JUST Commentary April 2015

April 2015

Vol 15, No.04

THE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT: A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION There is no guarantee that the preliminary agreement reached in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 2nd April 2015 between Iran, on the one hand, and the United States and five other world powers, namely, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, on the other, in relation to Iran’s nuclear programme will lead to a final accord at the end of June this year, as envisaged by the parties concerned.

There is considerable opposition to the agreement especially in the US. A lot of Republican lawmakers and some democrats are opposed to it. They allege that the deal does not protect Israeli interests. There are powerful Israeli lobbies in the US who have condemned it. The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, an implacable opponent of any negotiations with Iran from the very

beginning, has described the agreement as a threat to the very survival of Israel!

Netanyahu and his allies in the US are mobilizing various groups and individuals to stop the signing of the final accord.

Some of the hardliners in Iran within religious, political and media circles are also unhappy with the Lausanne agreement. They feel that it imposes severe restrictions upon Iran’s nuclear programme and infringes upon the nation’s sovereignty. But the vast majority of Iranians — it appears from media reports — are in a celebratory mood. They are happy because the final accord will lead to the lifting of sanctions pushed forward by the US, the European Union and the United Nations in recent years that have

weakened the Iranian economy and brought widespread suffering to the people.

The sanctions were terribly unjust because they were based upon the false premise that Iran was manufacturing nuclear weapons when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which had over years conducted the most intrusive and extensive inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities failed to produce even an iota of hard evidence that suggested that Iran’s nuclear programme had some other ulterior motive. Doubts raised on a couple of occasions and accusations hurled by IAEA inspectors, highlighted by the global media, Turn to next page

STATEMENT

BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.........................P 2

BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.........................P 4

.YEMEN: NO MILITARY SOLUTION .VENEZUELA: A THREAT?

ARTICLES . THE MESSAGE FROM ISRAEL’S ELECTION

BY IIAN PAPPE..............................................P 5 . LIBYA: WAR-TORN COUNTRY BECOMING NEW HUB FOR IS ACTIVITIES

BY SERGE JORDAN........................................P 7 . NOAM CHOMSKY: DEFEATING ISIS STARTS WITH US ADMITTING ITS ROLE IN CREARING THIS FUNDAMENTALIST MONSTER

BY AMY GOODMAN/DEMOCRACY NOW!......P 10

.FOUR YEARS

OF

SYRIAN RESISTANCE

TAKEOVER

BY SARA FLOUNDERS

AND

TO IMPERIALIST

LAMONT LILLY...P 13

.HOW

AIIB IS TRANSFORMING THE BALANCE OF POWER IN EAST ASIA

BY MARTIN JACQUES.................................P15 THE

. SLLEP WALKING INTO WORLD WAR THREE? WHY

MEDIA IS VITAL

BY COLIN TODHUNTER..........................P 17

THE

. BETTER THAN HATRED

BY IZZELDIN ABUELIASH........................P 19

2 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 1

turned out to be hollow largely because they were inspired by fabricated “evidence” supplied by Israeli intelligence.

It is also important to emphasise that right from the outset Iran’s supreme leaders, first Imam Khomeini and then the current spiritual head, Ayatollah Khamenei, had declared on a number of occasions that manufacturing, storing and deploying nuclear weapons is “haram” ( prohibited) in Islam.

Iran’s nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes with the focus upon generating electricity and undertaking medical research. The agreement recognizes Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy for such goals.

Harnessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is part and parcel of the national agenda of more than 40 countries — a right recognized under the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which Iran is a signatory.

To demonstrate in unequivocal terms its total commitment to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, Iran should now lead a campaign to declare West Asia and North Africa (WANA) a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. No country and

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

no entity in the region should be allowed to manufacture, keep or use nuclear weapons. Every country and every entity should be prepared to be subjected to IAEA inspections. This will put the only state in the region that is known to possess nuclear weapons to the test. Israel should not be treated as a special case in this instance. There should be a massive mobilization of public opinion within and without WANA to force Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. It is grossly unfair that the one entity that has been most vocal in denouncing Iran’s unproven nuclear weapons has escaped scrutiny of, and censure about, its own nuclear weapons arsenal from the world community. After the Lausanne agreement we should all now turn our attention to Israel and demand that Israel demolish its stock of nuclear weapons immediately and pledge not to produce such weapons any more.

A nuclear weapons free WANA is the best hope for peace and security for all the states in that region, including Israel.

L E A D A R T I C L E states in the region that continue to stockpile such weapons. This again will help usher in an era where there is less barbaric violence and brutal massacres.

In this regard, Iran should also join groups in other parts of the world and campaign for the prohibition of war as a means of settling conflicts between and within nations. It would be amazing if such a campaign took root in WANA which has witnessed so many wars since the end of the Second World War. In fact, I had hoped when a revolution took place in Iran in the name of Islam in 1979 that Iran would pioneer a new approach to international relations by championing the cause of a world without war and a world without nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

It may still happen if the agreement of 2nd April evolves into a comprehensive accord at the end of June 2015 and politics in WANA slowly moves in a different direction.

4 April 2015.

Iran should also campaign to abolish other weapons of mass destruction such as biological and chemical weapons from WANA. There are a few

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

STATEMENTS YEMEN: NO MILITARY SOLUTION

By Chandra Muzaffar There is no military solution to the Yemen crisis. It is essentially a tussle for power between various political actors. The solution has to be political.

Military air-strikes helmed by Saudi Arabia, and supported by most of the other Gulf monarchies and other governments in the region, notably Egypt, have exacerbated an already volatile situation. If these governments decide in the next few days to launch a ground offensive, the consequences will be

horrendous.

One, the casualties which are mounting will increase dramatically. Yemen has witnessed a great deal of death and destruction in recent years and does not deserve to suffer more pain and anguish.

Two, Yemeni society which is already deeply polarized will become even more divided. An all-out war will make it more difficult to work towards reconciliation and to restore peace in the future.

Three, any escalation of aggression on the part of the Saudi elite and its allies will tear the region asunder especially since they are projecting the Yemen crisis as a Sunni-Shia conflict. It will have repercussions for Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and even Saudi Arabia itself. These are all Arab states where Sunnis or Shias are in the majorityor are a minority. Shia Iran and Sunni Turkey will also be drawn into the maelstrom. continued next page

3 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 2

The danger of perceiving the Yemen conflict in Sunni-Shia terms is further aggravated by a stark anti-Iran rhetoric emanating from Saudi and Egyptian elite circles which has even hinted of a foreign, non-Arab — read Persian — threat that dredges deeply ingrained sentiments rooted in the past that have always dichotomized the Muslim ummah. The implication is that Persians are manipulating an Arab tribe, the Houthis, in Yemen for their ‘imperial’ interests. One should not be surprised if the Iranian government reacts to such mischievous rhetoric.

It is against this backdrop that one should view the proposal by the Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, to establish a unified Arab military force to defend Arab identity. It is a shame that al- Sisi should forefront this idea which is in the Charter of the Arab League in pursuit of religious sectarianism when he like his allies in the coalition formed to fight the Shia Houthis of Yemen have never thought of forging a united military front against Israel. After all, it was because of Israel that the Charter conceived of a unified Arab military force in 1950! No wonder the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, is euphoric over developments in Yemen which he has described as proof that Iran is seeking to dominate the entire region.

It is also explains why the United States government is supporting the Saudis, the Egyptians and the others in the antiHouthis coalition. A US National Security Council spokesperson admitted that the US was “ establishing a joint planning cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate US military and intelligence support” in the on-going military operations in Yemen.

This is yet another example of a convergence of interests between the US and Israel on the one hand and the strengthening of these interests through collaboration with other close allies, agents and proxies in West Asia such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a number of other Arab states, on the other. The

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

special significance of US collusion with these regional actors on this occasion lies in the fact that the US is also at the same time holding critical talks with Iran over its nuclear programme in Lausanne.

It is partly because of these talks which both Saudi Arabia and Israel are opposed to, that the former has initiated military action in Yemen on its own accord out of a belief that the US can no longer be trusted to safeguard Saudi interests. In a sense, the Saudi elite has forced the US to get involved in Yemen on its side against Iran.

But Saudi intervention is not going to help resolve the quagmire in Yemen. At the root of the present conflict is the struggle for power between Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi — the President who fled Yemen on 25 March 2015 — and Ali Abdullah Salleh, the longtime dictator who was deposed through a popular uprising in early 2012. Salleh still commands considerable loyalty within the military and has been trying to make a comeback. It is reliably learnt that he has forged an alliance of sorts with the Houthis, who constitute about 40% of the population and belong to the Zaydi branch of the Shia sect. This is an opportunistic relationship because Salleh had in 2004 attempted to mercilessly crush a Houthi rebellion which was also directed against Israeli and US interference in Yemeni affairs.

This power struggle has been rendered even more complicated by the emergence of yet another actor. Since 2009, Yemen has served as a base for Al-Qaeda. The Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is a major Al-Qaeda affiliate and is the coordinating centre for operations of the terrorist outfit in

S T A T E M E N T S many parts of West Asia, North Africa and even Europe and the US. The US has been targeting AQAP terrorists through its drone attacks which have also killed scores of innocent civilians.

These drone attacks have made the US immensely unpopular among the Yemeni people. Since the Yemeni government of both Salleh and his successor Hadi is seen as a collaborator, it has also lost a lot of credibility. The AQAP, it should be emphasized, is not just fighting the Yemeni government; it is also fiercely antagonistic towards the Houthis since they are Shias.

If the US is determined to destroy the AQAP, it is mainly because Yemen, one of the world’s poorest countries is nonetheless of tremendous strategic significance. At the southwestern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, it “is located along the major sea route from Europe to Asia, near some of the busiest Red Sea shipping and trading lanes. Millions of barrels of oil pass through these waters daily in both directions, to the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal and from the oil refineries in Saudi Arabia to the energy-hungry Asian markets.” It is not just the US that regards Yemen as strategic. All the countries in West Asia, South Asia,East Asia and Europe that are dependent upon trade and concerned about the security of those sea lanes that are critical to their economies, are watching nervously what is happening in Yemen.

