May 2011
Vol 11, No. 5
THE COLLAPSE OF THE OLD OIL ORDER By Michael T. Klare
W
hatever the outcome of the protests, uprisings, and rebellions now sweeping the Middle East, one thing is guaranteed: the world of oil will be permanently transformed. Consider everything that’s now happening as just the first tremor of an oilquake that will shake our world to its core. For a century stretching back to the discovery of oil in southwestern Persia before World War I, Western powers have repeatedly intervened in the Middle East to ensure the survival of authoritarian governments devoted to producing petroleum. Without such interventions, the expansion of Western economies after World War II and the current affluence of industrialized societies would be inconceivable. Here, however, is the news that should be on the front pages of newspapers everywhere: That the old oil order is dying, and with its demise we will see the end of cheap and readily accessible petroleum — forever. ENDING THE PETROLEUM AGE
Let’s try to take the measure of what exactly is at risk in the current tumult. As a start, there is almost no way to
give full justice to the critical role played by Middle Eastern oil in the world’s energy equation. Although cheap coal fueled the original Industrial Revolution, powering railroads, steamships, and factories, cheap oil
has made possible the automobile, the aviation industry, suburbia, mechanized agriculture, and an explosion of economic globalization. And while a handful of major oil-producing areas launched the Petroleum Age — the United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Romania, the area around Baku (in what was then the Czarist Russian empire), and the Dutch East Indies — it’s been the Middle East that has quenched the world’s thirst for oil since World War II.
ARTICLES
STATEMENT POSADA : PROTECTING
In 2009, the most recent year for which such data is available, BP reported that suppliers in the Middle East and North Africa jointly produced 29 million barrels per day, or 36% of the world’s total oil supply — and even this doesn’t begin to suggest the region’s importance to the petroleum economy. More than any other area, the Middle East has funneled its production into export markets to satisfy the energy cravings of oilimporting powers like the United States, China, Japan, and the European Union (EU). We’re talking 20 million barrels funneled into export markets every day. Compare that to Russia, the world’s top individual producer, at seven million barrels in exportable oil, the continent of Africa at six million, and South America at a mere one million. As it happens, Middle Eastern producers will be even more important in the years to come because they possess an estimated two-thirds of remaining untapped petroleum reserves. According to recent projections by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Middle East and North Africa will jointly Turn to next page
A
TERRORIST....
th
On the 8 of April 2011, a Court in El Paso, Texas acquitted
.U.S. SECRETLY BACKED SYRIAN OPPOSITION GROUP.............................................................P 6
the notorious terrorist................................... Page 4
.WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE ARAB
ARTICLES
UPRISING? ......................................................P 8
.THE SPRATLY SITUATION
IN THE
SOUTH
CHINA SEA ....................................................P 4
.STAYING HUMAN : THE HEROIC LEGACY
OF
VITTORIO ARRIGONI .......................................P 10
2 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 1
provide approximately 43% of the world’s crude petroleum supply by 2035 (up from 37% in 2007), and will produce an even greater share of the world’s exportable oil. To put the matter baldly: The world economy requires an increasing supply of affordable petroleum. The Middle East alone can provide that supply. That’s why Western governments have long supported “stable” authoritarian regimes throughout the region, regularly supplying and training their security forces. Now, this stultifying, petrified order, whose greatest success was producing oil for the world economy, is disintegrating. Don’t count on any new order (or disorder) to deliver enough cheap oil to preserve the Petroleum Age. To appreciate why this will be so, a little history lesson is in order. THE IRANIAN COUP
After the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) discovered oil in Iran (then known as Persia) in 1908, the British government sought to exercise imperial control over the Persian state. A chief architect of this drive was First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill. Having ordered the conversion of British warships from coal to oil before World War I and determined to put a significant source of oil under London’s control, Churchill orchestrated the nationalization of APOC in 1914. On the eve of World War II, then-Prime Minister Churchill oversaw the removal of Persia’s pro-German ruler, Shah Reza Pahlavi, and the ascendancy of his 21-year-old son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Though prone to extolling his (mythical) ties to past Persian empires, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was a willing tool of the British. His subjects, however, proved ever less willing to tolerate subservience to imperial overlords in London. In 1951, democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq won parliamentary support for the
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
nationalization of APOC, by then renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The move was wildly popular in Iran but caused panic in London. In 1953, to save this great prize, British leaders infamously conspired with President Dwight Eisenhower‘s administration in Washington and the CIA to engineer a coup d’état that deposed Mossadeq and brought Shah Pahlavi back from exile in Rome, a story recently told with great panache by Stephen Kinzer in All the Shah’s Men. Until he was overthrown in 1979, the Shah exercised ruthless and dictatorial control over Iranian society, thanks in part to lavish U.S. military and police assistance. First he crushed the secular left, the allies of Mossadeq, and then the religious opposition, headed from exile by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Given their brutal exposure to police and prison gear supplied by the United States, the Shah’s opponents came to loathe his monarchy and Washington in equal measure. In 1979, of course, the Iranian people took to the streets, the Shah was overthrown, and Ayatollah Khomeini came to power. Much can be learned from these events that led to the current impasse in U.S.-Iranian relations. The key point to grasp, however, is that Iranian oil production never recovered from the revolution of 1979-1980. Between 1973 and 1979, Iran had achieved an output of nearly six million barrels of oil per day, one of the highest in the world. After the revolution, AIOC (rechristened British Petroleum, or later simply BP) was nationalized for a second time, and Iranian managers again took over the company’s operations. To punish Iran’s new leaders, Washington imposed tough trade sanctions, hindering the state oil company’s efforts to obtain foreign technology and assistance. Iranian output plunged to two million barrels per day and, even three decades later, has made it back to only slightly more than four million barrels per day, even though the country possesses the
