Rather, it weakens the moral standing of political fight.

With further escalation of external financed and armed intervention in Syria, the first victim will be people’s democratic struggle in the region, in Syria, in Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. Imperialist intervention and war effort under guise of democratic movement will push back democratic movement. A further escalation of killing spree in France will charge an environment with hatred, suspicion, will push back urgent questions related to working people’s suffering due to financial crisis.

By Farooque Chowdhury

20 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Farooque Chowdhury is a Dhaka-based freelancer.

New Bid For UN Resolution Aimed At Syrian Regime-Change Fails

On Monday, Russia and China refused to sign a new draft resolution put before the United Nations Security Council condemning the regime of Bashir al-Assad, on the grounds that it could be used to justify military intervention in support of the Syrian opposition.

This was despite private talks between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Clinton, Britain’s William Hague and France’s Alain Juppe all bitterly denounced Moscow and Beijing at a special session of the Security Council on the “Arab Spring.”

Russia and China know very well that a UN imprimatur would immediately shift the balance of forces in favour of a plan for regime-change.

Lavrov denounced “risky recipes of geo-political engineering which can only result in a spread of the conflict.” China’s UN envoy, Li Baodong, said, “No external parties should engage in military intervention in Syria and push for regime-change.”

Plans for military intervention have come up against the difficulties posed by any attempt at regime-change in Syria. But all of Washington’s efforts are focused on overcoming the present stalemate, while continuing its campaign of political, military and economic destabilization of the Syrian regime. Behind the moral posturing and talk of diplomatic initiatives, the US and its European and regional allies are seeking to assemble the proxy forces necessary for intervention, while ruining Syria economically and breaking off a section of the Syrian bourgeoisie with whom they can work to oust Assad and install a client government.

For the US, the removal of Assad is seen as a major blow to his ally Iran, opening the way to military intervention and regime-change in Tehran.

An obstacle to implementing the schemes for military intervention against Assad is the weakness of the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) and Free Syrian Army (FSA). This is bound up with widespread hostility in Syria towards the sectarian Sunni insurgency.

In addition, there are rising concerns among the regional anti-Syrian forces, led by Turkey and the Gulf states, that they cannot count on the divided US political and military elite to provide the resources needed for an attack.

Last week Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Congress that plans had been drawn up for military intervention, but they cautioned against a unilateral US intervention and warned that any military effort would be more difficult than last year’s US-NATO intervention to overthrow the Gaddafi regime in Libya.

The US has a range of possibilities—air strikes, arming the opposition, agreeing to guard a “humanitarian corridor” established under the auspices of Turkey and the Gulf states. But at last week’s hearing, Panetta and Dempsey faced off demands led by Republican Senator John McCain for immediate air strikes.

Dempsey said that preliminary estimates of what would be required to mount a military intervention, beginning with establishing no-fly zones, had been made at President Barack Obama’s request. But he described a well-armed Syria, with air defences five times more sophisticated than Libya’s. An intervention would need “an extended period of time and a great number of aircraft,” he said.

Democratic Senator Jack Reed warned that creating safe havens would “imply that someone would have to go in and organize training and organize, literally, an army.”

A senior US Defence Department official over the weekend added that creating safe havens would mean, “looking at a serious contingent of US ground troops.”

Michèle A. Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official, warned, “If we jump in with purely military instruments as the US, absent a broader strategy, we could very quickly hasten reactions from others, namely Iran and Russia, to bolster the regime and start us down a road towards greater confrontation.”

Three senior US intelligence officials spoke anonymously to the Washington Post, also describing Syria as a formidable military power, with 330,000 soldiers on active-duty, surveillance drones and sophisticated air defences. The army also has 4,500 tanks and 500 aircraft, including armed helicopters.

The analysts were forced to note that none of the defectors from Assad’s regime have been part of its inner circle. This is a reflection of a broader pattern of support for the current government, including not only the Alawite business elite, but also the Christian, Kurd and Druze minorities, all of which fear persecution by a Sunni regime.

The analysts were scathing towards the Syrian opposition, which they described as being made up of over a hundred disparate and fractious groups.

Turkey is the key country slated to head any proxy intervention against Syria. It would rely on US backing behind the scenes, but fears that open association with Washington would be detrimental to its efforts to secure its own regional interests.

To offset this political danger, Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki issued a joint statement last week opposing intervention “from outside the region.” But Turkey has made clear that it could accept the endorsement of either the Arab League or the Friends of Syria group assembled by Washington as a cover for military action. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto&;lu declared, “Turkey is ready to discuss every option in order to protect its national security.”

