December 2012
Vol 12, No.12
VICTORY FOR PALESTINE By Franklin Lamb
B
eirut: The United Nations General Assembly vote of 11/29/12, which some in Lebanon’s 12 Palestinian refugee camps are calling a “birth certificate for our country” is the latest of more than 400 UN resolutions on the Question of Palestine and a rare major victory for Palestinians after 65 years of resisting occupation. The UN action, which was backed by an overwhelm majority of UN members with a lopsided vote of 138 to 9, may well force the Zionist regime to seriously consider a just peaceful resolution of the conflict. With due respect to the nearly fifty UN members who voted against
the historic Palestine Resolution on 11/29/12 at the General Assembly, which is to say the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru ( the world’s smallest republic covering just 8.1 square miles with a population of 9, 378)), and Palau, with its approximately 20,000 inhabitants, all former U.S. Trust Territories and currently “freely associated states” of the United States, with U.S. zip/ postal and telephone codes much more closely resembling American states (51st, 52nd, 53rd and 54th) than sovereign countries, the World spoke clearly in favor of Palestinian selfdetermination. Indeed, the only reason these dissenting four “countries” are UN Members at all
is due to cold war era efforts of Washington to stack the General Assembly in its favor by running up the numbers of its safe votes. Over the past fortnight, as the US and Israel piled layers of threats onto their mantra of derision regarding yesterday’s historic UN vote on Palestine, both countries desperately tried to dissuade the Palestinians from scrapping their application for nonmember observer state membership status with the United Nations. Way too much did Israeli officials and their US lobby protest, thus drawing more international Turn to next page
STATEMENT .CARRYING THE ISRAEL - HAMAS CEASEFIRE FORWARD
BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR .................................P 4
ARTICLES . M USLIM S OCIETIES , I SRAEL
AND THE
W EST
(PART I) INTERVIEW................................................................P 4 .MILLIONS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED MOSQUITOES RELEASED WITHOUT RISK ASSESSMENT OR OVERSIGHT BY BARBARA H. PETERSON...................................P 6
.YANOMAMI MASSACRE
VENEZUELA BY EMBASSY OF THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA IN MALAYSIA.........................................................P 8 .A COMMENT ON
IN
THE DIAYU DISPUTE BY MOTOKO SHUTO...............................................P 9
2 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 1
attention and curiosity as they kept dissing the “purely symbolic empty gesture and meaningless act.” Naftali Bennett, leader of the extremist right-wing national religious Zionist party in Israel, Habayit Hayehudi (“The Jewish Home”) warned the day before the vote that “the PA bid for non-member status at the UN has very real implications on Israel, and that we must take harsh measures in response. I don’t accept the claim that this is a symbolic move,” Bennet told Israel Radio. “This is not symbolic at all. This has very practical implications. “He added: “We must tell the Arabs, if you pursue a unilateral strategy at the UN, we will pursue a unilateral strategy in annexing settlements in the West Bank.”
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
convince him to withdraw the resolution and to include the demanded eviscerating codicils. Secretary of State Clinton could not have been more mistaken as she insisted at her news conference on 11/28/12 that “the only path towards a Palestinian state was through direct negotiations. As I have said many times the only path to a two-state solution that fulfills the aspirations of the Palestinian people is through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not New York.” Few in the state department, according to congressional staff members who liaise with Clinton’s staff, believe that direct negotiations would ever lead to Israel voluntarily rejecting its current apartheid system or that the interminable “peace process” has ever been taken seriously by the Zionist regime and in fact constitute a hoax. In contradistinction, the growing reality in the Middle East and all five continents is the belief that only Resistance, with its scores of forms, will liberate Palestine from Zionist occupation. Low balling the UN vote…..