L E A D A R T I C L E world’s second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. DREAMS OF THE INVADER
Iraq followed an eerily similar trajectory. Under Saddam Hussein, the state-owned Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) produced up to 2.8 million barrels per day until 1991, when the First Gulf War with the United States and ensuing sanctions dropped output to half a million barrels daily. Though by 2001 production had again risen to almost 2.5 million barrels per day, it never reached earlier heights. As the Pentagon geared up for an invasion of Iraq in late 2002, however, Bush administration insiders and wellconnected Iraqi expatriates spoke dreamily of a coming golden age in which foreign oil companies would be invited back into the country, the national oil company would be privatized, and production would reach never before seen levels. Who can forget the effort the Bush administration and its officials in Baghdad put into making their dream come true? After all, the first American soldiers to reach the Iraqi capital secured the Oil Ministry building, even as they allowed Iraqi looters free rein in the rest of the city. L. Paul Bremer III, the proconsul later chosen by President Bush to oversee the establishment of a new Iraq, brought in a team of American oil executives to supervise the privatization of the country’s oil industry, while the U.S. Department of Energy confidently predicted in May 2003 that Iraqi production would rise to 3.4 million barrels per day in 2005, 4.1 million barrels by 2010, and 5.6 million by 2020. None of this, of course, came to pass. For many ordinary Iraqis, the U.S. decision to immediately head for the Oil Ministry building was an instantaneous turning point that transformed possible support for the overthrow of a tyrant into anger and hostility. Bremer’s drive to privatize the state oil company similarly produced continued next page
3 I N T E R N AT I O N A L M O V E M E N T
continued from page 2
a fierce nationalist backlash among Iraqi oil engineers, who essentially scuttled the plan. Soon enough, a fullscale Sunni insurgency broke out. Oil output quickly fell, averaging only 2.0 million barrels daily between 2003 and 2009. By 2010, it had finally inched back up to the 2.5 million barrel mark — a far cry from those dreamed of 4.1 million barrels. One conclusion isn’t hard to draw: Efforts by outsiders to control the political order in the Middle East for the sake of higher oil output will inevitably generate countervailing pressures that result in diminished production. The United States and other powers watching the uprisings, rebellions, and protests blazing through the Middle East should be wary indeed: whatever their political or religious desires, local populations always turn out to harbor a fierce, passionate hostility to foreign domination and, in a crunch, will choose independence and the possibility of freedom over increased oil output. The experiences of Iran and Iraq may not in the usual sense be comparable to those of Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Oman, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen. However, all of them (and other countries likely to get swept up into the tumult) exhibit some elements of the same authoritarian political mold and all are connected to the old oil order. Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Oman, and Sudan are oil producers; Egypt and Jordan guard vital oil pipelines and, in Egypt’s case, a crucial canal for the transport of oil; Bahrain and Yemen as well as Oman occupy strategic points along major oil sealanes. All have received substantial U.S. military aid and/or housed important U.S. military bases. And, in all of these countries, the chant is the same: “The people want the regime to fall.” Two of these regimes have already fallen, three are tottering, and others are at risk. The impact on global oil
FOR A JUST WORLD
prices has been swift and merciless: on February 24th, the delivery price for North Brent crude, an industry benchmark, nearly reached $115 per barrel, the highest it’s been since the global economic meltdown of October 2008. West Texas Intermediate, another benchmark crude, briefly and ominously crossed the $100 threshold. WHY THE SAUDIS ARE THE KEYS
So far, the most important Middle Eastern producer of all, Saudi Arabia, has not exhibited obvious signs of vulnerability, or prices would have soared even higher. However, the royal house of neighboring Bahrain is already in deep trouble; tens of thousands of protesters — more than 20% of its half million people — have repeatedly taken to the streets, despite the threat of live fire, in a movement for the abolition of the autocratic government of King Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa, and its replacement with genuine democratic rule. These developments are especially worrisome to the Saudi leadership as the drive for change in Bahrain is being directed by that country’s long-abused Shiite population against an entrenched Sunni ruling elite. Saudi Arabia also contains a large, though not — as in Bahrain — a majority Shiite population that has also suffered discrimination from Sunni rulers. There is anxiety in Riyadh that the explosion in Bahrain could spill into the adjacent oil-rich Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia — the one area of the kingdom where Shiites do form the majority — producing a major challenge to the regime. Partly to forestall any youth rebellion, 87-year-old King Abdullah has just promised $10 billion in grants, part of a $36 billion package of changes, to help young Saudi citizens get married and obtain homes and apartments. Even if rebellion doesn’t reach Saudi Arabia, the old Middle Eastern oil order cannot be reconstructed. The result is sure to be a long-term decline in the future availability of exportable petroleum.