Strategic significance, drone attacks, AQAP, the domestic power struggle, the Sunni-Shia divide,the tussle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional influence, the Israeli game and the continuing US drive for hegemony which are all intertwined are unfolding in a corner of the earth that is riddled with other challenges. There is a north-south divide which was not really resolved when the two parts, NorthYemen and South Yemen, decided to merge in 1990.

A civil war erupted in 1994 and thousands died. The uneasy alliance has held on. There are also a number of selfcontinued next page

4 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 3

governing tribes.

On top of all this, Yemen faces huge economic challenges. It is estimated that 40% of men between the ages of 20 and 24 in the south are unemployed. Drug addiction is rife. Corruption is rampant.

During Salleh’s long rule, Yemen developed a reputation as a kleptocracy.

To bring order and stability to a nation which is in such a terrible mess, one has

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

to persuade all the relevant players to talk to one another, to negotiate, to compromise. The peaceful, non-violent approach to conflict resolution has not been given enough space and scope to succeed in Yemen. The UN has been trying to play a role in a very difficult situation. The UN should be given full support by all the contending forces.

It should use its moral authority to demand that both sides stop fighting immediately. It should then help to

S T A T E M E N T S establish an interim government in Sana’a of technocrats which will not only administer but also make all the necessary preparations for free, fair elections for both the presidency and parliament. An effective interim government and the entire electoral exercise under UN supervision will undoubtedly take time.

But it will be worth the while if it brings to an end the war and violence we are now witnessing.

30 March 2015

VENEZUELA: A THREAT?

By Chandra Muzaffar The most absurd political pronouncement of 2015 was made on 9 March.

The US President issued an Executive Order that declared “a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela …” A White House spokesman explained that Venezuela was a threat because of “Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption…” He further asserted that these officials will not be welcome in the US, “and we now have the tools to block their assets and their use of US financial systems.” Seven individuals have been targeted by the White House. There have been other sanctions against Venezuelan officials and citizens in the past.

So far the US has not provided any tangible evidence of how Venezuelan officials have violated human rights or indulged in public corruption. Its reckless allegations have been effectively refuted by the Caracas government. Even leaders from other Latin American countries have condemned the statements emanating from Washington DC. They have also criticized Washington for

demanding that Caracas release all “political prisoners” allegedly detained by the government including “dozens of students.” The Venezuelan government insists that those detained are facing trial for criminal offences linked to violent attempts to destabilize the situation and oust the democratically elected government of the day. The government has been able to offer incontrovertible proof of this to the public.

Former Caracas mayor, Antonio Ledezma, for instance, was arrested in February for his role in the February 12 coup which also implicated Air Force personnel and terrorists such as Lorent Saleh. Another opposition leader facing trial is Leopoldo Lopez who was at the head of a series of violent opposition protests in 2014 that sought to overthrow the Nicolas Maduro government. The protests that Lopez led caused the death of 43 people, the majority of whom were from the security forces or followers of the charismatic late President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

In fact, Ledezma and Lopez, together with a third right-wing leader, Maria Corina Machado, were actively involved in the infamous April 11 2002 coup against Chavez. The coup failed, it is worth reiterating, mainly because tens of thousands of ordinary Venezuelans

came out in full force to demand that Chavez be restored to power. As I stated in an article on the 1st of June 2009, “Never before in history have ordinary unarmed people played such a decisive role in defeating a coup.” The US, through the CIA, was, needless to say, responsible for engineering the coup.

This time all three coup manipulators from 2002, had allegedly signed a document which openly espoused the overthrow of the Maduro government.

President Maduro has shared with his people recordings of phone conversations that some of these individuals had in recent months with other Venezuelan politicians living in New York and Miami which suggest a complex coup plot. The execution of the plot envisaged the privatization of most public services and the intervention of the IMF, the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank in the Venezuelan economy for the benefit of the pro-US elite in the country and their masters in Washington and other Western capitals.Maduro has promised to reveal more details of the planned coup at the Summit of the Americas scheduled for April in Panama.

Since this is what is happening — a concerted drive by the US elite to oust a continued next page

5 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 4 democratically elected government which has been going on for at least 13 years — how can Obama talk of a Venezuelan threat to the US? If anything, it is the US that is a present and continuous threat to the people of Venezuela. It is the US elite that is undermining Venezuelan democracy.

Why is the US doing this to Venezuela?

The reason is simple. Since Hugo Chavez Frias became President through the ballot-box in 1998, he and his successor, Nicolas Maduro, have been determined to preserve and enhance the independence, sovereignty and integrity of their nation. The Venezuelan people as a whole are not prepared to yield to US dominance and control over their land which was the reality for long decades before 1998.

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

It is not just because of the resistance of the Venezuelan people to US hegemony that they are being threatened and punished in this way. The US elite knows that their resistance is part of an everwidening, ever-expanding resistance that encompasses a large number of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Their collective desire to protect and enhance their sovereignty and independence has now found expression through regional initiatives such as ALBA and CELAC. The Venezuelan leadership itself continues to play a significant role in these initiatives.

As more and more nations in a region that was once contemptuously referred to as “the US’s backyard” assert their dignity and self-respect, it is obvious that US power and influence in Latin America and the Caribbean is waning rapidly. The very fact that the overwhelming majority

A R T I C L E S of states in the region have rallied around Venezuela as it faces threats from its northern neighbor is proof that the tide has changed. A while ago, Latin American states also stood by Argentina when it was subjected to enormous pressures from Wall Street speculators and financers. If the US realizes that it cannot throw its weight around anymore it is also because of the increasingly close ties that are developing between nations in the region and China, and to a lesser extent, Russia. In other words, the new scenarios that are unfolding are not to the US’s liking.

Perhaps, it is in that sense that Venezuela — one of the movers of change in Latin America and the Caribbean — is a “threat” to a declining hegemon.

14 March 2015

ARTICLES THE MESSAGES FROM ISRAEL’S ELECTION

By Ilan Pappe Those of us who know the nature of the beast could not have been surprised by the results of the Israeli election.

Like many of my friends, I was also relieved that a liberal Zionist government was not elected. It would have allowed the charade of the “peace process” and the illusion of the two-state solution to linger on while the suffering of the Palestinians continues.

As always, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself provided the inevitable conclusion when he declared the end of the two-state solution — inviting us all to the long overdue funeral of an ill-conceived idea that provided Israel with international immunity for its colonialist project in Palestine.

The power of the charade was on show

when the world and local pundits unrealistically predicted a victory for liberal Zionism, an Israeli ideological trend that is near extinction — embodied by the Zionist Union list headed by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni.

The exit polls compiled by Israel’s finest statisticians reinforced the wishful thinking, leading to a huge media fiasco as expectations of the “liberal” camp’s victory turned into shock and dismay over Netanyahu’s triumph.

the second generation of Jews who came from Arab and Muslim countries.

They were joined this time by settler communities in the occupied West Bank who voted as a bloc for Netanyahu. The Arab Jews voted for Likud much more than they voted for Netanyahu. The settlers did so at the expense of their new political base — Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home party that promises outright annexation of the West Bank — so as to ensure that Likud would be the largest party in the next parliament.

Debacle It is worthwhile to begin an initial analysis of the Israeli elections with closer attention to this debacle.

An important segment of those who vote for Netanyahu’s Likud Party belong to

Neither group was entirely happy with their choice and were not so proud to wear on their sleeves their decision to vote yet again for Netanyahu. That is perhaps why many of them did not admit to the exit polls who they really voted for. continued next page

6 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 5 The result was quite catastrophic for all the renowned pollsters. They missed the headline that should have been announced when the exit polls were done — a smashing victory for the Likud in 2015 and a disappointing result for the liberal Zionist camp. The more exciting news was the success of the Palestinian citizens of Israel who united to form the Joint List and won the third largest bloc of seats after the Likud and the Zionist Union.

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

to know that it could not offer even the most moderate Palestinian leaders any deal that would have granted them genuine sovereignty — not even in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which form only a fifth of historic Palestine.

The reason is very simple: the raison d’etre of a settler-colonialist society is displacement of the natives and their

Likud’s victory The three outcomes — an invigorated Likud, a defeated Labor Party (the Zionist Union is a partnership of Labor and Livni’s “Initiative” list) and a united Palestinian representation — can either be ignored by the international community or serve as a catalyst for new thinking on the evergreen question of Palestine.

The victory of Likud, despite the social unrest in Israel over growing economic hardships, and the unprecedented low standing of the Jewish state in the international community, indicate clearly that there will be no change from within Israel in the near future.

Labor, meanwhile, has maximized its potential: it is not likely to do better and hence it does not offer an alternative. The main reason for this is that it is not an alternative. Israel in 2015 is still a settlercolonialist state and a liberal version of this ideology cannot offer a genuine reconciliation to the indigenous people of Palestine.

Ever since Likud took power for the first time after its historic 1977 victory, Jewish voters have preferred the real thing, so to speak, steadily turning away from the paler, liberal version of Zionism.

Labor was in power long enough for us

replacement by settlers. At best natives can be confined in gated enclaves, at worst they are doomed to be expelled or destroyed.

Decolonization The conclusion for the international community should be clear now. Only decolonization of the settler state can lead to reconciliation. And the only way to kick off this decolonization is by employing the same means exercised against the other long-standing settler state of the twentieth century: apartheid South Africa.

The option of BDS — boycott, divestment and sanctions — has never looked more valid than it does today.

Hopefully this, together with popular resistance on the ground, will entice at least some of the second and third generation of the Jewish settler-colonial society to help stop the Zionist colonization project.

Pressure from outside and from the resistance movement within are the only way to force Israelis to reframe their relationship with all the Palestinians, including the refugees, on the basis of

A R T I C L E S democratic and egalitarian values.