There is some important symbolism in the UN admitting Palestine as a non-member observer on the 65th anniversary of the November 29, 1947, adoption by the UN General Assembly of the resolution on the partition of Palestine (resolution 181 (II)). On December 2, 1977, it was recorded that the assembly called for the annual observance of November 29 as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (A/RES/32/40 B). Last minute appeals by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton plus a late night pre-vote visit by US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Middle East envoy David Hale to the hotel room of the Palestinian Authority hold-over President Mahmoud Abbas failed to
Following the 138 to 9 vote, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, intimated, as did the usual Amen chorus of anti-Arab & antiIslam zealots, from the US Israeli lobby, including the likes of ADL’s Abe Foxman, that” just as predicted, anti-Semitism was lurking behind the lopsided vote” and that it all amounted, in the words of Netanyahu spokesman Mark Regev, “to nothing but cheap political theater that should not come as a surprise to anyone.” The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as it does on any issue involving Palestine and Israel issued Talking Points for members of Congress and other Zionist organizations to be used when communicating with constituents and giving media interviews. AIPAC keeps close track of how many interviews each member gives and
L E A D A R T I C L E how closely they tow the Zionist line so as to help determine how much cash the particular member will receive for re-election as well as other perks. For this crucial UN vote, the US Zionist lobby used U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Susan Collins (R-ME) drafted a letter from these AIPAC stalwarts to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas opposing any unilateral attempts by the Palestinian Government to pursue non-member state status at the United Nations General Assembly. In their letter, the Senators asserted that “Palestinian statehood can only be realized as a result of a broader peace agreement negotiated with the Israelis, not through unilateral measures at the United Nations. Should you decide, however, to bypass direct negotiations and unilaterally seek upgraded status at the UN, we want to again remind you of the potential for significant consequences. As S. Res. 185 notes, any such efforts may cause consequences in regards to U.S. policy and foreign aid.” AIPAC instructed Congress to make the following points which were included in an “urgent advisory” to every member and many staffers. 1. This UN action won’t lead to peace. Peace will only occur through direct talks. By refusing to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and seeking recognition of a state at the United Nations, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is damaging U.S. peace efforts. (nothing in this point is accurate) 2. Recognizing a Palestinian state gives legitimacy to Hamas. The Iranian-backed terrorist group has fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians and is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state. By granting recognition of a state, the continued next page
3 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 2
international community will reward Hamas for its terrorist actions, rather than condemn them 3. The United States has rejected the Palestinian approach. President Obama has said that “no vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state” and called the Palestinian efforts at the U.N. a “mistake.” Other talking points AIPAC told Congress to use include: while Israel Takes Steps for Peace, Palestinians run to UN , Israel Wants Talks; Palestinians Still Refuse, Palestinians Glorify Terrorists by praising the Hamas victory. What the Zionist leaders of Israel, as they frantically try to intimidate the region by stockpiling American weapons, while grabbing more Palestinian land, fear is that the 11/19/12 UN resolution may be a game changer. In this they are correct. The UN action allows the Palestinians to participate in General Assembly debates and de facto grants recognition of Palestinian statehood on the pre-1967 ceasefire lines while reenforcing the wide international consensus that the pre-1967 lines should form the basis of a permanent peace settlement. It also opens up the 17 Specialized Agencies of the UN including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), International Labor Organization (ILO), International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Universal Postal Union (UPU), the World Bank Group, World Health Organization, World Trade
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
L E A D A R T I C L E
Organization (WTO), International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) as well as related and comparable organizations. As noted this week by Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights organization “ Under such a strengthened position within the international legal system, the State of Palestine will be allowed to formally accede to international human rights instruments and other technical United Nations bodies, thus improving protection of Palestinian rights at the domestic and international level”. It is also to be expected that Palestinian citizens under brutal Zionist occupation will demand to use their new status to join the International Criminal Court and might press for investigations of Zionist international crimes, crimes against humanity, attempted genocide, and a host of other practices in the occupied territories. Investigating such international crimes and bringing punishment to those convicted is why the ICC was established. Professor Francis Boyle reminds us that Palestine can also now sue Israel at the International Court of Justice and end the illegal siege of Gaza, and join the Law of the Sea Convention and secure its fair share of the gas fields lying off the Gaza coast with enormous economic benefits. Palestine can also now join the International Civil Aviation Organization and gain sovereignty over its own airspace; join the International Telecommunications Union and gain sovereign legal control over its own airwaves, phone lines and band-widths. These are just some of the many reason the Obama administration, slavishly joined the Zionist leadership of occupied Palestine to defeat the UN application.
The actions of the Obama Administration and its vehement opposition to the UN vote continues to diminish the relevance of the US in the Middle East as it slides further down the wrong side of history with its client state in tow. Attempting to justify its shameful opposition to the Palestinian diplomatic undertaking in the UN, the Obama administration could only offer a weak brief from the State Department legal department accusing the PLO of acting unilaterally, in breach of signed agreements. This is simply parroting AIPAC talking points noted above. Deepening Palestine’s international legal personality within the United Nations system is a legitimate exercise from which to assert rights guaranteed by fundamental principles of International Law. With more access to the United Nations system, Palestinians have gained a major political and legal framework from which to work and to encourage the international community to comply with its obligation to end Israeli crimes against them and bring Israel’s serious breaches of international law to an end.
1 December, 2012 Franklin P. Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Wash.DC-Beirut and Board Member, The Sabra Shatila Foundation and the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, BeirutWashington DC Source: Countercurrents.org
4 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
S T A T E M E N T
STATEMENT CARRYING
THE
Like millions of people everywhere and thousands of organisations in every continent, the members of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) hope and pray that the ceasefire declared between the state of Israel and Hamas, the democratically elected representative of the Palestinians in Gaza, on 21 November 2012, will not be broken. Though one Palestinian has been killed at the GazaIsrael border since the ceasefire, the incident is regarded by many as an aberration. For the ceasefire to hold, Israeli security forces should stop killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza in the name of eliminating “terrorists.” It was such murders - a 12 year old boy killed on 8 November and two teenagers killed on 10 November - that ignited the conflict that has just been brought to an end. Hamas retaliated by firing rockets into Israel. To carry the ceasefire forward Israel should now lift the blockade of Gaza which has been in force since 2007. It should allow all goods and services to flow freely into the strip. Hamas should reciprocate by ensuring that no weapons are brought into the territory.