Tunisian President Marzouki said Tunisia would be willing to send troops to Syria as part of an Arab peacekeeping force.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been unequivocal in their calls for intervention led by the Arab League. On Saturday, Qatari Prime Minister Hamad Bin Jasim al-Thani told a meeting of the League’s foreign ministers in Cairo, attended by Lavrov, “The time has come to apply the proposal to send Arab and international troops to Syria.”

“When we went to the Security Council, we did not get a resolution because of the Russian-Chinese veto, which sent a wrong message to the Syrian regime,” he added. “Our patience and the patience of the world has run out.”

Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal denounced the prospect of more “hollow resolutions and… spineless positions.”

Lavrov rejected calls for Assad to step down and the League’s ministers were forced to agree in a joint statement that there should be no foreign intervention in Syria. The statement, which called for an end to the violence “whatever its source,” also demanded “unhindered humanitarian access,” which could yet be cited to justify Arab League intervention.

The Syrian National Council has issued a statement calling for immediate military intervention, including a no-fly zone, safe corridors, and a buffer zone policed by the imperialist powers, coupled with “an organized and speedy operation to arm the Free Syrian Army.” SNC foreign affairs spokesman Radwan Ziadeh, who enjoys intimate ties to Washington, stressed that the US need no longer be restrained by fears of a divided opposition. “I think the divisions are over,” he said.

By Chris Marsden

14 March 2012

@ WSWS.org

 

 

Nervous Attack of High-Ranking Commanders

Although news about ruthless killing of 16 innocent Afghan women and children by a US soldier in Kandahar has shocked the world, the incident was by no means unexpected. A statement issued by NATO head command in that region noted that the assailant committed the crime in a fit of nervous breakdown.

A mother, whose young child was killed in the incident, was crying out asking if her two-year child has been a Taliban fighter to deserve such a death? The bereaved mother knew better than NATO commanders that the attack was not the result of a nervous breakdown, but the result of Islamophobia to which this region, especially Afghanistan, has been a victim during the past 10 years. This process of Islamophobia can be clearly seen in the disastrous events which have befallen Afghanistan in the past few months.

Just a few weeks ago, there were images of NATO soldiers on international media showing those soldiers urinating on dead bodies of the victims of Afghan war. Those images shocked the entire world, but let’s not forget that the people of Afghanistan are daily victims of similar cases of violence. Many of these cases are never caught on camera and are regularly denied. Nobody will believe that this has been the first or even the last case of NATO soldiers urinating on dead bodies; they have done this both in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

The catastrophic burning of the Quran at NATO military base in Bagram has upset Muslims across the world. They claimed that it had been just a mistake and the Quran pages have been burned along with useless papers on mistake. The question is why so many volumes of the Quran have been included among useless papers at that military base? Had NATO soldiers collected those Qurans from people’s homes or Afghan prisoners as examples of dangerous books promoting violence before consuming them by fire? Who believes that NATO soldiers give a damn about religious values of their victims?

In reality, however, in order to attack a country, you should first fan the flames of hatred toward that country so high that the military will be ready to embark on war with no guilty conscience. Perhaps, the soldier who has attacked poor people in a remote village using his automatic gun thought why they should wait a number of years and see those children grow into mature men who would take up arms to fight them. So, he concluded, it would be better to nip that violence in the bud. Didn’t the US defense secretary under President Ronald Reagan once say that the United States should eradicate Iranians as a nation? Aren’t Israelis making daily calls on the United States to wage a new war in the Middle East? Aren’t the US presidential candidates engaged in a hot race over putting more pressure on and waging a military attack on Iran?

At a time that this is the mentality at the highest decision-making level in the United States, how a simple soldier, who is facing horrors in Kandahar instead of having a good time in Florida, can be expected not to go down with a nervous breakdown? A closer look will show us that his nervous fit was, in fact, a result of similar nervous fit of high-ranking commanders who wage wars and call it fight on terror, or struggle against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The real person with nervous fit is the US president, who instead of insisting on freeing the Middle East from nuclear weapons, takes pride in his heartfelt love for and strategic alliance with Israel which already possesses the most destructive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. When the US Joint Chiefs of Staff threatens the entire region with war and constantly talks about a military option to solve the United States’ domestic and international problems, it is him who has gone down with a nervous breakdown.