L E A D A R T I C L E Three-quarters of the 1.7 million barrels of oil Libya produces daily were quickly taken off the market as turmoil spread in that country. Much of it may remain off-line and out of the market for the indefinite future. Egypt and Tunisia can be expected to restore production, modest in both countries, to pre-rebellion levels soon, but are unlikely to embrace the sorts of major joint ventures with foreign firms that might boost production while diluting local control. Iraq, whose largest oil refinery was badly damaged by insurgents only last week, and Iran exhibit no signs of being able to boost production significantly in the years ahead. The critical player is Saudi Arabia, which just increased production to compensate for Libyan losses on the global market. But don’t expect this pattern to hold forever. Assuming the royal family survives the current round of upheavals, it will undoubtedly have to divert more of its daily oil output to satisfy rising domestic consumption levels and fuel local petrochemical industries that could provide a fastgrowing, restive population with better-paying jobs. From 2005 to 2009, Saudis used about 2.3 million barrels daily, leaving about 8.3 million barrels for export. Only if Saudi Arabia continues to provide at least this much oil to international markets could the world even meet its anticipated low-end oil needs. This is not likely to occur. The Saudi royals have expressed reluctance to raise output much above 10 million barrels per day, fearing damage to their remaining fields and so a decline in future income for their many progeny. At the same time, rising domestic demand is expected to consume an ever-increasing share of Saudi Arabia’s net output. In April 2010, the chief executive officer of state-owned Saudi Aramco, Khalid alFalih, predicted that domestic consumption could reach a staggering 8.3 million barrels per day by 2028, leaving only a few million barrels for continued next page
4 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 3 export and ensuring that, if the world can’t switch to other energy sources, there will be petroleum starvation. In other words, if one traces a reasonable trajectory from current developments in the Middle East, the handwriting is already on the wall. Since no other area is capable of replacing the Middle East as the world’s premier oil exporter, the oil economy
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
will shrivel — and with it, the global economy as a whole. Consider the recent rise in the price of oil just a faint and early tremor heralding the oilquake to come. Oil won’t disappear from international markets, but in the coming decades it will never reach the volumes needed to satisfy projected world demand, which means that, sooner rather than later, scarcity will become the
S T A T E M E N T dominant market condition. Only the rapid development of alternative sources of energy and a dramatic reduction in oil consumption might spare the world the most severe economic repercussions. 3 March, 2011 Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet. Source: Countercurrents.org
STATEMENT POSADA : PROTECTING th
On the 8 of April 2011, a Court in El Paso, Texas acquitted the notorious terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, of 11 charges of perjury, fraud and obstruction. By freeing him of all charges, the US authorities proved yet again that they are extremely protective of Posada. Who is Posada? Posada was the mastermind behind the explosion in midair of a Cuban airliner over Barbados in 1976. The explosion killed 73 persons including children. Posada was detained in Venezuela but with the help of the CIA escaped from prison. He was then involved in a ‘drugs for weapons’ operation from the Ilopango airbase in El Salvador. In 1997 he was the principal agent behind a series of bombing incidents, manipulated by the CIA, that targeted tourist facilities in Cuba. He was also actively involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the then Cuban President, Fidel Castro, during a summit in Panama
A
TERRORIST
in 2000. Consequently, he was arrested and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment in Panama for terrorism. But he was pardoned and released in 2004 by the former President of Panama, Moscoso, obviously as a result of pressure from the Cuban-American mafia in the US and their protectors in Miami and Washington. It is a damning indictment on the judicial and political system of the US that a man who has made a career of stark naked terrorism should be accorded so much protection by the authorities. It underscores the double standards and hypocrisy that inform the so-called US fight against terrorism. When it suits its narrow interests it is ever ready to work hand-in –glove with terrorists. The US’s complicity with Posada is also a reflection of the country’s animosity and antagonism towards its tiny, little neighbour, Cuba. For more than 50 years,
Cuba has been on the radar screen of the US. The latter has imposed severe economic sanctions upon Cuba since 1961. It has sabotaged its economy; subverted its political system. The US elite just cannot tolerate a neighbour— even if it is a militarily weak and vulnerable neighbour— that is determined to shape its own destiny and chart its own future. The US elite can begin to change its negative attitude towards Cuba by acceding to the request of the present Venezuelan government made more than 5 years ago to extradite Posada to Venezuela to enable authorities in that country to mete out justice to him— on behalf of the 73 human beings killed in the airline explosion of 1976. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President, International Movement for a Just World (JUST). 17 April 2011
ARTICLES THE SPRATLY SITUATION
IN THE
SOUTH CHINA SEA
By Arujunan Narayanan When the Cold War ended in 1989, many international relations experts opined that the Spratly archipelago in South China Sea will be a potential flashpoint as China (also Taiwan), Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei were having conflicting claims of territories. Francis Fukuyama, a well known
International Relations scholar, came up with the thesis that the end of history has come with the ultimate success of liberal democracy and states that do not embrace liberal economy will not progress. War as an instrument of policy was relegated to a lesser position compared to economic growth that comes
with trade and commerce. Many International Relations experts said that the battle amongst states has shifted from theatres of war to markets. As a state that stakes a claim to the whole of the Spratly archipelago, China’s position will have important implications continued next page