ISRAEL - HAMAS CEASEFIRE FORWARD states in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) should also get rid of whatever WMD they own. WANA should be declared a Zone Free of WMD.
This should set the stage for serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians aimed at the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza in accordance with various UN Resolutions. East Jerusalem would be the capital of this state which would also absorb a substantial portion of the six million Palestinian refugees. Israel should also release all Palestinian and Arab political prisoners. At the same time, it should return unconditionally the Golan Heights to Syria and the Sheba Farms to Lebanon. Israel should also eliminate its huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in its possession. All other
Such a Zone will provide all states in the region with a genuine sense of security. It is that sort of security that Israel should seek. At the core of such a Zone of Security - it is worth reiterating - will be an independent, sovereign Palestinian State. There is no need to emphasise that without justice for the Palestinians and others in WANA there will be no security for Israelis. One hopes that the new government in Cairo which played an active role in brokering the current ceasefire between Israel and Hamas will take the lead in working towards justice for the Palestinians and others in WANA who have been victims of Israeli occupation and aggression for decades. If it succeeds, it will help to herald the birth of a new WANA.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President, International Movement for a Just World (JUST). 23 November, 2012.
ARTICLES MUSLIM SOCIETIES, ISRAEL
AND THE
WEST (PART I)
We publish below an email interview which the well known Iranian journalist Kourosh Ziabari conducted with Dr. Chandra Muzaffar. The second and third part of this interview will appear in subsequent issues of the JUST Commentary. –editor 1- The Western mainstream media portray a completely biased and prejudiced image of Islam and Muslims, while Muslims have always contributed to the social, economic, political and scientific advancement and progress of the societies which they live in as minorities. What’s your viewpoint
in this regard? How should a realistic image of Islam be presented to the Western public? Answer: If no Muslim resorts to terrorism, if no Muslim misinterprets Islamic teachings to justify the suppression of women or the marginalisation of non-Muslim minorities, if no Muslim leader abuses
power or violates the rights of his people, it is quite conceivable that the mainstream Western media will have less ammunition to target Muslims and their faith. But I suspect negative stereotyping of Muslims and pejorative representations of Islam will continue to find expression through the continued next page
5 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 4
influential stratum of Western society. Why?
It is simply because the prejudiced portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media serves the interests of the centres of power in the West. When Palestinians resist Israeli occupation and aggression, it is in the interest of the occupier and its allies in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin to project the victim as the wrongdoer, ever ready to commit violence. Likewise, when the hegemon invaded Iraq for its oil, the mainstream media camouflaged the real motive for the invasion by highlighting that monstrous lie concocted by former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and former US President, George Bush, about Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). It is lies like this pedalled by the media that sully the image of Muslims. Anyone who resists US led hegemony is demonised: Muammar Gaddafi became a mass murderer of tens of thousands of his own citizens — a gross exaggeration— because he stood in the way of the NATO-led operation to usurp Libya’s oil wealth. Today, Bashar al-Assad of Syria is projected in the media as a bloodthirsty monster — another falsehood— because he has chosen to defend the sovereignty and independence of his country in the face of a concerted attempt by Western powers and their West Asian allies to oust him through military force so that a pliant regime that dances to their tune can be installed in Damascus. This is why Western hegemony has to end before an honest image of Muslims can emerge. It is not just because of Israel and oil that Muslims
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
and Islam are often tarred and tarnished in the media. It is also because Muslim countries are on the shores of most of the vital sea-routes in the world, the control of which is critical for the pursuit of global power and dominance. The good news is that Western hegemony is on the decline. The rise of new centres of power from Latin America to East Asia is an irreversible process. For some years now I have been suggesting that Muslim scholars, politicians and media practitioners should as a matter of priority reach out to groups with influence and impact in various parts of the non-Western world to tell them what is really happening in the Arab-Israeli conflict and in West Asia as a whole and why there is so much negative imaging of Islam and Muslims. A bit of this is already being done but much more remains to be done. At the same time, more literature should be produced and circulated in the native languages of the new centres of power that seeks to correct distorted perspectives on jihad, terrorism, the position of women, relations with non-Muslims, the concept of justice and the meaning of compassion and mercy in Islam. In other words, one should not concentrate only on how Muslims and Islam are perceived in the West. Power is shifting to the East and it is the image of Islam and Muslims in the nonMuslim, non-Western world— such as China— that will really matter in the end. 2- As a Muslim-majority country, Malaysia has made remarkable progresses, especially in terms of human development index, economic prosperity and attracting foreign investment. What do you think are the reasons for these achievements? How can the other Islamic states reach such a level? Answer: Malaysia it is true has done relatively well compared to most other Muslim and non-Muslim countries in the Global South. Since achieving Independence from British colonial rule in 1957, the level of absolute poverty within the populace has been
A R T I C L E S reduced from 64% to 3.8% in 2011. Almost the entire population has access to primary health care facilities. 94% of the population is literate. Basic amenities such as piped water and electricity are available to most of the people. Less than 3% of the labour force is unemployed. Apart from continuous economic development over 55 years, the nation has also been politically stable. Compared to many other countries in the Global South and the Global North, there has been very little political violence. Political succession has been smooth. Malaysia is a functioning democracy in which the elected parliamentary opposition has invariably secured more than 35% of the popular vote.