Otherwise, we can expect Likud to win forty seats in the next elections, perhaps on the back of the next outraged Palestinian uprising.

There are two reasons why this approach is still feasible. One is the Joint List. It will have no impact whatsoever on the Israeli political system. In fact, like the Palestinian Authority, the days of Palestinian representation in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, are numbered. If a united list can have no impact, and if a disempowered PA does not satisfy even liberal Zionists, then the time has come to look for new forms of representation and action.

The Joint List’s importance lies elsewhere. It can ignite the imagination of other Palestinian communities about the possibilities of unity of purpose. That Islamists and secular leftists can work together for a better future is an example that can have far-reaching implications not only for Palestinians and Israelis, but for an increasingly polarized Europe. The Joint List represents a group of native Palestinians who know the Israelis well, are deeply committed to democratic values and have risen in importance among the rest of the Palestinians after years of being marginalized and almost forgotten.

The second reason for hoping that new alternatives will emerge is that despite all its nastiness and callousness, the Zionist settler-colonial project was not the worst in history.

With all the horrendous suffering it has caused, most recently during the summer massacre in Gaza, it did not exterminate the local population and its dispossession project remains incomplete. This does not mean that it will not get worse or that one should underestimate the suffering of the Palestinians. continued next page

7 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 6

Vision

What it means is that the main impulse among Palestinians is not for retribution but for restitution. Their wish is to live normal lives — something Zionism denied all the Palestinians ever since the ideology’s arrival in Palestine in the late nineteenth century.

Normal life means an end to the discriminatory apartheid policies against the Palestinians in Israel, the end of the military occupation and siege of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and recognition of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.

The quid pro quo is accepting the Jewish

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

ethnic group that emerged in Palestine as part of a new, decolonized and fully democratic political dispensation based on principles that would be agreed on by all concerned.

The international community can play a positive role in bringing this vision about if it adopts three basic assumptions. The first is that Zionism is still colonialism and hence anti-Zionism is not antiSemitism but anti-colonialism.

The second is that if it leaves behind the exceptionalism it granted Israel over the years, mainly in the realm of human rights, it has a better chance of playing a constructive role towards safeguarding these rights in the Middle East as a whole.

A R T I C L E S And finally, we should all be aware that the window of opportunity for saving innocent lives in historic Palestine is rapidly closing — if Israel’s power remains unchecked a repeat of the massacres of recent years is all but certain. It is urgent to forsake old formulas for “peace” that did not work and start looking for just and viable alternatives.

21 March 2015 The author of numerous books, Ilan Pappe is professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter.

Source: Electronic Intifada

LIBYA: WAR-TORN COUNTRY BECOMING NEW HUB ACTIVITIES

FOR

IS

By Serge Jordan Libyan people bearing the brunt of NATO’s fiasco On February 15, a Libyan group acting allegedly on behalf of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS), released a gruesome video. It was of the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christian workers held hostage by them since last December.

While some technical experts have since argued that parts of the video, such as the backdrop of the beach of the port city of Sirte where these beheadings appear to have been staged, have been faked, the fate of these workers is likely sealed. Recent events have in any case brought to light how the Libyan territory has become a new ground for the IS project of geographical expansion.

targeting “training camps and weapons caches”, seven innocent civilians were killed in heavily populated areas of the city during the course of the operation.

Last Friday, a group of militants claiming loyalty to IS killed another 42 people in three suicide car bombings in Qubbah, a small mountain town in eastern Libya, in apparent response to the Egyptian air strikes. More Egyptians have also been taken hostage since. About 15,000 workers have reportedly fled Libya back to Egypt in the last couple of days, fearing further retribution.

This recent show of force marks a new escalation in the violence which has gripped Libya in recent years.

Egypt’s role

This video of the beheadings immediately provoked retaliations from Cairo’s military regime. Egyptian fighter-jets launched a series of airstrikes in Darna, a city under effective IS control since last year. Despite official claims of

The Egyptian rulers’ pretext of avenging the blood of the Coptic workers killed

by IS is farcical. For decades, the Coptic minority in Egypt has been enduring numerous abuses, repression and

scapegoating by the ruling class. For all its posturing, the Egyptian state is also the custodian of the very economic system which pushes hundreds of thousands of Egyptians to try and escape poverty and unemployment by seeking jobs abroad. Despite many leaving, it is estimated that over 700,000 Egyptian workers still currently live in Libya.

Many of them, coming from the poorest areas of Egypt, work in low-paid and precarious jobs to sustain their families back home, despite the appalling security conditions. As reported by Reuters: “In the Egyptian village of Al-Our, about 200 km (125 miles) south of Cairo, it is easy to see why young men take the risk.

There are no paved roads, clean drinking water or adequate health care.”

The military intervention of the Egyptian army on the Libyan battlefield is not new; the regime, in collaboration with the Emirati government, has carried out continued next page

8 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 7

several airstrikes before. Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi seeks to export his battle between brutal dictatorship and religious extremism on to Libyan soil, to divert attention away from the growing crisis of his regime, and to whip up the fractured prestige of his army - responsible for mass murders, torture and other brutal methods of repression against political opponents. Sisi also hopes to use the airstrikes as a launch pad for installing a like-minded authoritarian regime on Egypt’s western borders.

Egyptian generals, along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have thrown their weight behind Libyan General Khalifa Haftar, an ex-officer of Gaddafi’s army. He broke with Gaddafi’s regime at the end of the 1980s to defect to the United States, and has worked closely with the CIA ever since. Haftar is an aspiring dictator who thinks that an iron rule is the only way to sort out the country’s problems. “Eliminating the Islamist threat”, with whom he fought side-by-side during the war against Gaddafi, has become his new mantra.

Haftar’s army, composed of many residues from the old regime’s military, until now has been in a precarious alliance with the so-called ‘official’ government of Libya. This government, which has the blessing of Western imperialism, is now based in the Eastern city of Tobruk, close to the Egyptian border. It was thrown out of the capital Tripoli in August 2014 by Libya Dawn. This is a loose network of Islamist-leaning militias allied with brigades from the north-western city of Misrata and with officials of the former Parliament, the General National Congress.

Libya Dawn has since established a competing government and parliament with the backing of the Qatari and Turkish regimes, and is controlling Tripoli and a few chunks of the western side of the

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

country.

In reality, both these ‘governments’ are barely able to impose much order beyond the cities where they are based. The country is breaking apart into an intricate patchwork of fiefs controlled by local militias, often based on tribal or regional affiliations, fighting for territories and influence.

The idea often propagated in the media of a battle between an ‘Islamist’ and a ‘secular’ government is over-simplistic.

The Saudi and Emirati monarchies, who are backing the Tobruk-based government and General Haftar’s campaign, are not models of secularism themselves. Libya has become the scene of a bloody battle between rival power centres backing competing militias, supported by various outside players using the country as a stage for a new version of the proxy wars engulfing the region. Oil wealth and weapons have become much more important bargaining chips for these militias and their political backers than principled considerations of any sort.

For these reasons, shifts in existing loyalties are probable in what appears to be an extremely volatile situation. Among other things, tensions are developing between the weak, exiled rulers of Tobruk (so weak they had to retreat for a time to a Greek car ferry on the city’s harbour!) and the would-be military strongman Haftar. Haftar is building support for military rule, boosted by Egypt’s cash and weapons. He might aim to sideline his previous allies to impose a dictatorial statelet in the eastern part of the country, installing himself in power.

Another failed State In 2011, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi warned that if toppled, he would be replaced by “tribalism, Islamic extremism and anarchy”. This warning was thrown out as a threat against all those

A R T I C L E S daring to challenge his regime, but succeeding developments have proved him right. Yet this was not inevitable.

The lack of a viable left-wing alternative to Gaddafi’s rule allowed what was initially a popular uprising to be derailed.

While signs of regionalisation and citybased differences in the protest movement existed from the start, in part inherited from Gaddafi’s divide-and-rule system of favours and retributions, the subsequent military intervention by the NATO powers paved the way for the colossal disaster that we are witnessing today.

Three years ago, the Obama administration and its French and British counterparts heralded the toppling of Gaddafi as a humanitarian triumph and a new model for Western intervention.

NATO officials even declared that the mission in Libya had been “one of the most successful in NATO history.”

But as the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) highlighted at the time, the NATO forces never intervened in Libya with the aim of coming to the rescue of the Libyan people. The aim was to turn the tide of the mass revolutionary uprisings which had started in Tunisia and Egypt and had caught them off guard, to sideline the most popular grassroots elements of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, and to impose a regime more subservient to the interests of Western oil giants and multinational corporations. This was even though Gaddafi’s clique had cozied up to Western governments and to neo-liberal reforms in the last decade of his reign.

For this purpose, Western powers did not hesitate to provide training, weapons and money to notorious Al Qaeda-linked jihadists. Some of the most prominent trainers of rebel forces in 2011 included militants who had been imprisoned at Guantanamo. This included, as revealed by the New York Times back in April continued next page

9 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 8 2011, the notorious Abu Sufian Bin Qumu, a founding member of the Salafist militia Ansar al Sharia. This group is held responsible for the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in September 2012. Its Tunisian branch also organised the assassination of two prominent leftwing political leaders in 2013.

While the demise of Gaddafi was welcomed by significant layers of the Libyan population, this was done through a mass bombing campaign that caused large-scale civilian killings and destruction on the country’s infrastructure. It was also through the promotion of a myriad of unaccountable militias, of proimperialist “free market upstarts” keen to do business with the West, and of religious fundamentalists ready to use their newly acquired influence to bite the hand that had fed them before.

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

generated by the policy they supported at the time, which has made life for ordinary Libyans far worse than what it was even under the tyranny of Gaddafi.