5 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 4 for East Asia’s stability. Within the last twenty years, by embracing some aspects of capitalism, China has emerged as the second largest economic power in the world and is poised to replace the US in the top position. It is also a major military power in the region and has the potential to become a superpower in line with its global economic dominance. In relation to the Spratly islands, China has announced that the Spratly archipelago is its sovereign territory. It even claims the whole of the South China Sea as Chinese territory based on its ninedotted-line claim which encroaches into the territories claimed by other coastal states. The first announcement about its sovereignty over the islands was in 1955 following the Peace Treaty that officially ended the Second World War in the Far East. Since then, there has been no change in China’s position in relation to the archipelago. It used force in the archipelago against Vietnam in 1979 and in 1988. Following the end of the Cold War in 1989, China realized that the Spratly issue will be an obstacle to its modernization programme and relegated it to the next generation to foster cordial bilateral relations with the ASEAN states. Although at one time, China was unwilling to even discuss the problem with any other claimant state, she later adopted a policy of dealing bilaterally with states that have claims in the Spratly archipelago. On realizing that the policy was not well received by the ASEAN states and it was not in its interest, China decided to deal with ASEAN as a whole. A Joint Statement issued after the Meeting of Heads of States/Governments of the Member States of ASEAN and the President of the People’s Republic of China, Kuala Lumpur, on 16th December 1997, noted that China will follow its five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in its relations with ASEAN states amongst which is the peaceful settlement of disputes. While the Joint-Statement covers the overall economic prosperity and the security of the region, its Point No. 8 specifically addressed the issue by providing for the exercise of self-restraint
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
to promote peaceful resolution of the problem by encouraging friendly relations, cooperation and development amongst the competing states as well as promoting peace and the stability of the region. This was followed by the Declaration on the Conduct (DOC) of Parties in the South China Sea between ASEAN and China on 4th November, 2002, in Phnom Penh. Points 5 and 6 of the DOC provided for the promotion of peace in the disputed area pending peaceful settlement by juridical means. Point No. 5 provides for promotion of trust and confidence amongst the parties by exercising self-restraint in conducting their activities in the disputed area by not occupying uninhabited geographical features, involving in dialogues and exchange of views between defence and military officers, humane treatment of persons in danger or distress, notifying each other of their military exercises and exchanging information. Exploring cooperative activities which include marine environment protection, marine scientific research, safety of navigation and communication at sea, search and rescue operation; and combating transnational crime, including but not limiting to trafficking in illicit drugs, piracy and armed robbery at sea and illegal traffic in arms are addressed in Point No. 6. The non-binding nature of the DOC appears to be conducive to the temporary management and maintenance of peace in the Spratly archipelago. That may also be in line with the ASEAN way of handling the issue and in the interest of China as well. For a complex issue like the Spratlys, there should be a more binding code of conduct that calls for more commitment towards resolution. The non-binding nature of the DOC provides the parties a way to manage the problem while giving some breathing space to find an acceptable solution in future. All the smaller contestants were looking upon the magnanimity of the Chinese dragon to find a lasting position among the islands in the Spratly archipelago. On the other hand, China
A R T I C L E S was eyeing total control of the potential oil and other marine resources in the archipelago that will help much towards its emergence as the number one economic power as well as a credible military power in world politics. The statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Hanoi ASEAN Regional Forum in July, 2010 that the US has ‘strategic interest’ in the South China Sea and it could play a role in solving the dispute, has angered China as that will be a challenge to her sovereignty claim in the Spratly archipelago. President Obama’s meeting with ASEAN leaders on 22nd September, 2010 in New York during which the Spratly dispute was discussed would have added further salt to the injury, especially when China has declared that the South China Sea and the territories within the water are her sovereign territory of core interest that cannot be compromised. Following the US announcement of its interest in the Spratly issue, China seems to be prepared to relook the DOC for one that is more binding. Whether that will become a reality will be an important issue of China’s domestic politics. Military history shows that nations have gone to war when core interests were challenged, especially in their sovereign territories. Whether China will use force to resolve the Spratly issue is a concern of not only those states that have conflicting claims in the archipelago but also those have national interests in East Asia. It is important to see the Spratly conflict from the perspective of the emerging US-PRC rivalry in East Asia. China is fast rising as an important economic and military power, fast exerting its influence amongst the states in Southeast Asia. The US has realised that if it continues to remain aloof and less committed in East Asia, China will become more dominant and hegemonic and that will have negative implications for US interests in the region. Hence there is a need for the US to return to East Asia and to use the Spratly issue as a smokescreen to counter China’s influence in the region, especially amongst the ASEAN states. continued next page