While the Federal government has been in the hands of the same coalition since Independence, opposition parties have exercised power in various states. What is really remarkable about Malaysia is that it has succeeded in maintaining a commendable degree of inter-ethnic peace in one of the most challenging multi-religious and multicultural environments in the world. In the functional sense, there is also a modicum of inter-ethnic interaction. What explains the Malaysian success story? A fairly effective public service, a vigorous business sector, a range of commodities which command a global market and a live- and- let live attitude among the people, have all contributed to the nation’s well-being. But the single most important factor would be a national leadership since 1957 which has always had a balanced outlook, a sense of justice and fair play, and a grasp of the mechanics of good governance. continued next page
6 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 5
Nonetheless, Malaysia is not without blemish. Like so many other countries where the ruling party or coalition has been in power for a long while, elite corruption is a bane. Again like most other countries caught in the web of global capitalism, the gap between the have-a-lot and the havea-little is getting wider with all its dire consequences. Forging national unity has become an even more complex challenge with growing religiosity expressing itself through the reinforcement of religious exclusiveness. Still, Malaysia, its challenges notwithstanding, serves as an example to many other countries. 3- In one of your interviews, you mentioned that Israel is one of the impediments on the way of the improvement of relationship between the United States and the Muslim states, because the Muslim nations believe that America is a superpower which unconditionally supports Israel at the cost of forfeiting the rights of Muslims and Arabs. Why doesn’t the U.S. abandon its sponsorship of Israel in order to maintain better ties with the Muslim nations? Answer: One of the main reasons
MILLIONS
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
why the US elite is not able to abandon its patronage and protection of Israel is because of Zionist influence and power in some of the key sectors of American public life. The US Congress, Senate and the White House are all beholden, in one way or another, to Zionist funds and Zionist lobbies. Zionists are dominant in the upper echelons of finance. Look at the ethnic background of almost all the major figures connected to the 2008 subprime crisis. Zionist power in the media, including the new media channels, is obvious. The top stratum of leading universities also reflects Zionist presence and influence. Hollywood and the entertainment industry as a whole is another example of subtle Zionist influence. But more than anything else, within US society — and in Europe— there is a great deal of sympathy for the Jews for the terrible suffering they had undergone as a result of the holocaust. This is why in spite of what the Israeli state has done to the Palestinians, Israelis and Jews continue to be viewed as victims to this day.
A R T I C L E S continents meet. Some of the world’s most critical waterways are also in West Asia. Even if we examine the origins the idea of a Zionist state in 19th century Europe, Zionist and some European leaders were already looking at the future state of Israel as a bulwark for the perpetuation of Western interests. In spite of strong support for Israel in the US, there are analysts who feel the situation is changing. The overwhelming support that existed for Israel in the first three decades after the 1967 Israel-Arab War has declined somewhat. This is partly because of the extreme positions often adopted by the Israeli ruling elite on the question of Israeli settlements in the West Bank that has disillusioned some so-called liberal Jews in the US. It is said that one of the reasons why Barack Obama won in the recent Presidential Election is because the Zionist lobbies in the US were split. 18 November, 2012 End of Part I
At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that Israel serves US and European strategic interests in West Asia— the region that is the world’s most important oil exporter and the only spot on earth where three
Kourosh Ziabari is an award-winning Iranian journalist and media correspondent. In 2010, he received the national medal of Superior Iranian Youth from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his media activities.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED MOSQUITOES RELEASED WITHOUT RISK ASSESSMENT OR OVERSIGHT OF
By Barbara H. Peterson
Well, after these “scientific” geniuses are through with us, that is exactly what all life will be – a genetic soup sandwich, made in a lab, and stamped with a corporate logo embedded in our DNA.
Look out people of planet earth, genetically engineered bugs are here. Just in case you haven’t figured it out yet, our technocracy is working ever diligently on genetically engineering every last living cell on the planet – WITHOUT EXCEPTION. What does this mean for life here on earth? Ever hear the expression “soup sandwich?”