What happened from Abu Ghraib Prison to Bagram airbase and from Bagram airbase to Kandahar and from Kandahar to arrogant urination of NATO troops on dead bodies of bearded men, all convey the same message of Islamophobia. From the viewpoint of American strategists, Islam is the most important identity element in the Muslim Middle East. The call of “God is the greatest,” is heard in all Muslim countries many times a day. Therefore, killing of Afghan children should not be simplistically reduced to nervous attack of an American soldier, but should be construed within broader framework of Islamophobic policies and strategies of the West.

No show of power and military deployment can destroy Islam, but it simply draws NATO into the vortex of a deadly whirlpool. The best way of interaction between Islam and the West is not through fanning the flames of war, but is opening up some space for dialogue. Islamophobia will only give birth to catastrophic violence. The sole way of interaction between Islam and the West is through dialogue based on understanding as well as cooperation away from dictatorship and bullying and founded on justice and freedom.

By Gholamali Khoshroo

14 March 2012

@ iranreview.org

Gholamali Khoshroo is the Senior Editor of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Islam.

Murder Is Not An Anomoly In War

The war in Afghanistan—where the enemy is elusive and rarely seen, where the cultural and linguistic disconnect makes every trip outside the wire a visit to hostile territory, where it is clear that you are losing despite the vast industrial killing machine at your disposal—feeds the culture of atrocity. The fear and stress, the anger and hatred, reduce all Afghans to the enemy, and this includes women, children and the elderly. Civilians and combatants merge into one detested nameless, faceless mass. The psychological leap to murder is short. And murder happens every day in Afghanistan. It happens in drone strikes, artillery bombardments, airstrikes, missile attacks and the withering suppressing fire unleashed in villages from belt-fed machine guns.

Military attacks like these in civilian areas make discussions of human rights an absurdity. Robert Bales, a U.S. Army staff sergeant who allegedly killed 16 civilians in two Afghan villages, including nine children, is not an anomaly. To decry the butchery of this case and to defend the wars of occupation we wage is to know nothing about combat. We kill children nearly every day in Afghanistan. We do not usually kill them outside the structure of a military unit. If an American soldier had killed or wounded scores of civilians after the ignition of an improvised explosive device against his convoy, it would not have made the news. Units do not stick around to count their “collateral damage.” But the Afghans know. They hate us for the murderous rampages. They hate us for our hypocrisy.

The scale of our state-sponsored murder is masked from public view. Reporters who travel with military units and become psychologically part of the team spin out what the public and their military handlers want, mythic tales of heroism and valor. War is seen only through the lens of the occupiers. It is defended as a national virtue. This myth allows us to make sense of mayhem and death. It justifies what is usually nothing more than gross human cruelty, brutality and stupidity. It allows us to believe we have achieved our place in human society because of a long chain of heroic endeavors, rather than accept the sad reality that we stumble along a dimly lit corridor of disasters. It disguises our powerlessness. It hides from view the impotence and ordinariness of our leaders. But in turning history into myth we transform random events into a sequence of events directed by a will greater than our own, one that is determined and preordained. We are elevated above the multitude. We march to nobility. But it is a lie. And it is a lie that combat veterans carry within them. It is why so many commit suicide.

“I, too, belong to this species,” J. Glenn Gray wrote of his experience in World War II. “I am ashamed not only of my own deeds, not only of my nation’s deeds, but of human deeds as well. I am ashamed to be a man.”

When Ernie Pyle, the famous World War II correspondent, was killed on the Pacific island of Ie Shima in 1945, a rough draft of a column was found on his body. He was preparing it for release upon the end of the war in Europe. He had done much to promote the myth of the warrior and the nobility of soldiering, but by the end he seemed to have tired of it all:

But there are many of the living who have burned into their brains forever the unnatural sight of cold dead men scattered over the hillsides and in the ditches along the high rows of hedge throughout the world.

Dead men by mass production—in one country after another—month after month and year after year. Dead men in winter and dead men in summer.

Dead men in such familiar promiscuity that they become monotonous.

Dead men in such monstrous infinity that you come almost to hate them.

These are the things that you at home need not even try to understand. To you at home they are columns of figures, or he is a near one who went away and just didn’t come back. You didn’t see him lying so grotesque and pasty beside the gravel road in France.

We saw him, saw him by the multiple thousands. That’s the difference.