6 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 5 Given that major powers always compete in influencing states to win support, the US and China are trying their best to win over the Southeast Asian states. Most important is whether the USPRC rivalry will destablise the region. Currently both powers, despite the irritants, enjoy cordial bilateral relations, especially in trade. Both benefit from the sizeable markets of each other. The US also needs China to pacify North Korea while fearing that China, North Korea and Russia may form an alliance that may be detrimental to the US interests in the Northeast as well as Central Asia. An antagonized China will become a thorn in the flesh, especially when the US is still bogged down in Afghanistan, entangled in Iraq and sees a threat from ‘nuclear’ Iran. Similarly China too is not in a position to antagonize the US as it is no match to the US military might and any military conflict with the US will only be harmful to its national aspirations of becoming a dominant actor in international politics. Currently, all ASEAN states enjoy good economic relations with China, including those having conflicting claims in the Spratly archipelago. China’s economic dominance is evident in the neighbouring states, especially in Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei are also benefitting economically from China. China’s economic and military power might cause anxiety amongst the ASEAN states, especially those with overlapping claims in the Spratly archipelago. They have to balance their relationship between the two great powers; but given the history of the region they may choose
FOR
A
JUST
A R T I C L E S
WORLD
to bandwagon with the US. Besides, any conflict in the Spratly archipelago will also not be in the interest of the ASEAN Dialogue partners, such as the European Union, India, Australia, Japan and others that may wish to see a peaceful East Asia that will benefit them economically. Malaysia has to handle the US-PRC rivalry with much caution, diplomatic skills and wisdom. There are five elements of its national interest involved here. China is a very important trade partner, an influential regional military power and a rising economic giant with much clout in the region, especially amongst the ASEAN states. If Malaysia aligns more towards the US, then it will antagonize China to the detriment of bilateral relations. With regard to the US, it is also a major trade partner, an important military power with long cordial bilateral defence relations and a likely ‘ally’ at times of crisis as it proved during the 1963-1965 Confrontation with Indonesia and assisting Malaysia against communism after the fall of Saigon in 1975 . Malaysia must also take into consideration the importance of ASEAN as a regional organization when viewing the situation. Hence, it has to be careful that its response to the US-PRC rivalry and the Spratly problem does not harm ASEAN’s position as a regional intergovernmental organization committed to promote peace and stability in the region. Malaysia must also determine how it is going to manage its diplomatic relations especially with those ASEAN states having conflicting claims in the Spratly archipelago. As the ultimate objective of a state is to promote its national interest and protect its sovereign rights, each may adopt different positions in responding to the US-PRC rivalry and the
Spratly issue. Finally, Malaysia has to exercise its diplomatic skills to protect and promote her sovereign rights in a milieu of emerging US-PRC rivalry and the complexity of the Spratly problem. There are enough peace-promoting mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific Region, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, East Asian Summit, ASEAN Plus 3, ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and others that can help to mitigate the negative impact of US-PRC rivalry on the region. Given that US-PRC relations are of mutual benefit, that ASEAN countries gain from both powers, and a peaceful East Asia is a prerequisite for the economic growth of all the states in the region as well as for extra-regional powers, there is little probability of the Spratly dispute escalating. The territorial dispute in the Spratly archipelago needs peaceful settlement using the mechanisms available in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. The aim of the United Nations Charter is to promote international cooperation to achieve international peace and security for humanity. The decision to resolve the Spratly dispute by peace or war is a choice for the sovereign states involved in the dispute but it is important for that decision to be tempered by the wisdom derived from the lessons of military history which show that while war brings chaos and destruction peace brings progress and prosperity. Dr Arujunan Narayanan is a member of the JUST Executive Committee. The above article was first published in MIMA Bulletin Vol. 18(1) 2011.
U.S. SECRETLY BACKED SYRIAN OPPOSITION GROUPS By Craig Whitlock T he State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams antigovernment programming into the country, according to previously
undisclosed diplomatic cables. The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign
to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad. Human rights groups say scores of people have been killed by Assad’s security forces since the demonstrations began March 18; continued next page
7 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 6 Syria has blamed the violence on “armed gangs.” Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria. The channel is named after the Barada River, which courses through the heart of Damascus, the Syrian capital. The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years. The cables, provided by the antisecrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs. Some embassy officials suggested that the State Department reconsider its involvement, arguing that it could put the Obama administration’s rapprochement with Damascus at risk. Syrian authorities “would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,” read an April 2009 cable signed by the topranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time. “A reassessment of current U.S.sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive,” the cable said. It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010. While some of that money has also supported programs and dissidents inside Syria, The Washington Post is withholding certain
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