If the following report from Testbiotech doesn’t send chills up your spine, I don’t know what will. Get ready world, because nothing will ever be the same. Ever. There is no remediation technique available to clean up genetically engineered mutations released into the wild and spread through horizontal gene transfer. Regulatory decisions on releasing genetically modified (GM) insects biased by corporate interests
Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK said “The public will be shocked to learn that GM insects can be released into the environment without any proper oversight. Conflictsof-interest should be removed from all decision-making processes to ensure the public have a proper say about these plans.” London/ Munich Thursday 8th November 2012 A briefing published today by public interest groups highlights how regulatory decisions on GM insects in Europe and around the world are being biased by corporate interests. continued next page
7 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 6
The briefing shows how UK biotech company Oxitec has infiltrated decision-making processes around the world. The company has close links to the multinational pesticide and seed company, Syngenta. Oxitec has already made large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil and is developing GM agricultural pests, jointly with Syngenta. Plans to commercialise GM insects would result in many millions of GM insects being released in fields of crops, including olives, tomatoes, citrus fruits, cabbages and cotton. In future, any insect species might be genetically modified. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is highlighted as one of several examples showing how industry organises its influence. In EFSA´s GM insects working group, which was established to develop guidance for risk assessment of genetically engineered insects, there are several cases of conflicts of interest, including experts with links to Oxitec who only partially declared their interests. The draft Guidance on risk assessment of GM insects shows some significant deficiencies: for example it does not consider the impacts of GM insects on the food chain. Oxitec’s GM insects are genetically engineered to die mostly at the larval stage so dead GM larvae will enter the food chain inside food crops such as olives, cabbages and tomatoes. Living GM insects could also be transported on crops to other farms or different countries. EFSA has excluded any consideration of these important issues from its draft guidance. Many other issues are not properly addressed. The briefing also highlights problems with a World Health Organisation (WHO)-funded project which has allowed the company to bypass requirements for informed consent for the release of GM mosquitoes. The WHO-funded Mosqguide project, which was supposed to be developing best practice, also allowed the company to gain approval from Brazilian regulators to release 16 million GM mosquitoes before draft
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
regulations on the release of GM insects had been finalised or adopted, without publishing a risk assessment. Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK said “The public will be shocked to learn that GM insects can be released into the environment without any proper oversight. Conflicts-of-interest should be removed from all decision-making processes to ensure the public have a proper say about these plans.” Christoph Then, Executive Director, Testbiotech, said: “Risk assessment of genetically engineered animals touches many areas where there is lack of knowledge. We are concerned that EFSA will apply a biased and selective protocol to safety without really sorting out potential hazards.” François Meienberg, Berne Declaration, said: “Companies such as Syngenta and Oxitec have to learn that negative impacts on the environment or health can arise from their lobbying activities. To act responsibly they have to change their lobbying behaviour immediately.” Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), said: “Experts on EFSA’s working groups should not be allowed to have any conflict of interests with industry, let alone ties with companies producing the very product they are assessing – in this case GM insects. This clearly shows that EFSA’s rules to deal with conflicts of interest still have major gaps.” Tina Goethe, SwissAid, said: “The development of GM-insects for agriculture implies unforeseeable risks for human health and environment. In order to meet the challenges of small scale agriculture in poor countries, we do not need expensive and high risk technologies, but agro-ecological solutions.” The briefing highlights multiple attempts by Oxitec to influence regulation around the world, which have included: (i) Attempts to define ‘biological
A R T I C L E S containment’ of the insects (which are programmed to die at the larval stage) as contained use, by-passing requirements for risk assessments and consultation on decisions to release GM insects into the environment; (ii) Attempts to avoid any egulation of GM agricultural pests on crops which will end up in the food chain; (iii) Avoidance of any discussion of how GM insects can be contained at a site, or products produced using GM insects can be labelled; (iv) Exclusion of many important issues from risk assessments, including impacts of surviving GM mosquitoes on the environment and health, and impacts of changing mosquito populations on human immunity and disease; (v) Failure to follow transboundary notification processes for exports of GM insects correctly; (vi) Undermining the requirement to obtain informed consent for experiments involving insect species which transmit disease; (vii) Attempts to avoid liability for any harm if anything goes wrong; (viii) Pushing ahead with large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes before relevant guidance or regulations are adopted. For further information contact: Helen Wallace, GeneWatch UK, Tel +44 (0)1298-24300, +44 (0)7903-311584, helen.wallace@genewatch.org Christoph Then, Testbiotech, Tel +49151 54638040, info@testbiotech.org François Meienberg, Berne Declaration, Ph: +41 44 277 70 04, Email: food@evb.ch Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), Tel: +32 2 8930930, + 3 1 ( 0 ) 6 3 0 2 8 5 0 4 2 , nina@corporateeurope.org Tina Goethe, SwissAid, Tel.: +41(0)31-350 53 75, t.goethe@swissaid.ch