There is a constant search in all wars to find new perversities, new forms of death when the initial flush fades, a rear-guard and finally futile effort to ward off the boredom of routine death. This is why during the war in El Salvador the death squads and soldiers would cut off the genitals of those they killed and stuff them in the mouths of the corpses. This is why we reporters in Bosnia would find bodies crucified on the sides of barns or decapitated. This is why U.S. Marines have urinated on dead Taliban fighters. Those slain in combat are treated as trophies by their killers, turned into grotesque pieces of performance art. It happened in every war I covered.

“Force,” Simone Weil wrote, “is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.”

War perverts and destroys you. It pushes you closer and closer to your own annihilation—spiritual, emotional and finally physical. It destroys the continuity of life, tearing apart all systems—economic, social, environmental and political—that sustain us as human beings. In war, we deform ourselves, our essence. We give up individual conscience—maybe even consciousness—for contagion of the crowd, the rush of patriotism, the belief that we must stand together as a nation in moments of extremity. To make a moral choice, to defy war’s enticement, can in the culture of war be self-destructive. The essence of war is death. Taste enough of war and you come to believe that the stoics were right: We will, in the end, all consume ourselves in a vast conflagration.

A World War II study determined that, after 60 days of continuous combat, 98 percent of all surviving soldiers will have become psychiatric casualties. A common trait among the remaining 2 percent was a predisposition toward having “aggressive psychopathic personalities.” Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his book “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” notes: “It is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98 percent of all men insane, and the other 2 percent were crazy when they go there.”

During the war in El Salvador, many soldiers served for three or four years or longer, as in the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, until they psychologically or physically collapsed. In garrison towns, commanders banned the sale of sedatives because those drugs were abused by the troops. In that war, as in the wars in the Middle East, the emotionally and psychologically maimed were common. I once interviewed a 19-year-old Salvadoran army sergeant who had spent five years fighting and then suddenly lost his vision after his unit walked into a rebel ambush. The rebels killed 11 of his fellow soldiers in the firefight, including his closest friend. He was unable to see again until he was placed in an army hospital. “I have these horrible headaches,” he told me as he sat on the edge of his bed. “There is shrapnel in my head. I keep telling the doctors to take it out.” But the doctors told me that he had no head wounds.

I saw other soldiers in other conflicts go deaf or mute or shake without being able to stop.

War is necrophilia. This necrophilia is central to soldiering just as it is central to the makeup of suicide bombers and terrorists. The necrophilia is hidden under platitudes about duty or comradeship. It is unleashed especially in moments when we seem to have little to live for and no hope, or in moments when the intoxication of war is at its highest pitch. When we spend long enough in war, it comes to us as a kind of release, a fatal and seductive embrace that can consummate the long flirtation with our own destruction.

In his memoir “Wartime,” about the partisan war in Yugoslavia, Milovan Djilas wrote of the enticement that death held for the combatants. He stood over the body of his comrade, the commander Sava Kovacevic, and found:

“… dying did not seem terrible or unjust. This was the most extraordinary, the most exalted moment of my life. Death did not seem strange or undesirable. That I restrained myself from charging blindly into the fray and death was perhaps due to my sense of obligation to the troops or to some comrade’s reminder concerning the tasks at hand. In my memory, I returned to those moments many times with the same feeling of intimacy with death and desire for it while I was in prison, especially during my first incarceration.”

War ascendant wipes out Eros. It wipes out delicacy and tenderness. Its communal power seeks to render the individual obsolete, to hand all passions, all choice, all voice to the crowd.

“The most important part of the individual life, which cannot be subsumed in communal life, is love,” Sebastian Haffner wrote in “Defying Hitler.” “So comradeship has its special weapons against love: smut. Every evening in bed, after the last patrol round, there was the ritual reciting of lewd songs and jokes. That is the hard and fast rule of male comradeship, and nothing is more mistaken than the widely held opinion that this is a safety valve for frustrated erotic or sexual feelings. These songs and jokes do not have an erotic, arousing effect. On the contrary, they make the act of love appear as unappetizing as possible. They treat it like digestion and defecation, and make it an object of ridicule. The men who recited rude songs and used coarse words for female body parts were in effect denying that they ever had tender feelings or had been in love, that they had ever made themselves attractive, behaved gently. …”

When we see this, when we see our addiction for what it is, when we understand ourselves and how war has perverted us, life becomes hard to bear. Jon Steele, a cameraman who spent years in war zones, had a nervous breakdown in a crowded Heathrow Airport after returning from Sarajevo.