names and program details at the request of the State Department, which said disclosure could endanger the recipients’ personal safety. Syria, a police state, has been ruled by Assad since 2000, when he took power after his father’s death. Although the White House has condemned the killing of protesters in Syria, it has not explicitly called for his ouster. The State Department declined to comment on the authenticity of the cables or answer questions about its funding of Barada TV. Tamara Wittes, a deputy assistant secretary of state who oversees the democracy and human rights portfolio in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, said the State Department does not endorse political parties or movements. “We back a set of principles,” she said. “There are a lot of organizations in Syria and other countries that are seeking changes from their government. That’s an agenda that we believe in and we’re going to support.” The State Department often funds programs around the world that promote democratic ideals and human rights, but it usually draws the line at giving money to political opposition groups. In February 2006, when relations with Damascus were at a nadir, the Bush administration announced that it would award $5 million in grants to “accelerate the work of reformers in Syria.” But no dissidents inside Syria were willing to take the money, for fear it would lead to their arrest or execution for treason, according to a 2006 cable from the U.S. Embassy, which reported that “no bona fide opposition member will be courageous enough to accept funding.” Around the same time, Syrian exiles in Europe founded the Movement for Justice and Development. The group, which is banned in Syria, openly advocates for Assad’s removal. U.S. cables describe its leaders as “liberal, moderate Islamists” who are former members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Barada TV It is unclear when the group began to receive U.S. funds, but cables show
A R T I C L E S U.S. officials in 2007 raised the idea of helping to start an anti-Assad satellite channel. People involved with the group and with Barada TV, however, would not acknowledge taking money from the U.S. government. “I’m not aware of anything like that,” Malik al-Abdeh, Barada TV’s news director, said in a brief telephone interview from London. Abdeh said the channel receives money from “independent Syrian businessmen” whom he declined to name. He also said there was no connection between Barada TV and the Movement for Justice and Development, although he confirmed that he serves on the political group’s board. The board is chaired by his brother, Anas. “If your purpose is to smear Barada TV, I don’t want to continue this conversation,” Malik al-Abdeh said. “That’s all I’m going to give you.” Other dissidents said that Barada TV has a growing audience in Syria but that its viewer share is tiny compared with other independent satellite news channels such as al-Jazeera and BBC Arabic. Although Barada TV broadcasts 24 hours a day, many of its programs are reruns. Some of the mainstay shows are “Towards Change,” a panel discussion about current events, and “First Step,” a program produced by a Syrian dissident group based in the United States. Ausama Monajed, another Syrian exile in London, said he used to work as a producer for Barada TV and as media relations director for the Movement for Justice and Development but has not been “active” in either job for about a year. He said he now devotes all his energy to the Syrian revolutionary movement, distributing videos and protest updates to journalists. He said he “could not confirm” any U.S. government support for the satellite channel, because he was not involved with its finances. “I didn’t receive a penny myself,” he said. Several U.S. diplomatic cables from the embassy in Damascus reveal that the continued next page
8 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 7 Syrian exiles received money from a State Department program called the Middle East Partnership Initiative. According to the cables, the State Department funneled money to the exile group via the Democracy Council, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit. According to its Web site, the council sponsors projects in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America to promote the “fundamental elements of stable societies.” The council’s founder and president, James Prince, is a former congressional staff member and investment adviser for Price Waterhouse Coopers. Reached by telephone, Prince acknowledged that the council administers a grant from the Middle East Partnership Initiative but said that it was not “Syria-specific.” Prince said he was “familiar with” Barada TV and the Syrian exile group in London, but he declined to comment further, saying he did not have approval from his board of directors. “We don’t really talk about anything like that,” he said. The April 2009 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Damascus states that the Democracy Council received $6.3 million from the State Department to run a Syriarelated program called the “Civil Society Strengthening Initiative.” That program is described as “a discrete collaborative effort between the Democracy Council and local partners” to produce, among
WHAT
IS
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
other things, “various broadcast concepts.” Other cables make clear that one of those concepts was Barada TV. U.S. allocations Edgar Vasquez, a State Department spokesman, said the Middle East Partnership Initiative has allocated $7.5 million for Syrian programs since 2005. A cable from the embassy in Damascus, however, pegged a much higher total — about $12 million — between 2005 and 2010.
The cables report persistent fears among U.S. diplomats that Syrian state security agents had uncovered the money trail from Washington. A September 2009 cable reported that Syrian agents had interrogated a number of people about “MEPI operations in particular,” a reference to the Middle East Partnership Initiative. “It is unclear to what extent [Syrian] intelligence services understand how USG money enters Syria and through which proxy organizations,” the cable stated, referring to funding from the U.S.
HAPPENING
TO THE
A R T I C L E S government. “What is clear, however, is that security agents are increasingly focused on this issue.” U.S. diplomats also warned that Syrian agents may have “penetrated” the Movement for Justice and Development by intercepting its communications. A June 2009 cable listed the concerns under the heading “MJD: A Leaky Boat?” It reported that the group was “seeking to expand its base in Syria” but had been “initially lax in its security, often speaking about highly sensitive material on open lines.” The cable cited evidence that the Syrian intelligence service was aware of the connection between the London exile group and the Democracy Council in Los Angeles. As a result, embassy officials fretted that the entire Syria assistance program had been compromised. “Reporting in other channels suggest the Syrian [Mukhabarat] may already have penetrated the MJD and is using the MJD contacts to track U.S. democracy programming,” the cable stated. “If the [Syrian government] does know, but has chosen not to intervene openly, it raises the possibility that the [government] may be mounting a campaign to entrap democracy activists.” 17 April, 2011 Craig Whitlock is a journalist working for The Washington Post since 1998. Source: Countercurrent.org
ARAB UPRISING?