8 November, 2012 Barbara H. Peterson is a writer/ activist who retired from the California Department of Corrections as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. Source: www.farmwars.info
8 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
FOR
A
JUST
YANOMAMI MASSACRE
WORLD
IN
A R T I C L E S
VENEZUELA
By Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Malaysia Whenever the word ‘massacre’ is uttered, one can’t help but imagine lifeless bodies liying hauntingly like discarded dolls, some with their arms outstretched, lying shoulder to shoulder. Thus, to read about a massacre of up to 80 Yanomami people in the Venezuelan state of Amazonas is most horrifying. Two months before the Venezuelan Presidential elections, there was a report saying an armed group flew over in a helicopter, opening fire with guns and launching explosives into a Irotatheri settlement in the High Ocamo area. According to the report, the village was home to about 80 people and only three survived the attack. Images of the horrifying attack with crude explosives, executions and a helicopter strafing the village with machine-gun fire dominates one’s imagination of how the attack took place. Feelings of anguish and despair soon take over when we learn that the village was burned, and like wildfire quickly spread, consuming the thick, dried-out vegetation and almost everything else in its path. It was horrific just to imagine. But it was not as horrific as the act of Media Terrorism aimed at Venezuela. The news about the massacre of the Yanomami spread throughout the international media like wildfire, sparked by the statement by Survival International (SI). Despite causing a big stir in international news, SI then conveniently retracted their claim of the attack after Venezuelan authorities sent a team accompanied by the media and found no bodies or any evidence of an attack, let alone a massacre. However, what SI and most of the
international media refuse to highlight are the efforts of the Venezuelan government to ensure the welfare of its indigenous people.
special rights for people of indigenous ancestry. These include the right to demarcate and inhabit their ancestral territory; to be legally identified as indigenous; to receive bilingual or multi-lingual education; to choose their own authentic authorities and have those authorities recognized; to elect three indigenous representatives in the National Assembly, to carry out traditional economic and religious customs of their choice; to practice traditional medicine with patients’ consent; and to have their genetic material protected from exploitation.
In 2011, the Venezuelan government returned over 15,800 hectares of ancestral lands to the indigenous Yukpa people, as an act of social justice. It repaid what was owed to those who for years maintained control over these lands as the country celebrated “Indigenous Resistance Day”.
On top of that, Venezuela’s National Assembly also has a “Permanent Commission of Indigenous Peoples” which has nine Assembly members; with five represented by the Government and four from the opposition.
Then, in the same celebration, the Venezuelan government announced numerous initiatives aimed at assisting and empowering indigenous communities. Nicia Maldonado, the minister for indigenous peoples, said that the government plans to create several socialist communes to be inhabited by indigenous communities. Meanwhile, Ricardo Menéndez, the minister for science and technology and vice president for the productive economy, said that indigenous communities are being incorporated into the Grand Venezuelan Housing Mission through which the government has promised to build two million homes over the next seven years. In addition, the National Constitution of 1999 and the Organic Law on Indigenous Peoples and Communities (LOPCI) obligate the government to institute a series of
Nevertheless, these efforts represent only a small part of the government’s broad set of policies toward indigenous communities. Thus, why was there a SI report in the first place? Why did SI make such reckless allegations against the Venezuelan government? Additionally, questions also arise on how unfounded horror stories were found published in respectable international media without any investigation or corroboration as to the facts of the story or whether it even occurred in the first place. In all this commotion of false reporting, one cannot ignore the fact that this dubious report was conveniently published two months before the Venezuelan Presidential elections. The lie about the massacre of the Venezuelan Yanomami was created continued next page
9 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 8
and published as a direct attack on the Venezuelan Government. These lies fabricated and disseminated by Survival International and international news agencies, serve as an example of Media Terrorism, meant to turn public opinion against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and undermine the Bolivarian Revolution in Latin America. It was a ghastly bid to disrupt the Venezuelan government’s attention in the midst of the elections. These lies have not only abused the indigenous Yanomami but are insulting to the government of Venezuela. What is more insulting is the irresponsible reporting by these ‘Media Terrorists’ who are feeding lies to the readers who deserve to know the truth. While showing no concern for their readers, they have also not issued a single apology for the lies they published.
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
Meanwhile, when the Venezuelan government flew local and international journalists to the Irotatheri village, just 12 miles from the Brazilian border, smiling and curious indigenous welcomed the visitors with chest thumping. “No matanza, todo fino” (“No killing, all fine”) a Yanomami said in Spanish to the delegation’s translator. In this isolated place there is no apparent trace of violence or deaths. In contrast, its inhabitants, who have a lump of snuff in their mouths, prepare a welcome dance showing their spears and bows and faces
A R T I C L E S painted with black lines. “‘Wishak, wishak, wishak,’ or ‘monkey, monkey, monkey,’ the indigenous repeated as two bearded photographers approached”. One of the photographers wrote “It was our facial hair that took them by surprise. They touched our faces. They touched their own. Then they lifted their hands to their own. Then they lifted their hands to their chest and said, ‘noji,’ or ‘friend.’”