Libya has now become a source of instability for the whole region, a regional magnet for the training and harbouring of jihadist fighters, as well as a flourishing market for weapons, drugs and human trafficking. According to the UN, at least 400,000 people have been internally displaced by fighting across the country, with as many as 83,000 people living in camps, schools and abandoned buildings. Over a million Libyan refugees have fled to Tunisia. Several reports

On the toppling of Gaddafi, the CWI commented in October 2011: “If this had been purely the result of struggle by the Libyan working masses it would have been widely acclaimed, but the direct involvement of imperialism casts a dark shadow over the revolution’s future”.

indicate that the vast majority of the Libyan exiles who had returned after Gaddafi’s fall have left as well.

The CWI argued against those on the left such as the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL) or the so-called Marxist professor and USFI supporter Gilbert Achcar, who had stood in favour of imperialist intervention in Libya under the guise of preventing Gaddafi from committing atrocities against his own people. Figures from Claudia Gazzini, a journalist for the Middle East Research and Information Project, have exposed the fallacy of such arguments: “the death toll subsequent to the seven-month NATO intervention was at least ten times greater than the tally of those killed in the first few weeks of the conflict”.

The country is facing an unprecedented level of violence. Targeted assassinations and torture have become commonplace; migrant workers are subject to horrific abuse; and a lot of basic services are dysfunctional if they have not collapsed all together. “Your friends in Britain and France will stand with you as you build your democracy” were the words of British Prime Minister David Cameron as he visited Benghazi with ex-French President Nicolas Sarkozy in September 2011. Yet, all Western embassies in Libya have now packed up and gone, incapable of even guaranteeing the security of their own staff.

Revealingly, the same “left interventionists” have since been totally oblivious to the horrors and sufferings

Islamic State

A R T I C L E S in Libya have declared their recent allegiance to IS, as the latter has gained supporters in some key parts of the country. Religious fundamentalist groups admittedly existed in Libya prior to 2011, but their influence was relatively limited.

Sectarian killings, such as perpetrated against the Egyptian Christian workers, is a recent phenomenon.

The calamitous state of the country, the free fall in living standards, the huge resentment against the actions of Western imperialism, and the massive amount of weaponry available in the country have all provided a breeding ground for IStype jihadists. It is no accident that the coastal town of Sirte has arguably become a stronghold of IS militancy. The birthplace of Gaddafi and once a relatively prosperous city, Sirte has been reduced to ruins by intense NATO bombings.

Socialist programme needed

Several armed radical Islamist factions

Only formed by the Italian colonial power in 1934, Libya is facing the possibility of violent break-up. The toppling of Gadaffi has given birth to a multitude of little tyrants, mercenaries and warlords carving up the country. The added intervention of various foreign actors is exacerbating existing tensions and heightening the possibility for more bloodshed.

The Libyan people, the poor, the oppressed and the workers, need to build wherever possible independently-run organisations that can help them bring back on the agenda a collective struggle for their most vital and pressing needs.

They will need to confront all those forces basing themselves upon any form of economic plundering, corruption and violent suppression of the people.

Such a struggle would need to be equipped with a programme standing for full and equal democratic and social rights continued next page

10 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 9

for all, repudiating any form of discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, religion, tribe, regional or city affiliation.

The potential for ordinary people to challenge the rule of reactionary militias has been expressed on a number of occasions in the last period. The setting up of democratically organised, accountable and non-sectarian workers and poor people’s defence committees in the neighbourhoods could assist in giving a more organised expression to this struggle, and in protecting communities from the rampaging violence from multiple sides which is ripping the country’s apart.

The Libyan people need to be able to determine their own future. Any further meddling and military intervention by regional and western powers needs to be vigorously opposed. The drums for a new international military intervention have been beating from some European quarters even though it is rather likely that Western governments will try to avoid a new military campaign in the country at this stage.

These powers have clearly demonstrated that they are no friends of ordinary Libyans. As revealed by the first wave

FOR

A

JUST

A R T I C L E S

WORLD

of revolts and revolutions that swept through the Middle East and North Africa in early 2011, only in the masses of the working class, the youth and the oppressed of other countries will the Libyans find a genuine ally in their struggle for social and political change.

A “neat” military coup on a national scale is unlikely, seeing the state of erosion of the Libyan state machine. But a section of the military wing led by General Haftar and his clique could exploit the despair and the fear of jihadists among large sections of the Libyan population to try and impose some form of military rule in the eastern side of the country.

However, as shown by the growing violence in the Sinai Peninsula and other parts of Egypt, the butcher-like methods of repression of Sisi, that his henchman Haftar wants to emulate in Libya, will only lead to further terrorist blowbacks.

This will not address any of the problems faced by the Libyan people.

Mass action from the grassroots is necessary to oppose jihadists’ atrocities, corrupt militias, military adventurers, and the broader, nightmarish scenario of a violent disintegration of the country.

Importantly, a struggle for decent jobs

and better living standards, for adequate and functioning infrastructure and services needs to take centre stage, in order to cut across the social basis of support for religious extremism.

Independent trade unions need to be built in the workplaces to defend migrant workers and all workers’ rights, to fight for better wages and working conditions.

Such unions can play a pivotal role in resisting the spread of racism and religious sectarianism.

Eventually, the Libyan people should strive for a government based on representatives of workers and poor and all oppressed layers of society, elected via democratic structures in the workplaces and communities.

By refusing any deal with big business and any privatisation of Libyan assets, by bringing back under public ownership and democratic people’s control the massive gas and oil reserves and other resources, a plan could be outlined for rebuilding the country to offer a better future for all Libyans.

26 February 2015 Serge Jordan works for the Committee for a Workers’ International Source: Socialistworld.net

NOAM CHOMSKY: DEFEATING ISIS STARTS WITH US ADMITTING ITS ROLE IN CREATING THIS FUNDAMENTALIST MONSTER

By Amy Goodman/ Democracy Now! It would take remedying the massive damage inflicted on Iraq in order to deal with the turmoil in the region.

We air the second part of our two-day interview with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author. Chomsky is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has

taught for more than 50 years. As Iraq launches an offensive to retake Tikrit and Congress prepares to debate an expansive war powers resolution for U.S. strikes, Chomsky discusses how he thinks the U.S. should respond to the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

Below is an interview with Chomsky, followed by a transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: Today, part two of our discussion with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. On Monday on Democracy Now!, Aaron Maté and I interviewed him about Israeli Prime continued next page

11 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 10

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech on Iran to Congress. Today, in part two, we look at blowback from the U.S. drone program, the legacy of slavery in the United States, the leaks of Edward Snowden, U.S. meddling in Venezuela and the thawing of U.S.-Cuba relations. We began by asking Professor Chomsky how the U.S. should respond to the selfproclaimed Islamic State.

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s very hard to think of anything serious that can be done. I mean, it should be settled diplomatically and peacefully to the extent that that’s possible. It’s not inconceivable.

I mean, there are—ISIS, it’s a horrible manifestation of hideous actions. It’s a real danger to anyone nearby. But so are other forces. And we should be getting together with Iran, which has a huge stake in the matter and is the main force involved, and with the Iraqi government, which is calling for and applauding Iranian support and trying to work out with them some arrangement which will satisfy the legitimate demands of the Sunni population, which is what ISIS is protecting and defending and gaining their support from.

They’re not coming out of nowhere. I mean, they are—one of the effects, the main effects, of the U.S. invasion of Iraq— there are many horrible effects, but one of them was to incite sectarian conflicts, that had not been there before. If you take a look at Baghdad before the invasion, Sunni and Shia lived intermingled—same neighborhoods, they intermarried.

Sometimes they say that they didn’t even know if their neighbor was a Sunni or a Shia. It was like knowing what Protestant sect your neighbor belongs to.

There was pretty close—it wasn’t—I’m not claiming it was—it wasn’t utopia.

There were conflicts. But there was no serious conflict, so much so that Iraqis at the time predicted there would never be a conflict. Well, within a couple of years, it had turned into a violent, brutal

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

conflict. You look at Baghdad today, it’s segregated. What’s left of the Sunni communities are isolated. The people can’t talk to their neighbors. There’s war going on all over. The ISIS is murderous and brutal. The same is true of the Shia militias which confront it. And this is now spread all over the region. There’s now a major Sunni-Shia conflict rending the region apart, tearing it to shreds.

Now, this cannot be dealt with by bombs.

This is much more serious than that. It’s got to be dealt with by steps towards recovering, remedying the massive damage that was initiated by the sledgehammer smashing Iraq and has now spread. And that does require diplomatic, peaceful means dealing with people who are pretty ugly—and we’re not very pretty, either, for that matter.

But this just has to be done. Exactly what steps should be taken, it’s hard to say.

There are people whose lives are at stake, like the Assyrian Christians, the Yazidi and so on. Apparently, the fighting that protected the—we don’t know a lot, but it looks as though the ground fighting that protected the Yazidi, largely, was carried out by PKK, the Turkish guerrilla group that’s fighting for the Kurds in Turkey but based in northern Iraq. And they’re on the U.S. terrorist list. We can’t hope to have a strategy that deals with ISIS while opposing and attacking the group that’s fighting them, just as it doesn’t make sense to try to have a strategy that excludes Iran, the major state that’s supporting Iraq in its battle with ISIS. AMY GOODMAN: What about the fact that so many of those who are joining ISIS now—and a lot has been made of the young people, young women and young men, who are going into Syria through Turkey. I mean, Turkey is a U.S. ally. There is a border there. They freely go back and forth.

NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s right. And it’s

A R T I C L E S not just young people. One thing that’s pretty striking is that it includes people with—educated people, doctors, professionals and others. Whatever we— we may not like it, but ISIS is—the idea of the Islamic caliphate does have an appeal to large sectors of a brutalized global population, which is under severe attack everywhere, has been for a long time. And something has appeared which has an appeal to them. And that can’t be overlooked if we want to deal with the issue. We have to ask what’s the nature of the appeal, why is it there, how can we accommodate it and lead to some, if not at least amelioration of the murderous conflict, then maybe some kind of settlement. You can’t ignore these factors if you want to deal with the issue.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about more information that’s come out on the British man who is known as “Jihadi John,” who appears in the Islamic State beheading videos. Mohammed Emwazi has been identified as that man

by British security. They say he’s a 26year-old born in Kuwait who moved to the U.K. as a child and studied computer science at the University of Westminster.