Steele had come to understand the reality of his work, a reality that stripped away the self-righteous, high-octane gloss. When he was in Sarajevo he was “in a place called Sniper’s Alley, and I filmed a girl there who had been hit in the neck by a sniper’s bullet,” he wrote. “I filmed her in the ambulance, and only after she was dead, I suddenly understood that the last thing she had seen was the reflection of the lens of the camera I was holding in front of her. This wiped me out. I grabbed the camera, and started running down Sniper’s Alley, filming at knee level the Bosnians running from place to place.”

A year after the end of the war in Sarajevo, I sat with Bosnian friends who had suffered horribly. A young woman, Ljiljana, had lost her father, a Serb, who refused to join the besieging Serb forces around the city. A few days earlier she had to identify his corpse. The body was lifted, water running out of the sides of a rotting coffin, from a small park for reburial in the central cemetery. Soon she would emigrate to Australia—where, she told me, “I will marry a man who has never heard of this war and raise children that will be told nothing about it, nothing about the country I am from.”

Ljiljana was young. But the war had exacted a toll. Her cheeks were hollow, her hair dry and brittle. Her teeth were decayed and some had broken into jagged bits. She had no money for a dentist; she hoped to have them fixed in Australia. Yet all she and her friends did that afternoon was lament the days when they lived in fear and hunger, emaciated, targeted by Serb gunners on the heights above. They did not wish back the suffering. And yet, they admitted, those may have been the fullest days of their lives. They looked at me in despair. I had known them when hundreds of shells a day fell nearby, when they had no water to bathe in or wash their clothes, when they huddled in unheated flats as sniper bullets hit the walls outside.

What they expressed was disillusionment with a sterile, futile and empty present. Peace had again exposed the void that the rush of war, of battle, had filled. Once again they were—as perhaps we all are—alone, no longer bound by a common struggle, no longer given the opportunity to be noble, heroic, no longer sure of what life was about or what it meant. The old comradeship, however false, had vanished with the last shot.

Moreover, they had seen that all the sacrifice had been for naught. They had been, as we all are in war, betrayed. The corrupt old Communist Party bosses, who became nationalists overnight and got them into the mess in the first place, had grown rich off their suffering and were still in power. Ljiljana and the others faced a 70 percent unemployment rate. They depended on handouts from the international community. They understood that their cause, once as fashionable in certain intellectual circles as they were themselves, lay forgotten. No longer did actors, politicians and artists scramble to visit during the cease-fires—acts that were almost always ones of gross self-promotion. They knew the lie of war, the mockery of their idealism, and struggled with their shattered illusions. And yet, they wished it all back, and I did, too.

Later, I received a Christmas card. It was signed “Ljiljana from Australia.” It had no return address. I never heard from her again. But many of those I worked with as war correspondents did not escape. They could not break free from the dance with death. They wandered from conflict to conflict, seeking always one more hit.

By then, I was back in Gaza and at one point found myself pinned down in still another ambush. A young Palestinian 15 feet away was fatally shot through the chest. I had been lured back but now felt none of the old rush, just fear. It was time to break free, to let go. I knew it was over for me. I was lucky to get alive.

Kurt Schork—brilliant, courageous and driven—could not let go. He died in an ambush in Sierra Leone along with another friend of mine, Miguel Gil Moreno. His entrapment—his embrace of Thanatos, of the death instinct—was never mentioned in the sterile and antiseptic memorial service held for him in Washington, D.C. Everyone tiptoed around the issue. But those of us who had known him understood he had been consumed.

I had worked with Kurt for 10 years, starting in northern Iraq. Literate, funny—it seems the brave are often funny. He and I passed books back and forth in our struggle to make sense of the madness around us. His loss is a hole that will never be filled. His ashes were placed in Sarajevo’s Lion Cemetery, for the victims of the war. I flew to Sarajevo and met the British filmmaker Dan Reed. It was an overcast November day. We stood over the grave and downed a pint of whiskey. Dan lit a candle. I recited a poem the Roman lyric poet Catullus had written to honor his dead brother.

By strangers’ costs and waters, many days at sea,

I come here for the rites of your unworlding,

Bringing for you, the dead, these last gifts of the living

And my words—vain sounds for the man of dust.

Alas, my brother,

You have been taken from me. You have been taken from me,

By cold chance turned a shadow, and my pain.

Here are the foods of the old ceremony, appointed

Long ago for the starvelings under the earth:

Take them: your brother’s tears have made them wet: and take

Into eternity my hail and my farewell.