30 November, 2012
The above article is a response to Subhankar Banerjee’s “80 Yanomami People Massacred as Shell Gets Artric Drilling Permit” in the JUST Commentary October 2012.
A COMMENT
ON THE
DIAOYU DISPUTE
By Motoko Shuto The following is my comment on “THE CHINA JAPAN DISPUTE OVER DIAOYU: LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL!” by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar in JUST Commentary, October 2012.
I thank Dr. Chandra Muzaffar for giving me this opportunity to send my comments below pertaining to his article. First, though it says that “There are books, reports and maps from the 15th century, during the period of the Ming Dynasty, that establish in no uncertain terms that Diaoyu is Chinese territory”, this is simply untrue. In reality, in the old Chinese documents during the Ming dynasty, the Senkakus, which had been uninhabited, were mentioned as they
were visible from the sea during voyages to the Ryukyu Kingdom. Nothing more, nothing less. No documents have been found to prove that the islands were under Chinese administration during any period.
On the contrary, the official maps during the Ming Dynasty clearly
mentioned that the “Diaoyu” was outside the Ming‘s Defense Line. For instance, if you access the map of the East China Sea which was made in 1562 found at http://sphotosd.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/ 576443_103570713134979_1739804879_n.jpg, you will find that the “Diaoyu” was outside the Defense Line far from Fujian Province. (In the map The red line is the defense line, 190 Ri, approximately 100 km, from the coast-line. The red-line in the map was drawn by a scholar. The Senkakus are 330 km away from the coast-line, far beyond the defense line.) The “defense line” was recognized, but the “boundary” was not recognized during this era. It is primarily because under the continued next page
10 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 9
traditional Chinese world order there was no such concept as “boundary”. It was a hierarchical world order spreading endlessly, and there were no concepts such as “internal” or “external” affairs. The latter was an extension of the former boundlessly. Thus, there was no such concept as “boundary” which originated from the European modern state system. The Chinese Government simply hides this fact and they are telling lies to the nation and to the international community, claiming that the Senkakus are “historically Chinese territory”. Second, the annexation took almost 10 years and it was based on the doctrine of terra nullius, not “through military force”. The Government of Japan in the early Meiji era examined the past history related to the Senkakus since 1885 upon a request of a Mr. Koga, a private business person. He was from Fukuoka in Kyushu and had opened a marine product-processing business on Ishigaki Island. After having explored the Senkakus with his friends, he requested permission from the government to open a marine product- processing factory on the Senkakus in 1884. This was 10 years before the Sino-Japan War broke out. Ten years after the request, the government concluded that the islands had never been governed by any states earlier and based on the terra nullius doctrine of international law incorporated the Senkakus into Okinawa prefecture on 14 January 1895. This was two months before the peace treaty initiated on March 20 in Shimonoseki. Under the Shimonoseki Treaty, Taiwan and the Penghu islands, located west of Taiwan, were ceded to Japan by the Qing dynasty. But the Senkakus were not part of this treaty. It was in late 2000 that I first heard a Chinese General mention at a symposium in Singapore that Japan has not returned what she had
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
obtained by the Shimonoseki Treaty. Shortly after that, China began to disseminate this misleading interpretation through the state media and recently international media. They have been aggressively expanding lobbying campaigns through a firm called Patton Boggs, paying USD35,000 per month, and have been utilizing diplomatic channels all over the world. This is Chinese propaganda, however. In reality, since it was annexed to Okinawa prefecture, there used to be a village with a peak population of 90 Japanese households on the Senkaku islands, They lived there until the late 1930s when it became difficult to get oil for their fishing boats. During and after WW II, the Senkakus were not mentioned as the areas that Japan should agree to abandon in neither the Cairo or Potsdam Declarations nor the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Though the article says that “Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration acknowledged this (that Diaoyu was Chinese territory)”, it is untrue because in the two declarations it was Taiwan and the Penghu islands that were mentioned. Actually, the People’s Daily of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used to recognize that the Senkaku Islands were part of Okinawa prefecture throughout the 1950s and 1960s. For instance, an article in the People’s Daily dated January 8, 1953 said that “the Senkaku Islands were part of the Ryukyu Islands”. Also the official maps published by the Chinese government in 1953, 1958,1960 and 1967 showed that the “Senkaku Islands”, using this name, were part of the Okinawa islands. Maps and school text books published in the Republic of China (Taiwan) as well, used to note that the Senkakus were part of Okinawa during the 1950s and 1960s. Some maps and newspapers are available on the Internet. It was since 1971 that the PRC and Taiwan suddenly changed their
A R T I C L E S attitude and began to claim that the islands were traditionally Chinese territory. It was after the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) announced in its survey report that there was potential oil/ LNG resources in the East China Sea. First Taiwan claimed territorial rights and the Senkakus were put within their boundary in post 1971 textbooks. Soon afterwards, the PRC began to claim territorial rights, perhaps by the logic that the Senkakus are part of Taiwan, and since Taiwan is part of China, thus the Senkakus are Chinese territory.