The British group CAGE said he faced at least four years of harassment, detention, deportations, threats and attempts to recruit him by British security agencies, which prevented him from leading a normal life. Emwazi approached CAGE in 2009 after he was detained and interrogated by the British intelligence agency MI5 on what he called a safari vacation in Tanzania. In 2010, after Emwazi was barred from returning to Kuwait, he wrote, quote, “I had a job waiting for me and marriage to get started. But know [sic] I feel like a prisoner, only not in a cage, in London.”

In 2013, a week after he was barred from Kuwait for a third time, Emwazi left home and ended up in Syria. At a news conference, CAGE research director Asim Qureshi spoke about his continued next page

12 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 11

recollections of Emwazi and compared his case to another British man, Michael Adebolajo, who hacked a soldier to death in London in 2013.

ASIM QURESHI: Sorry, it’s quite hard, because, you know, he’s such a—I’m really sorry, but he was such a beautiful young man, really. You know, it’s hard to imagine the trajectory, but it’s not a trajectory that’s unfamiliar with us, for us. We’ve seen Michael Adebolajo, once again, somebody that I met, you know, who came to me for help, looking to change his situation within the system.

When are we going to finally learn that when we treat people as if they’re outsiders, they will inevitably feel like outsiders, and they will look for belonging elsewhere?

AMY GOODMAN: That’s CAGE research director Asim Qureshi. Your response to this, Noam Chomsky?

NOAM CHOMSKY: He’s right. If you— the same if you take a look at those who perpetrated the crimes on Charlie Hebdo.

They also have a history of oppression, violence. They come from Algerian background. The horrible French participation in the murderous war in Algeria is their immediate background.

They live under—in these harshly repressed areas. And there’s much more than that. So, you mentioned that information is coming out about so-called Jihadi John. You read the British press, other information is coming out, which we don’t pay much attention to.

For example, The Guardian had an article a couple of weeks ago about a Yemeni boy, I think who was about 14 or so, who was murdered in a drone strike. And shortly before, they had interviewed him about his history. His parents and family went through them, were murdered in drone strikes. He watched them burn to death. We get upset about beheadings.

They get upset about seeing their father

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

burn to death in a drone strike. He said they live in a situation of constant terror, not knowing when the person 10 feet away from you is suddenly going to be blown away. That’s their lives. People like those who live in the slums around Paris or, in this case, a relatively privileged man under harsh, pretty harsh repression in England, they also know about that. We may choose not to know about it, but they know. When we talk about beheadings, they know that in the U.S.-backed Israeli attack on Gaza, at the points where the attack was most fierce, like the Shejaiya neighborhood, people weren’t just beheaded. Their bodies were torn to shreds. People came later trying to put the pieces of the bodies together to find out who they were, you know. These things happen, too. And they have an impact—all of this has an impact, along with what was just described. And if we seriously want to deal with the question, we can’t ignore that. That’s part of the background of people who are reacting this way.

AARON MATÉ: You spoke before about how the U.S. invasion set off the SunniShia conflict in Iraq, and out of that came ISIS. I wonder if you see a parallel in Libya, where the U.S. and NATO had a mandate to stop a potential massacre in Benghazi, but then went much further than a no-fly zone and helped topple Gaddafi. And now, four years later, we have ISIS in Libya, and they’re beheading Coptic Christians, Egypt now bombing.

And with the U.S. debating this expansive war measure, Libya could be next on the U.S. target list.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, that’s a very important analogy. What happened is, as you say, there was a claim that there might be a massacre in Benghazi, and in response to that, there was a U.N. resolution, which had several elements.

One, a call for a ceasefire and negotiations, which apparently Gaddafi accepted. Another was a no-fly zone,

A R T I C L E S OK, to stop attacks on Benghazi. The three traditional imperial powers— Britain, France and the United States— immediately violated the resolution. No diplomacy, no ceasefire. They immediately became the air force of the rebel forces.

And, in fact, the war itself had plenty of brutality—violent militias, attacks on Africans living in Libya, all sorts of things.

The end result is just to tear Libya to shreds.

By now, it’s torn between two major warring militias, many other small ones. It’s gotten to the point where they can’t even export their main export, oil. It’s just a disaster, total disaster. That’s what happens when you strike vulnerable systems, as I said, with a sledgehammer. All kind of horrible things can happen.

In the case of Iraq, it’s worth recalling that there had been an almost decade of sanctions, which were brutally destructive. We know about—we can, if we like, know about the sanctions.

People prefer not to, but we can find out. There was a sort of humanitarian component of the sanctions, so-called.

It was the oil-for-peace program, instituted when the reports of the sanctions were so horrendous—you know, hundreds of thousand of children dying and so on— that it was necessary for the U.S. and Britain to institute some humanitarian part. That was directed by prominent, respected international diplomats, Denis Halliday, who resigned, and Hans von Sponeck. Both Halliday and von Sponeck resigned because they called the humanitarian aspect genocidal. That’s their description. And von Sponeck published a detailed, important book on it called, I think, A Different Kind of War, or something like that, which I’ve never seen a review of or even a mention of it in the United States, which detailed, in great detail, exactly how these sanctions were devastating the civilian society, supporting Saddam, because the people had to simply huddle under the umbrella of power for survival, probably—they didn’t say this, but I’ll add it—probably saving continued next page

13 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 12

Saddam from the fate of other dictators who the U.S. had supported and were overthrown by popular uprisings. And there’s a long list of them—Somoza, Marcos, Mobutu, Duvalier—you know, even Ceau’escu, U.S. was supporting.

They were overthrown from within.

Saddam wasn’t, because the civil society that might have carried that out was devastated. He had a pretty efficient rationing system people were living on for survival, but it severely harmed the civilian society. Then comes the war, you know, massive war, plenty of destruction,

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

destruction of antiquities. There’s now, you know, properly, denunciation of ISIS for destroying antiquities. The U.S. invasion did the same thing. Millions of refugees, a horrible blow against the society.

These things have terrible consequences.

Actually, there’s an interesting interview with Graham Fuller. He’s one of the leading Middle East analysts, long background in CIA, U.S. intelligence. In the interview, he says something like, “The U.S. created ISIS.” He hastens to add that he’s not joining with the conspiracy theories that are floating

A R T I C L E S around the Middle East about how the U.S. is supporting ISIS. Of course, it’s not. But what he says is, the U.S. created ISIS in the sense that we established the background from which ISIS developed as a terrible offshoot. And we can’t overlook that.

3 March 2015 Amy Goodman is the host of Democracy Now! and the co-author of The Silenced Majority.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/

FOUR YEARS OF SYRIAN RESISTANCE TO IMPERIALIST TAKEOVER

By Sara Flounders and Lamont Lilly U.S. efforts to overturn the government of Syria have now extended into a fifth year.

It is increasingly clear that thousands of predictions reported in the corporate media

by Western politicians, think tanks, diplomats and generals of a quick overturn and easy destruction of Syrian sovereignty have been overly optimistic, imperialist dreams. But four years of sabotage, bombings, assassinations and a mercenary invasion of more than 20,000 fighters recruited from over 60 countries have spread great ruin and loss of life.

The U.S. State Department has once again made its arrogant demand that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must step down.

This demand confirms U.S. imperialism’s determination to overthrow the elected Syrian government. Washington intends to impose the chaos of feuding mercenaries and fanatical militias as seen today in Libya and Iraq.

A delegation from the International Action Center headed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark traveled to Syria in late February to present a different message.

Visits to hospitals, centers for displaced

families and meetings with religious leaders, community organizations and government officials conveyed the IAC’s determination to resist the orchestrated efforts of U.S. imperialism acting through its proxies in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Israel.

The IAC’s opportunity to again visit Syria came following its participation in a packed and well-organized meeting of the International Forum for Justice in Palestine, held in Beirut on Feb. 22 and 23. The conference was initiated by Ma’an Bashour and the Arab International Centre for Communication and Solidarity and again confirmed the centrality of the burning, unresolved issue of Palestine in the region.

The solidarity delegation to Syria included Cynthia McKinney, former six-term member of the U.S Congress; Lamont Lilly, of the youth organization FIST – Fight Imperialism, Stand Together; Eva Bartlett, from the Syrian Solidarity Movement; and Sara Flounders, IAC co-director.

The delegation traveled the rutted, mountainous, blacktop road from Beirut to Damascus to the Lebanon-Syria border. On

the Syrian side, this road was a modern, 6lane highway, a reminder of Syria’s high level of infrastructure development. Even after four years of war, this is still a wellmaintained highway. Due to sanctions against Syria, hundreds of trucks attempting deliveries stretched for miles on both sides of the border.

Compared to two years ago, when the IAC visited Damascus, this year we didn’t hear the constant thud of incoming rockets from mercenary forces shelling the city. These military forces have been pushed back from their encirclement of the capital. Syrian military units, checkpoints, sandbags, blast walls and concrete blocks were now less pervasive. Markets were full of people and held more produce.

A visit to Damascus’ largest hospital showed the cumulative impact of four years of devastation. At the University Hospital, where children with amputated limbs receive treatments in the ICU, many children had been brought in maimed from explosives and with shrapnel wounds from mortars and rockets fired on Damascus by terrorist forces. continued next page

14 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 13

At a visit to a center for displaced families at a former school, we met with university students, who provide sports, crafts, tutoring and mentoring programs. Medical care, free food and education programs are provided by the centers. But conditions are desperately overcrowded. Each homeless family, often of 6 to 10 people, is allocated a single classroom as housing. Almost half the population has been displaced by the terror tactics of mercenary forces.

A Mosaic of cultures A theme in almost every discussion was Syria’s heritage as a diverse, rich mosaic of religious and cultural traditions. Sectarian divisions and intolerance are consciously opposed. One can see the determination to oppose the rule of foreign-funded forces.