It was there, among 4,000 war dead, that Kurt belonged. He died because he could not free himself from war. He had been trying to replicate what he had found in Sarajevo, but he could not. War could never be new again. Kurt had been in East Timor and Chechnya. Sierra Leone, I was sure, meant nothing to him.

Kurt and Miguel could not let go. They would have been the first to admit it. Spend long enough at war, and you cannot fit in anywhere else. It finally kills you. It is not a new story. It starts out like love, but it is death.

War is the beautiful young nymph in the fairy tale that, when kissed, exhales the vapors of the underworld.

The ancient Greeks had a word for such a fate: ekpyrosis.

It means to be consumed by a ball of fire. They used it to describe heroes.

By Chris Hedges

19 March 2012

@ TruthDig.com

Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

“Multiculturalism” And Australia ‘s Great Divide

While most Australians rightly believe that Australia is a multicultural nation, in reality multiculturalism is encouraging divisions, discrimination and racism. Australia needs an inclusive multicultural policy to dismantle “white” dominance and unite Australians.

Since the early 1970s, Australia has embraced multiculturalism and prides itself of being a multicultural nation. After abandoning the “white Australia ” policy, Australia has become one of the most culturally-diverse countries on the planet . However, multiculturalism, as a government policy, is promoted not because it is good, but because it serves the ideology of the ruling class, enforces white dominance and protects white privilege. Hence, Australia ‘s white Anglo-Saxon elites have an interest in investing and maintaining a marginalised “ethnic” or “other”.

Furthermore, there is a tendency among white Australian elites that Australia must remain a white Anglo-Saxon society controlled by a wealthy white ruling class. This is despite the fact that 44 per cent of Australians are born overseas, or have an overseas-born parent. Only whites (preferably Anglo-Saxons) are Australians and only whites have access to good jobs and justice. Multiculturalism is an anti-culture that identifies white Europeans as “Australians” and the rest as the “ethnic Australians” without identity. Ethnic Australians are told to “assimilate”, but cleverly divided, weakened and put in “their places”, in segregated communities.

Successive Australian governments, particularly under the Liberal/National Coalition, have failed to promote racial harmony and provide programs to help disadvantaged Australians and new immigrants obtain employment and integrate into the Australian community. “We are not an economically equal society by any means. There are sizeable pockets of considerable social disadvantages to be found in every state, especially among Indigenous communities and in older industrial and regional areas”, writes Wayne Swan, the Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer. ( The Monthly , March 2012). Australian multiculturalism did little to eliminate racism and discrimination against minorities, including Indigenous Australians.

In the so-called “fair go” Australia , the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ is growing exponentially. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) show that the wealthiest 20 per cent of Australian households have increased their average net worth by 15 per cent since 2005-06. The poorest 20 per cent saw only a 4 per cent rise . As the income gap between the rich and the poor grows wider, Australians are increasingly ghettoized.

According to a recent research in the Australian Economic Review (vol. 45, pp. 29-49); Australian-born parents (i.e., white Anglo-Saxon Australians) are more likely to send their children to well-funded private schools “where the share of their like type is higher” rather than to public schools to avoid exposing them to “unfamiliar cultures”. It is alleged that “there is an over-dominance of some cultures in public schools, which is denigrating the quality of education”. ( The Age , 21 March 2008 ).

It is Important to note that, most ordinary (civilised) Australians believe in an egalitarian and truly multicultural Australia that treats all its citizens equally regardless of skin colour, religion and ethnic backgrounds. However, racism and discrimination are deeply-entrenched in white Australian elites . Indeed, about 85 per cent of Australians believe that racism is a problem in Australia .

While it is unlawful in Australia to discriminate against people because of their skin colour, religion or ethnic backgrounds, most Australian institutions practice racism and discrimination. The education system, the media, the justice system and the police are fuelled by racist practices. Of course, in public, the ruling elites pretend to serve the community, but under the skin, they are truly bigots. In fact, racism is so entrenched in white Australia to the extent that an Australian from a non-Anglo-Saxon background has far less chance to be selected for employment (e.g. at a university) in Australia than a white English, a Dutch or an American holding no residency status and has no right to work in Australia. Nepotism and corruption are rampant and carefully nurtured to enforce white dominance and privilege in the nation’s most important institutions. Tens of thousands of unemployed professionals, including doctors, PhDs, engineers and teachers are driving taxis and doing low-paid odd jobs, despite serious shortages of these professions in Australia . Muslim Australians and new immigrants are denied the opportunity to work and serve the community because of their religion and non-Anglo-Saxon ethnic backgrounds.