It was Prime Minister Chou Enlai who said in 1972 that “Because of oil it has become an issue. If there’s no oil, Taiwan and the United States would not make it an issue either”, when Prime Minister Tanaka asked him about his opinion on the Senkakus when he visited Beijing to negotiate diplomatic normalization with the PRC. They did not discuss it any further at the meeting according to the diplomatic record. In later negotiations, it is widely said that they tacitly agreed that they would leave the solution of the Senkakus to the wisdom of a future generation and keep the current status quo. Actually it is not clear whether this was really a point of agreement or part of the media’s interpretation, because as far as the diplomatic documents are concerned it is not recorded. Third, after the diplomatic normalization between China and Japan, in 1992 China unilaterally enacted the Law on Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in which the continued next page
11 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 10 South China Sea and the East China Sea are all included as Chinese territorial seas. At the same time, in order to avoid the path of the Communist Party of the USSR, the CCP switched its legitimizing strategy from ideology to patriotism since the early 1990s to stress that it was the CCP that had fought against Japanese fascism to save the nation. In this context they have taught that the “Diaoyu is Chinese territory” through public education and the media at large in China. Those young generations have enormously increased in number and they are pushing the government to take much tougher action against “Fascist Little Japan”. In response to such gross public mood which is, in itself, a product of state policy through “patriotic education”, China seems to have crossed the rubicon over the Senkaku issue. What is the true purpose? Are the Senkakus the ultimate goal or a step towards the goal of their strategy? Now, China claims the islands are “part of Chinese territory historically”, but there are two points: First, which claim is more convincing, “a discovery” mentioned in the old documents with no history of administration or annexation based on the doctrine of terra nullis which was immediately followed by the local administration of Okinawa prefecture for decades? Second, based on what criteria can the state claim its “historical rights of territory”? If it were based on the widest geographical stretch of old empires, China could insist on the widest stretch of its sphere of influence under the Ming or Qing dynasties, although Tibet was not yet part of their territory during the medieval times. If so, then, other former empires during medieval times could also justifiably claim its widest territorial rights as “its own historical property”. In this sense, it is a conceptual clash of “state boundary” between the Western sovereign state system and the old
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
Chinese world order system that we are witnessing now in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. However, in the case of the East China Sea, there is a point well beyond that. Clearly by the same logic, their territorial claims do not stop at the Senkakus but the next target is Okinawa. China is already active in expanding campaigns that Okinawa should not be part of Japan. The purpose of their strategy is first, to gain oil and other marine resources in the East China Sea, and second, to bring the First Island Chain under Chinese control through her navy and air forces. This strategy inevitably confronts US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Although on 10 September 2012 with regard to the purchase of the islands by the Japanese government the Chinese government announced that “This constitutes a gross violation of China’s sovereignty”, obviously they had realized that there existed a person (family) who had property rights over the Senkakus and tried to purchase the islands from him. Because of this, the land-owner consulted with former Tokyo Governor Ishihara, their old friend, to consider the purchase by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Governor Ishihara responded positively and started to collect funds to purchase the islands, which eventually reached more than JPY1.4 billion. The government of Japan was worried about possible provocative actions if such purchase was actualized. Thus, in a hurry, the government decided to put the
A R T I C L E S Senkakus under the control of the government to keep the status quo. They had consulted with Beijing in advance, needless to say, and got tacit approval from the CPP with three conditions at least up to early August, it is said. Immediately after the purchase announcement, however, massive demonstrations continued for weeks against Japan as well as Japanese shops and factories in China, as we have seen, causing major damage. What is worse is that China grossly curtailed major trade relations, began to exclude Japan from trade meetings and exhibitions in China, cancelled cultural exchange visits, and even ordered the removal of all Japanese books from bookstores. At Beijing customs, all Japanese newspapers that have arrived at the airport were confiscated. China has gravely and unjustly injured Japanese factories and shops in China by mobilizing such massive numbers of people to participate in the demonstrations. It was nothing but de facto state-organized terror against Japan. It is China that is intimidating Japan’s sovereignty by constantly sending the government’s vessels near the Senkakus and trying to change the status quo by force, refusing diplomatic talks. It is China that has taken unilateral actions in breach of its obligations under the UN Charter, the WTO and other international agreements. China is not an enemy of Japan, having established heavily interdependent relations at the bilateral and regional levels. However, China is a threat in the sense that unpredictable incidents can happen at the whims and fancies of the CCP leaders.
4 November, 2012 Dr. Mokoto Shuto is a professor at the University of Tsukuba, Japan. She is also a JUST member.
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$