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

give a monopoly to France to extract gas from Syria, then you would find [President François] Hollande visiting Syria the next day. If the Syrian government would give the monopoly to [the United States of] America, [President Barack] Obama would declare President al-Assad as the legitimate ruler of the Syrian people.”

“Turkey is warring on us,” Khoury continued, “with financial support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and political support from America, Europe and Britain. Drones cross our borders daily, providing coordinates for the terrorists as to where to strike.”

Bishop Khoury described the ease with which he received a visa to the U.S., while Mufti Hassoun was denied a visa, although both are religious leaders. “Why do they differentiate between us?” said Khoury. “It’s part of the project to separate Christians and Muslims here. It’s over gas pipelines which are supposed to run through Syrian territory. This will only happen if there is a weak Syrian state.

“If the Syrian government would agree to

Shaaban described her time as a Fulbright scholar at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and later as professor at Eastern Michigan University: “I always wanted to be a bridge between Syria and Western cultures. At the beginning of the crisis, they tried to buy me. They urged me to ‘come to a civilized place,’” she said. “We have baths which are over 1,000 years old and still functioning. I studied Shelley: They didn’t have baths 800 years ago in England.

We did. We were having baths and coffee.”

The delegation headed by Ramsey Clark also had an important opportunity to meet with Abu Ahmad Fuad, deputy general secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Abu Sami Marwan, of the Political Bureau of the PFLP, and hear of the ongoing developments in Palestine and the region.

A visit with Syria’s Grand Mufti Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun and Syrian Greek Orthodox Bishop Luca al-Khoury reflected the centuries of religious harmony that previously existed in Syria.

Mufti Hassoun stressed the need for reconciliation. He described to the visitors the assassination three years ago of his 22year-old son, Saria, who “had never carried a weapon in his life.” Saria was gunned down after leaving his university. At the funeral, Mufti Hassoun declared he forgave the gunmen and called on them to lay down their weapons and rejoin Syria. He described his Greek Orthodox counterpart, Bishop Luca al-Khoury, as his cousin and brother.

A R T I C L E S produced our own clothing. At universities, 55 percent of the students were women.

In whose interest is it to destroy this heritage? Who is the beneficiary of this?”

Both religious leaders declared, as did many others in Syria, that the only solution is an international effort to stop the flow of arms: “If the American government would like to find a solution for the Syrian crisis, they could go to the Security Council and issue a resolution under Chapter 7 for a total ban of weapons from Turkey to terrorists in Syria.

In one week this would be over.”

Syria’s accomplishments Political and media adviser to President alAssad, Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, described the problem of stopping the weapons and mercenaries flooding into the country: “With external support and financing, and an over 800-kilometer border with Turkey, it’s very difficult to stop the flow of terrorists.

“Syria was formerly one of the fastest developing countries in the world,” Shaaban continued, “and one of the safest. We have free education and health care. We did not know poverty; we grew our food and

According to a Feb. 25 statement released by the PFLP after the meeting, “The PFLP leaders discussed the nature of the U.S./ Zionist aggression against the people of the region, their intervention in Syria and the attempts of colonial powers to impose their hegemony by force and military aggression, through division of the land and people, and by pushing the region into sectarian or religious conflict.

“This U.S. policy is nothing new.” The Front noted that the colonial powers have waged an ongoing war against the Arab people to prevent any real progress for the region on the road to liberation, selfdetermination and an end to Zionist occupation.

“The U.S. delegation discussed the urgent need for building ongoing solidarity with Palestine in the United States and internationally,” continued the release, “in particular to confront the deep involvement continued next page

15 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 14

of the United States — militarily, politically and financially — in the crimes of the occupier, and to end its attacks on Syria, Iraq and the people of the entire region.

“The solidarity delegates noted that there is a colonial scheme to divide and repartition the region according to the interests of major corporations and imperial powers, targeting the resources of the people, sometimes through blatant political interference in the affairs of the region and other times through wars and military attacks on states and peoples.

“The two sides emphasized the importance of communication between the Palestinian

HOW THE AIIB

IS

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

A R T I C L E S

Arab left and progressive and democratic forces in the United States to confront Zionism and imperialism in the U.S. and in Palestine alike.”

exceptional in their capability of resistance as the acts during four years have failed to achieve their goals.”

Ramsey Clark described the aim of the visit: “To find more opportunities for dialogue and coordination among the Syrian and American people. We saw culture and credibility in Syria and we appreciate the struggle of this people. We will disallow them to shift Syria into Iraq or Libya.”

17 March 2015

Cynthia McKinney, former member at the U.S. Congress, said that she appreciated “Syria’s heroic stance, as people and leadership, in its war against the U.S. imperialism. The Syrian people are

Sara Flounders is an American political writer and has been active in ‘progressive’ and anti-war organizing since the 1960s Lamont Lilly is a contributing editor with the Triangle Free Press, Human Rights Delegate with Witness for Peace and organizer with Workers World Party.

Source: www.workers.org

TRANSFORMING THE BALANCE EAST ASIA

OF

POWER

IN

By Martin Jacques The UK’s decision to become a founder member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a major historical event. Until then no Western country, with the exception of New Zealand, had signed up to join, not least because of intense American pressure. The UK, moreover, cannot be counted as any old Western nation; on the contrary, ever since 1945, it has been the US’s closest ally. For British politicians, Conservative and Labour alike, the ‘special relationship’, as it has been known, was sacrosanct. A decade ago, the UK stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in the disastrous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

So how do we explain Britain’s about-turn?

The UK is certainly not what it was. Along with the other major European nations, its relative strength in the world has declined precipitously, accelerated in the recent period by the western financial crisis. Today its economy is barely bigger than it was in 2007. Unsurprisingly in such circumstances, economic and commercial considerations

have loomed ever larger in the public mind while foreign policy concerns have come to be seen as something of a luxury. This shift in priorities has been accentuated by the dismal failure of the military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the more recent one in Libya.

Previously the United States could rely on the UK always being by its side, forever prepared to do its bidding;America’s poodle, as it has often been described. But recently little cracks have begun to appear. The US has been arguing that its European allies should agree to spend not less than 2% of their GDP on defence. The UK has refused to commit. Strikingly it has played virtually no role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, leaving Germany and France to take the lead. None of these events, however, taken singularly or together, can be compared with, or prepared us for, the UK’s seismic decision to ignore American pressure and join the AIIB. The game-changer is China. There is not a single European country – the same can be

said of virtually every country in the world – that has not been affected and challenged

by China’s rise and what attitude to adopt towards it. This has been a constantly moving process: starting with disbelief and scepticism, followed by growing interest and curiosity, and finally arriving at recognition, engagement and enthusiasm.

Britain was a laggard, way behind Germany, for example, Europe’s pioneer in its relationship with China. The present coalition government spent the first two years playing the same old game of lecturing China on its shortcomings. Then David Cameron, the prime minister, met the Dalai Lama and in response China gave the UK the deep freeze treatment. Britain finally got the message. If it was going to be serious about pursuing a positive relationship with China, it had to show the latter due respect and be wholly committed.

Britain came to recognise that China was an enormous opportunity – a potential source of much-needed investment and the renminbi as crucial to the future of the City continued next page

16 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 15

of London.All the old reservations, quibbles, complaints and misgivings were pushed aside as the UK sought to make up for a great deal of lost time. But even this does not quite explain its willingness to join the AIIB. After all, no major Western nation had made such a move, not even Germany.

Britain, furthermore, has hitherto had little presence in East Asia. And, most crucially of all, its godfather, the United States, was pushing hard against the AIIB. In other words, Britain’s decision to join went entirely against the grain, an unpredicted and spectacular event, which took everyone by surprise. If Britain wanted to show China and the world how serious it now was about its relationship with China then this was exactly the way to do it. As the first major Western country to join, it reaped all the goodwill that went with that as far as the Chinese were concerned; and by doing so in the face of US opposition, it demonstrated its determination and intent.

It was already clear when the launch of the AIIB took place in October that, with 21 countries already signed up, and only Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand choosing to remain on the sidelines, that the AIIB, by virtue of its reach and inclusivity, especially given such determined American opposition, would have the effect of transforming the arguments in the Asia Pacific about its future trading and financial arrangements. Indeed, I would argue that the AIIB, at the moment of its launch, served to redraw the balance of forces in the region and largely undermined the American ‘rebalancing’ or ‘pivot’. As a result, the fallout from the success of the AIIB is bound to affect negotiations over the TPP and RCEP and their respective fortunes. Not least, it will surely make American efforts to exclude China, as in the case of the TPP, hugely more difficult if not impossible.

If this was true before the UK’s decision to join, the latter has only served to ratchet up the effect. New Zealand has already joined the AIIB negotiations. Australia has

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

announced its attention to do so. South Korea now seems likely to join before the March 31st deadline. Most unexpectedly, even the Japanese are said to be divided about what to do. Which threatens to leave the United States – and probably still Japan – in a position of pretty much splendid isolation in Asia . The Americans have boxed themselves into a corner, increasingly deserted by all and sundry. As has been pointed out, they would have been better off joining the AIIB, but this was never a serious option because such a move would have been rejected by the US Congress.

The ramifications of the UK’s decision to join the AIIB go far beyond East Asia, Asia Pacific or Asia. Germany, France and Italy have announced their intention to join, and it seems likely that others, for example Luxembourg and Switzerland, will sign up. Where once the only Western countries that involved themselves in such Asia-Pacific institutions were, as a rule, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, the AIIB is drawing in a growing number of European countries. A Chinese-inspired and led multilateral institution is fast achieving a global membership, exactly the opposite of what the United States wants, a rival not only to the Asia Development Bank, but in some respects the World Bank itself. At the same time the debate over the AIIB has served to sow major divisions between the US on the one hand and a growing number of European nations on the other.