A survey on racial and ethnic discrimination in Australia conducted by the Research School of Economics at the Australian National University (ANU) released in June 2009 found that there is substantial evidence of racial discrimination in employment. The study found that Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds had greater difficulty of finding employment than those Australians with Anglo-Saxon background. According to the study, people with a Middle Eastern names and background (a.k.a. Muslims) had to send 127 per cent more applications for a waiter’s position than their Anglo-Saxon contenders. ( PDF ). As a result, unemployment among Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds is significantly higher.

Of course, there are those Indigenous and “ethnic” Australians who passed through the net and become the face of Australia ‘s shallow multiculturalism. Their presence is nothing more than a PR designs to help in deflecting accusations of racism and discrimination. They are often paraded in front of TV cameras obsequiously dismissing any accusation of racism to promote Australia ‘s (fake) image of a multicultural and “tolerant society”.

The Indian author Arundhati Roy liked this to the forgiving of the Thanksgiving turkey in America : “A few carefully bred turkeys — the local elites of various countries, a community of wealthy immigrants … the occasional Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice … are given absolution and a pass to Frying Pan Park . The remaining millions lose their jobs, are evicted from their homes, have their water and electricity connections cut, and die of AIDS. Basically they’re for the pot. … So who can say that turkeys are against Thanksgiving? They participate in it”. (The Hindu , 18 January 2004 ). The same holds true in Australia . The like of Warren Mundine, Marcia Langton, Pino Migliorino, Stepan Kerkyasharian, Penny Wong and Noel Pearson come to mind.

Racism in Australia is systemic. It is well managed subtle kind of racism than elsewhere. Australia has a Multicultural Minister and several government-funded agencies and organisations, such as the Anti-discrimination Commission, Equal Opportunity Commission and the Human Rights Commission that act as enforcers of racism, legitimising discrimination and dismissing any criticism and racism-related complaints. There is no bill of right and v ery few Australians know that Indigenous Australians are not recognised in the Australian Constitution. Everyone knows his/her place. No one dares to complain. “If you don’t like it”, you are told “go back to your own country”.

As Oscar Humphries, the editor of the London-based art magazine Apollo’ who grow up in Sydney writes : “My own experience, having attended school [in Australia] until the age of 11, and then lived there during my early 20s, is that underneath the blocky ‘mateship’ of a certain type of Australian male there is a seam of racism. This racism is not only applied to indigenous Australians, but also to, for instance, the Lebanese [Muslim Australians] and Greek immigrants who live there”. ( The Telegraph . 29 June 2011 ). Since 9/11, Muslim Australians continue to live under siege, often harassed and bullied by ASIO and the police.

Most recently, a right-wing politician, Teresa Gambaro from the so-called Australian “Liberal” Party, a collection of right-wing bigots and dirty fascists, accused – after “hearing reports” – non-white (a.k.a. Muslims) immigrants of failing to wear deodorants and integrate into the community.. It is not true that new immigrants have failed to integrate into “Australian culture” and ‘lifestyle”. Most non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants left their simple ways of life at home and have adapted well in Australia , doing all kind of dirty jobs. It is evident that Gambaro herself has not adapted well in Australia and remains an illiterate indulging in old racial stereotypes that contaminated the brains of most bigots in the Liberal Party.

Gambaro is the daughter of poorly-educated Italian immigrants. After fleeing the impoverished and war-ravaged Italy to Australia , Gambaro’s father worked as a farm labourer and a fishmonger – who stunk for many years – before he established his seafood restaurant in Brisbane . Gambaro’s rise in Australian politics is not because she cares about Australia or has a dubious university degree, but because she is white European. Her only contribution to multiculturalism is to greet new immigrants with hostility in order to advance her political interest because racism is a vital tool to dehumanise the “other” and manipulate public opinion.

We all know that, Australian politic is exclusively white territory, and only white Australians have the right to be in the Australian Parliament and participate in democratic debate. It is a privilege position to be in. It provides wealth and power and enough influence to advance the interests of relatives and friends. There is no democracy in Australia . What is called “democracy” is a quarrel between two corporate groups (parties) of wealthy white elites serving their own interests and the interests of their wealthy handlers. The people are duped and misled by politicians and the capitalist (corporate) media and forced into a delusional believe that real change can come from electing a different corporate group (candidate) of wealthy elites.