By Chandra Muzaffar The Arab Uprising is no longer what it was. Its complexion is changing. One of the outstanding features of the first phase of the Uprising was its peaceful, non-violent character. The ouster of both the Tunisian dictator, Ben Ali, on 25 January 2011 and the Egyptian autocrat, Hosni Mubarak, on 11 February 2011 was largely peaceful. But the protesters in Libya resorted to arms within a day or two of their uprising in Benghazi on 15 February. It is well known that one of the leading groups in what
has evolved into a full-scale rebellion is a well-armed militia, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) is another militant outfit, some of whose founders were veterans from the struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, that is playing a critical role in the rebellion. It is reportedly linked to Al-Qaeda. In Syria too, right from the outset, militant organisations had infiltrated peaceful demonstrations and fired upon civilians and security forces
alike, killing more than 80 senior military personnel. Some elements in the protest movement in Yemen which at the beginning was peaceful have also begun to resort to violence. INTERFERENCE
The other trend which has tarnished the Arab Uprising is the interference of regional actors in the revolts and rebellions that are occurring in individual states. The most blatant was of course the entry of troops from Saudi Arabia at continued next page
9 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 8 the head of a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) military force into Bahrain on 14 March 2011 to put down a popular uprising supported by the majority Shiite population against the Sunni Bahraini monarch, Shiekh Hamad bin Isa AlKhalifa. The brutal suppression of a peaceful movement for basic human rights and democracy — 52 civilians were massacred — has been a severe setback for the Uprising as a whole. But Saudi officials insist that it is Shiite Iran that is instigating the protest in Bahrain. Turning to another kingdom in the region, Qatar has been giving military and financial assistance to the rebels in Libya. It is alleged that Syrian protesters are being armed and funded by Bandar Sultan of Saudi Arabia and Saad Hariri in Lebanon.
The motives behind interference and manipulation by individuals, groups and states are not difficult to discern. The Saudi-GCC move into Bahrain was to preserve the status quo in Bahrain for fear that democratisation of the Sheikhdom would undermine the Saudi Ruler’s absolute power in his own kingdom especially since there is a restive Shiite minority in his eastern province. Qatar’s role in the Libyan rebellion has nothing to do with democracy since Qatar is an absolute monarchy with the Emir exercising total suzerainty over the Emirate’s oil. By supporting the rebels, Qatar is actually acting at the behest of Western powers that are determined to affect a regime change in Libya. Qatar is after all a close US military ally whose air-base is used by the US for its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Qatar also has commercial ties with Israel. It is
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
partly because they are pursuing the agenda of Western powers and Israel visà-vis Syria that Sultan and Hariri are actively engaged in fomenting unrest in that country. For Hariri in particular it is also a question of hitting back at Syrian President, Bashar Assad, for allegedly manoeuvring him out of office in Beirut.
A R T I C L E S Egypt, the US, working through individuals and groups in various institutions and segments of society, is determined to ensure that its interests and the interests of Israel will be preserved and perpetuated in the emerging democratic scenarios in the two countries.
WESTERN POWERS
INTERESTS
If manipulations and manoeuvres by regional players have impacted adversely upon the Arab Uprising it is largely because they are intertwined— as we have seen— with the interests of certain Western powers. This is the third negative trend that should concern us. It is alleged, for instance, that the NFSL is funded by the CIA and French Intelligence. France, Britain, the US and other Western countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal and Canada have gone beyond imposing a ‘No Fly Zone’ upon Libya to attempting to eliminate Gadaffi physically. His youngest son, Saif alArab, and three grandchildren, killed in a NATO air-strike on 30 April, have become the tragic victims of this diabolical assassination plan. In Syria, evidence has surfaced to show that the US has been financing opposition groups, “including a satellite TV channel beaming anti-regime programmes into the country.” The London- based Barada TV channel which began broadcasting in April 2009 is linked to a London-based network of exiles, the Movement for Justice and Development, which has received as much as US 6 million dollars from the US State Department since 2006. In Yemen, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Algeria, where there is— or there was — unrest in some form or other, Western powers are involved, directly or obliquely, in ensuring that the eventual outcome would be in their favour. As a case in point, in Yemen, the US, it is alleged, is trying very hard to persuade the President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, an ally, to step down and hand over power to a leadership inclined towards the US. The GCC, a grouping that is closely aligned to the US and the West, is helping the US in this scheme. Even in Tunisia and
What are those interests that the US elite and other Western elites are determined to protect at all costs? They are not homogeneous though they revolve around some recurring themes. In the case of Libya, for Europe, more than the US, the desire to control the country’s huge oil and gas reserves is a factor. For the US, which has denied vehemently that it harbours any strategic designs vis-avis Libya, the latter’s critical role in facilitating China’s access to its own oil and gas and the energy resources of other African states is an important consideration. Since access to energy would be sine qua con for China’s ascendancy as a global power, the US which fears this new reality is going all out to control the flow of oil and gas in China’s direction. According to Paul Craig Roberts, a former senior US government official, “China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.” Besides, Gadaffi has, in recent months, intensified his mobilisation of African states to form a sort of United States of Africa which will resist Western exploitation of the continent’s vast natural resources. This would run counter to the Pentagon’s idea of an African Command (Africom) launched in 2007. With Syria, US and other Western elites are unhappy that the Bashar Assad government remains a “resistance state” opposed to the unjust Israeli occupation of Arab lands. Because it has close ties to the Hezbollah in Lebanon which is now in the driver’s seat in Beirut, and is also an ally of the Iranian government — both of which are in the crosshairs of Washington and Tel Aviv — Syria has become a threat to the US and Israeli drive continued next page