I conclude with two general thoughts concerning the United States. Ever since

A R T I C L E S the 1990s, if not earlier, the US has been a declining economic power in East Asia: in trading terms, for example, China and the US have more or less swapped places with China now occupying the position that the United States once did. There is no sign whatsoever that this situation will be reversed. The AIIB is a classic manifestation of China’s economic power in the region and the kind of influence that it now exercises. The United States cannot compete with this: its offer in the region is military strength. But in the longer run, economic power trumps military strength, as we have seen so clearly demonstrated over the last two decades. Furthermore, the fact that China, like the other 20 countries that first signed up to the AIIB, is a developing country gives it a unique insight, into and affinity with, the problems they face and the kind of things they need.

My second thought concerns the dilemmas that the United States faces as a declining power. It seeks to preserve the position and authority of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the two major institutions of the post-1945 international economic order. But as Western-made institutions they are creatures of the West, above all the United States. As the centre of economic gravity moves from the developed world to the developing countries, they are threatened with becoming an anachronism. To survive they must reinvent themselves, so they are no longer the preserve of the West but are representative, above all, of the developing countries. But how to do that without losing control: this is the American dilemma. This is why, five years on, the modest structural reforms agreed by the IMF in 2010 are still waiting for approval by the US Congress.

Similarly the US Congress would not countenance the US joining the AIIB because they perceive it as a threat to the position of the IMF and the World Bank. continued next page

17 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

However, the longer reform of the IMF and World Bank is delayed, the more their influence and credibility will decline and crumble. At the same time, if the United States refuses to join Chinese-inspired

A R T I C L E S 31 March 2015

continued from page 16

institutions like the AIIB, the more isolated it will find itself. With each day that passes, it becomes more likely that the old institutional structure will decline and decay, to be increasingly replaced by institutions like the AIIB.

Martin Jacques is the author of the global best-seller ‘When China Rules the World: the End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order’and a Senior Fellow at Cambridge University.

SLEEPWALKING INTO WORLD WAR THREE? WHY THE INDEPENDENT MEDIA IS VITAL

By Colin Todhunter NATO countries are to all intents and purposes at war with Russia. The US knows it and Russia knows it too.

Unfortunately, most of those living in NATO countries remain blissfully ignorant of this fact.

The US initiated economic sanctions on Russia, has attacked its currency and has manipulated oil prices to devastate the Russian economy. It was behind the coup in Ukraine and is now escalating tensions by placing troops in Europe and supporting a bunch of neo-fascists that it brought to power.

Yet the bought and paid for corporate media in the West keeps the majority of the Western public in ignorance by depicting Russia as the aggressor.

If the current situation continues, the outcome could be a devastating nuclear conflict. Washington poured five billion dollars into Ukraine with the aim of eventually instigating a coup on Russia’s doorstep. Washington and NATO are supporting proxy forces on the ground to kill and drive out those who are demanding autonomy from the US puppet regime in Kiev. Hundreds of thousands have fled across the border into Russia.

Yet it is Washington that accuses Moscow of invading Ukraine, of having had a hand in the downing of a commercial airliner and of ‘invading’ Ukraine based on no evidence at all –

trial by media courtesy of Washington’s PR machine. As a result of this Russian ‘aggression’, Washington has slapped sanctions on Moscow.

The ultimate aim is to de-link Europe’s economy from Russia and weaken Russia’s energy dependent economy by denying it export markets. The ultimate aim is to also ensure Europe remains integrated with/dependent on Washington, not least via the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and in the long term via US gas and Middle East oil (sold in dollars, thereby boosting the strength of the currency upon which US global hegemony rests).

The mainstream corporate media in the West parrots the accusations against Moscow as fact, despite Washington having cooked up evidence or invented baseless pretexts. As with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and other ‘interventions’ that have left a trail of death and devastation in their wake, the Western corporate media’s role is to act as cheerleader for official policies and USled wars of terror.

The reality is that the US has around 800 military bases in over 100 countries and military personnel in almost 150 countries. US spending on its military dwarfs what the rest of the world spends together. It outspends China by a ratio of 6:1.

What does the corporate media say about this? That the US is a ‘force for good’ and constitutes the ‘world’s policeman’ - not a calculating empire underpinned by militarism.

By the 1980s, Washington’s wars, death squads and covert operations were responsible for six million deaths in the ‘developing’ world. An updated figure suggests that figure is closer to ten million.

Breaking previous agreements made with Russia/the USSR, over the past two decades the US and NATO have moved into Eastern Europe and continue to encircle Russia and install missile systems aimed at it. The US has also surrounded Iran with military bases. It is destabilising Pakistan and ‘intervening’ in countries across Africa to weaken Chinese trade and investment links and influence. It intends to eventually militarily ‘pivot’ towards Asia to encircle China.

William Blum has presented a long list of Washington’s crimes across the planet since 1945 in terms of its numerous bombings of countries, assassinations of elected leaders and destabilisations. No other country comes close to matching the scale of such criminality. Under the smokescreen of exporting ‘freedom and democracy’, the US has deemed

continued next page

18 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 17

it necessary to ignore international laws and carry out atrocities to further its geo-political interests across the globe.

Writing on AlterNet.org, Nicolas JS Davies says of William Blum’s book Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II: if you’re looking for historical context for what you are reading or watching on TV about the coup in Ukraine, ‘Killing Hope’ will provide it.

Davies argues that the title has never been more apt as we watch the hopes of people from all regions of Ukraine being sacrificed on the same altar as those of people in Iran (1953); Guatemala(1954); Thailand (1957); Laos (1958-60); the Congo (1960); Turkey (1960, 1971 & 1980); Ecuador (1961 & 1963); South Vietnam (1963); Brazil (1964); the Dominican Republic (1963); Argentina (1963); Honduras (1963 & 2009); Iraq (1963 & 2003); Bolivia (1964, 1971 & 1980); Indonesia (1965); Ghana (1966); Greece (1967); Panama (1968 & 1989); Cambodia (1970); Chile (1973); Bangladesh (1975); Pakistan (1977); Grenada (1983); Mauritania (1984); Guinea (1984); Burkina Faso (1987); Paraguay (1989); Haiti (1991 & 2004); Russia (1993); Uganda (1996);and Libya (2011).

Davies goes on to say that the list above does not include a roughly equal number of failed coups, nor coups in Africa and elsewhere in which a US role is suspected but unproven.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a recipe for more of the same. The ultimate goal, based on the ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’, is to prevent any rival emerging to challenge Washington’s global hegemony and to secure dominance over the entire planet. Washington’s game plan for

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

Russia is to destroy is as a functioning state or to permanently weaken it so it submits to US hegemony. While the mainstream media in the West set out to revive the Cold War mentality and demonise Russia, Washington believes it can actually win a nuclear conflict with Russia. It no longer regards nuclear weapons as a last resort but part of a convention at theatre of war and is willing to use them for preemptive strikes.

Washington is accusing Russia of violating Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, while the US has its military, mercenary and intelligence personnel inside Ukraine. It is moreover putting troops in Poland, engaging in ‘war games’ close to Russia and has pushed through a ‘Russian antiaggression’ act that portrays Russia as an aggressor in order to give Ukraine de facto membership of NATO and thus full military support, advice and assistance.

Washington presses ahead regardless, as Russia begins to undermine dollar hegemony by trading oil and gas and goods in rubles and other currencies.

History shows that whenever a country threatens the dollar, the US does not idly stand by.

Unfortunately, most members of the Western public believe the lies being fed to them. This results from the corporate media amounting to little more than an extension of Washington’s propaganda arm. The

A R T I C L E S

PNAC, under the pretext of some bogus ‘war on terror’, is partly built on gullible, easily led public opinion, which is fanned by emotive outbursts from politicians and the media. We have a Pavlov’s dog public and media, which respond on cue to the moralistic bleating of politicians who rely on the public’s ignorance to facilitate war and conflict.

Former US Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst has spoken about the merits of the Kiev coup and the installation of an illegitimate government in Ukraine. Last year, he called the violent removal of Ukraine’s democratically elected government as enhancing democracy. Herbst displayed all of the arrogance associated with the ideology of US ‘exceptionalism’. He also displayed complete contempt for the public by spouting falsehoods and misleading claims about events taking place in Ukraine.

And now in Britain, the public is being subjected to the same kind of propaganda by the likes of Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond with his made-for-media sound bites about Russia being threat toworld peace: “We are now faced with a Russian leader bent not on joining the international rules-based system which keeps the peace between nations, but on subverting it… We are in familiar territory for anyone over the age of about 50... Russia’s aggressive behaviour a stark reminder it has the potential to pose the single greatest threat to our security.”

In a speech that could have come straight from the pen of some war mongering US neocon, the US’s toy monkey Hammond beat on cue the drum that signals Britain’s willingness continued next page

19 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 18

to fall in line and verbally attack Putin for not acquiescing to US global hegemonic aims.

The anti-Russia propaganda in Britain is gathering pace. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said that Putin could repeat the tactics used to destabilise Ukraine in the Baltic states. He said that NATO must be ready for Russian aggression in “whatever form it takes.”

He added that Russia is a “real and present danger.” Prior to this, PM David Cameron called on Europe to make clear to Russia that it faces economic and financial consequences for “many years to come” if it does not stop destabilising Ukraine.

Members of the current administration are clearly on board with US policy and are towing the line, as did Blair before.

And we know that his policy on Iraq was based on a pack of lies too.

If Putin is reacting in a certain way, it is worth wondering what the US response would be if Russia had put its missiles in Canada near the US border, had destabilised Mexico and was talking of putting missiles there too. To top it off, imagine if Russia were applying sanctions on the US for all of this ‘aggression’.

What Russia is really guilty of is calling for a multi-polar world, not of one dominated by the US. It’s a goal that most of humanity is guilty of. It is a

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

world the US will not tolerate.

Herbst and his ilk would do well to contemplate their country’s record of wars and destabilisations, its global surveillance network that illegally spies on individuals and governments alike and its ongoing plundering of resources and countries supported by militarism, ‘free trade’ or the outright manipulation of every major market. Hammond, Fallon and Cameron would do well to remember this too. But like their US masters, their role is to feign amnesia and twist reality.