Like in most Western countries, the Australian media (outlet of the capitalist media) constantly demonises non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, Indigenous and Muslim Australians, inciting racism and promoting divisions. Ethnic divisions are exploited and used by the media as an opportunity to promote fear. The media in Australia is a small pond of vicious white sharks. About 75 per cent of the printing media are controlled by the neo-fascist Murdoch Press, a pro-Israel Zionist and anti-Muslim propaganda organ. Australian major TV channels (ABC, 7, 9 and 10) are the cesspool of Britain and U.S. rubbish. They have no shame when it comes to demonising and bashing non-Anglo-Saxon Australians and new immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants. Australia ‘s media are dominated by white Anglo-Saxon bigots . There are no places for Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds only in stereotypical roles.

Meanwhile, the self-described multicultural TV station, “Special Broadcasting Services” (SBS), has become the main demoniser of Muslims. It is often called the “ethnic” station. The station is financed by the pro-Israel Zionist lobby and managed by faceless white Anglo-Saxon executives. It is an anti-Muslim, racist and warmongering propaganda outlet. Its anti-Muslim agenda is hidden behind a façade of dark-skinned, unprofessional newsreaders and second-hand journalists. Like all capitalist media outlets, SBS alleges to be “independence”, but in reality, it is a dirty byproduct of CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Fox News and CBS propaganda. Its aim is to deepen the ethnic divide, tear communities apart and deny Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds a collective voice. People are misled to have a strong “ethnic” identity, which isolates them and decreases their sense of belonging to the Australian community .

Having said all that, it is important to acknowledge that there are worse places in the world than Australia . Australia is not Europe or the U.S. , where racism is condone and promoted by right-wing governments and neo-fascist parties. When it comes to dealing with ethnic minorities, Europe ‘s history, of course, is littered with crimes against minorities. For instance, some European countries, including France , Switzerland and Holland send Roma Gypsies and Jewish refugees fleeing from the Nazis back to Germany . Today, Europe has become a bastion of Islamophobia. Muslim immigrants and refugees bear the brunt of Europe ‘s neo-fascist policies . Of course, Australia ‘s current policy of dealing with desperate (mostly Muslim) refugees is a Nazi-like inhumane policy and should to be condemned.

Moreover, unlike Europe , Australia lacks the neo-fascist, far-right Islamophobes who practice “direct action” to expel immigrants in Europe . Crimes against Muslims and newly-arrived non-European immigrants are committed on daily basis. Many innocent people (mostly Muslims) and refugees have been murdered by neo-fascists in Europe , including Germany , Belgium , France and Britain . European political leaders, such as the neo-fascist Nicholas Sarkozy in France , David Cameron in Britain and Angela Merkle in Germany have attacked Muslim immigrant rights using multiculturalism as a cover. In other words, multiculturalism is used as a code word for Muslim. The promotion and exploitation of Islamophobia by Western leaders serve as a cheap vote winner among their racist electorate. Indeed, Sarkozy is campaigning for re-election on an anti-immigrants and anti-Muslim racist platform. The on-going attacks on multiculturalism by European leaders are seen as a justification for Western governments’ involvement in U.S.-Israeli criminal wars in the Middle East , West Asia ( Afghanistan ) and Africa ( Libya ). This is why both Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron declared during their violent aggression against Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective countries. Like the U.S. , most Europe is multicultural regions, but also condones racism and discrimination against certain minorities.

In the U.S. , Americans are segregated by centuries-old racist ideology and racist laws. As a result, the U.S. is one of the most unequal societies in the world with extreme and growing inequality ( Extreme Poverty in the United States, 1996 to 2011 ). Anti-immigrants’ sentiment is spreading like wild fire across the U.S. Thousands of “undocumented” immigrants have been imprisoned or deported and their children were taken away from them and put in foster homes. There are hundreds of extremist and anti-immigrants hate groups, including 170 Neo Nazi and 152 Ku Klux Klan groups ( The ‘Patriot’ Movement Explodes ). Australia is not Europe or the U.S. , not yet.

Australia still has to dismantle its white Australia policy and eradicate racism and discrimination to nurture a truly multicultural Australia . There is no such thing as Australians and “ethnic” Australians. One is either Australian or not. The only way forward is an egalitarian Australia for all Australians regardless of racial and ethnic backgrounds. An inclusive multiculturalism will unite Australians and make Australian strong.

By Ghali Hassan

18 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Ghali Hassan is an independent political analyst living in Australia .