The media is dutifully playing its part well by keeping the public ignorant and misinformed. A public that is encouraged to regard what is happening in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya, etc, as a confusing, disconnected array of events in need of Western intervention based on bogus notions of ‘humanitarianism’ or a ‘war on terror ’, rather than the planned machinations of empire which includes a global energy war and the associated preservation and strengthening of the petro-dollar system.

Eric Zuesse has been writing extensively on events in Ukraine for the last year. His articles have been published on various sites like Countercurrents, Global Research and RINF, but despite his attempts to get his numerous informative and well-

A R T I C L E S

researched pieces published in the mainstream media, he has by and large hit a brick wall.

This is because the corporate media have a narrative and the truth does not fit into it. If this tells us anything it is that sites like the one you are reading this particular article on are essential for informing the public about the reality of the aggression that could be sleepwalking the world towards humanity’s final war. And while the mainstream media might still be ‘main’, in as much as that is where most people still turn to for information, there is nothing to keep the alternative webbased media from becoming ‘mainstream’.

Whether it involves Eric’s virtually daily pieces or articles by other writers, the strategy must be to tweet, share and repost! Or as Binu Mathew from the India-based Countercurrents website says: “It is for those who want to nurture these alternative communication channels to spread the word to tell the world about these avenues. ‘Each one reach one, each one teach one’ can be a good way to sum up.”

15 March, 2015 Colin Todhunter : Originally from the northwest of England, Colin Todhunter has spent many years in India.

Source: Countercurrents.org

BETTER THAN HATRED

By Izzeldin Abuelaish A Bereaved Father’s Call for Peace I was born and raised in a Palestinian refugee camp. As a child I never tasted childhood. I was born to face

misery, suffering, abject poverty, and deprivation. However, the suffering in this world is man-made; it’s not from God. God wants every good thing for us and he created us for

the good. But just because suffering is man-made, there is hope. It’s the hope that we can challenge this manmade suffering by not accepting it, continued next page

20 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 19 and by taking responsibility. I can’t challenge God, but I can challenge someone on earth. And you can do the same.

People can deprive you, imprison you, or kill you, but no one can prevent any of us from dreaming. As a child, I dreamed of being a medical doctor. Through hard work I achieved my dream. Now I fight on a daily basis to give life to others.

There are others who live to fight. Is this the purpose of our existence: to fight and to end others’ lives? A human life is the most precious thing in the universe. I know from my practice as a gynecologist how hard we work to save one life. Someone else can put an end to a life in seconds with a bullet. Each human being is a representative of God on earth, God’s most holy creation. We must value human life and be strong advocates of saving human life.

This world is endemic with violence, fear, and injustice. We often mention that one hundred, one thousand, or ten thousand people have been killed here or there. But people are not numbers or statistics: we need to zoom in to think of each of them as a beloved one. Each person who is killed has a name, a face, a family, a story.

I was the first Palestinian doctor to practice medicine in an Israeli hospital. Many Israelis see

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

Palestinians only as workers and servants. I wanted them to see that Palestinians are human and that we are not so different. Medicine has one culture and one value: the value of saving humanity. Within the walls of a hospital we treat patients equally, with respect and privacy, wishing them to be healed. We don’t design treatment according to their name, religion, ethnicity, or background, but according to their disease and their suffering.

Why don’t we practice this equality outside of these institutions? Inside them we are angels and we remember that we are equal. We need to practice it outside. The happiest moment in my life is when I hand a baby to its mother; the cry of a newborn is the cry of hope that a new life has come to this world. There is no difference between the cry of a newborn baby of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, or Bedouin parents. They are the same.

The most difficult time in my life was one four month period while I was working at this Israeli hospital. On September 16, 2008, I lost my wife, Nadia, to acute leukemia. It was sudden, taking only two weeks. I felt it was the end of the world. I believe that a mother is everything in life. The mother is the main pillar of the house; she is the one who gives, sacrifices, and builds without limits. In the loss of a mother, we lost her big heart, kindness, mercy, and love. But I couldn’t change it; I had to move with it. I was blessed to have six beautiful, bright daughters and two sons. I continued my work.

Then the unexpected happened. On January 16, 2009, just four months after the loss of my wife, an Israeli tank bombed my home in Gaza, killing three of my daughters and one

A R T I C L E S

niece. There was no reason to kill them. They were girls armed only with love, education, and plans. I raised them to serve humanity. They were drowning in their blood in their bedroom, their bodies spread everywhere. I wanted to see them.

Where was Bessan, whom I saw a few seconds before? Where were Mayar, Aya, and Noor? Mayar was number one in math in Palestine and planned to follow my path and become a medical doctor. She was decapitated. I couldn’t recognize her.

Where was Aya, 13, who planned to be a lawyer, the voice of the voiceless, to speak out and break the silence? Where was Noor, 17, who planned to be a teacher?

At that moment I said that God sees this tragedy, and it will be invested for the good. I asked myself why I had been saved; if I had stayed a few more seconds with them, I would have been gone. It was God’s mercy and plan that I was scheduled to be interviewed live on Israeli TV. My

cries were heard through the world.

Even when the whole world seems dormant and paralyzed, God is awake. God is alive. At that moment I directed my face to God, the one who is alive, awake, and strong. I didn’t feel angry. I only felt that I couldn’t accept what was happening and asked what I could do. At that moment I swore to God and to my daughters: I will never rest. I will continued next page

21 I N T E R N AT I O N A L

MOVEMENT

continued from page 20

never relax. I will never give up or forget you. How can I forget them?

They are my beloved ones and I miss them.

I believe I will meet my daughters again, and they will ask me, “What did you do for us?” Until then they

are alive in me, and I will meet them with a big gift, and that gift is justice for them and for others. I must prove that their lives and noble blood were not wasted. That they made a difference in others’ lives. That they saved others. But to do that, we can’t use bullets and bombs like the one which killed them.

The bullet is the weapon of the weak: it kills once. You have the strongest weapon. It’s your wisdom and your kind, courageous words. Words are stronger than bullets. We need to say the right word in time. What is the value of saying it afterward? What is the value of treating patients after they have died?

The first message of support came from my fourteen-year-old son, Mohammed. While I was crying he looked at me and said, “Why are you crying? Why are you screaming? You must be happy.” I said that he didn’t know his sisters had been killed. How can he tell me to be happy? He said, “No, I know my sisters are killed, but I know that they are happy there.

They are with their mom. She asked for them.” That fourteen-year-old

FOR

A

JUST

WORLD

Palestinian child could teach world leaders to be patient. I thought that if he said that, I don’t need to worry about him. He knows his way. And I too have to move forward. As Einstein said, life is like riding a bicycle. To keep balanced we must keep moving.

I kept moving faster, stronger, more determined. Not looking backward, only forward.

I wrote my book I Shall not Hate because people expected me to hate.

Maybe I have the right to hate. But we are blessed to be human, to have choices in life between the dark and the light, between what is right and what is wrong. If I want to bring my daughters justice, is it with hatred?

Is it with darkness, with blindness?

Hatred is a disease that eats the one who carries it. It is poison. It is a fire which burns the one who started it. It is cancer, a self-destructive disease. It’s a heavy burden with which you can’t move forward. It makes you sink deeper. Don’t allow this disease. Build a shield around you. Don’t allow hatred. I said that I shall not hate, meaning that I’m not going to be sick. I will never be broken or defeated by this disease. I will challenge it and take responsibility. Don’t blame others, but take responsibility and move forward. Be angry, but in a positive way. When you see something wrong, don’t accept it. Ask, “What can I do to change it?” Don’t feel so angry that you lose control and then regret it. We need a constructive, positive anger that energizes us.

Whatever you do makes a difference.

Don’t say it won’t impact others. The patient needs action, a prescription.

They don’t need words. Everything starts with words, but these words have no meaning if they are not translated into action. It starts with

A R T I C L E S small actions. First make a difference in your local community. Speak out.

Evil flourishes in this world when good people do nothing and think they are far from risk. What do you hear? What do you see? Does it harm human beings? This world is becoming smaller and smaller. We live in one boat. We must not allow anyone to do harm to this boat or we will all sink.

Your freedom depends on mine. No one is free as long as others are not.

We must stand for the freedom of all. We must speak out about the freedom of all – freedom from need, ignorance, poverty, sickness, and fear. In memory of Bessan, Mayar,

Aya, and Noor, I established the Daughters for Life Foundation for the education of girls and women from the Middle East. Social and economic challenges should not be a barrier to girls’ education. In these girls I see my daughters’ dreams and plans being fulfilled. I see these girls as my daughters. God took three daughters and one niece from me, but has given me hundreds more.

24 July 2014 Izzeldin Abuelaish is a Palestinian medical doctor and author.

Source: www.plough.com

P.O BOX 288 Jalan Sultan 46730 Petaling Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan MALAYSIA www.just-international.org

TERBITAN BERKALA

The International Movement for a Just World is a nonprofit international citizens’ organisation which seeks to create public awareness about injustices within the existing global system.

It also attempts to develop a deeper understanding of the struggle for social justice and human dignity at the global level, guided by universal spiritual and moral values.

In furtherance of these objectives, JUST has undertaken a number of activities including conducting research, publishing books and monographs, organising conferences and seminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.

JUST has friends and supporters in more than 130 countries and cooperates actively with other organisations which are committed to similar objectives in different parts of the world.

INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)

Bayaran Pos Jelas Postage Paid Pejabat Pos Besar Kuala Lumpur Malaysia No. WP 1385

About the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if you could share this copy of the JUST Commentary with a friend or relative. Better still invite him/her to write to JUST so that we can put his/her name on our Commentary mailing list.

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque addressed to: International Movement for a Just World P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia or direct to our bank account: Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya Main Branch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, MALAYSIA Account No. 5141 6917 0716 Donations from outside Malaysia should be made

by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$