10 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 9 for hegemony over the region. Israel and the West would prefer a government in Damascus that would be more accommodative of their dominance. The US’s primary concern in Yemen is to ensure that the strategic port of Eden is under the watchful eye of a reliable ally while it would like to see Bahrain remain in the grip of the Khalifa family mainly because the island is the home of the US fifth fleet. Saudi Arabia is of critical importance to the US and Israel not only because of its mammoth oil reserves but also because it is a huge importer of US weapons. This is why the US is determined to keep the King on his throne. Some of the same considerations— albeit on a lower scale— apply to Qatar and Kuwait. Egypt and Jordan are crucial because both have signed peace treaties with Israel. Oil, Israel, China, geostrategic interests, and weapons are the five reasons why the US and its western allies are hell-bent on shaping the Arab Uprising to fulfil their agenda. This is why there is so much meddling and interference on their part. It explains their military intervention in Libya. Some analysts would argue that the West is staging a “counter –revolution” to the Arab Uprising, with the connivance and collusion of their Arab allies and clients. SUGGESTIONS
How should we respond this challenge? More and more governments and civil society organisations should speak up and make it lucidly clear to the US and its NATO allies, the Gaddafi
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
government and all the opposition groups that there is no military solution in Libya. A ceasefire should be declared at once. It should be observed by everyone under the supervision of international observers. The African Union and Turkish peace plans which have many similarities should be revived with some modifications, and merged. Apart from opening a humanitarian corridor in the country through which aid will be transported to all those in dire need, the emphasis should be upon building institutions for a viable, sustainable democracy. At the same time, the merged peace plan should contain provisions for the departure of Gaddafi and his family. Given the terrible atrocities the dictator has committed against his own people and others over decades— atrocities which now outweigh the good that he has done— there is no other option. One hopes that after the exit of the Gaddafi family and its cronies, a free and fair election in Libya will produce a leadership that is not only honest and accountable but also one that will defend and protect the nation’s sovereignty and independence. It should not be subservient to Western powers or other powers for that matter. In the case of Syria too, the citizens of the world have a role to play. They should demand, in unequivocal language, that the US, Britain, France, Israel, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia stop immediately their machinations and manipulations. It is the people of Syria who will determine the destiny of their nation. The Bashar Assad government
A R T I C L E S for its part should hasten the meaningful reforms it has promised the people in recent weeks. Many of these reforms have not been translated into action. Other laws that are in the offing related to local administration elections, the formation of political parties, and the freedom of the media, should be expedited. Indeed, Bashar should go beyond these reforms and announce publicly that there will be a democratic Presidential Election before the end of this year and he is prepared to defend his presidency in an open contest. At the same time, he should realise that while he has the right as Syria’s legitimate President to act firmly against murderous militias, his security forces should exercise maximum restraint when faced with peaceful, unarmed protesters. The killing of such protesters is totally unacceptable to the human conscience. It is this that provides fodder to Western governments that are so eager to intervene in Syria in pursuit of their own nefarious agenda. These humble suggestions on how we can respond to the challenge posed by a “counter-revolution” engineered by certain Western powers and their Arab allies, especially in the context of Libya and Syria, are being made in the hope that the Arab Uprising can still be saved. If the Arab Uprising can be returned to its pristine ideals, it will emerge once again, as a genuine struggle by a people determined to re-affirm their dignity and their humanity. 3 May, 2011.
STAYING HUMAN : THE HEROIC LEGACY VITTORIO ARRIGONI
OF
By Ramzy Baroud “Dear Mary,” wrote Italian justice activist Vittorio Arrigoni to a friend. “Do you (know who) will be on the boats? I’m still in Gaza, waiting for you. I will be at the boat to greet you. Stay human. Vik.” “Mary” is Mary Hughes Thompson, a dedicated activist who braved the high seas to break the Israeli siege on Gaza in 2008.
Vittorio Arrigoni, or Vik, was reportedly murdered by a fundamentalist group in Gaza, a few hours after he was kidnapped on Thursday, April 14. The killing was supposedly in retaliation for Hamas’ crackdown on this group’s members. All who knew Vik will attest to the fact that he was an extraordinary person, a model of compassion, solidarity
and humanity. Arrigoni’s body was discovered in an abandoned house hours after he was kidnapped. His murderers didn’t honor their own deadline of thirty hours. The group, known as the Tawhid and Jihad, is one of the fringe groups known in Gaza as the Salafis. They resurface under
continued next page
11 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 10 different names and manifestations, for specific – and often bloody - purposes. “The killing prompted grief in Gaza, but also despair,” read an op-ed in the UK Independent on April 16. “Not only was Arrigoni well known and well liked there, but it escaped no one that this kidnapping was the first since that of the BBC journalist Alan Johnson in 2007.” However, Johnson’s kidnappers, the so-called Army of Islam (a small group of fanatics affiliated with a large Gaza clan) held their hostage for 114 days. There was plenty of time to organize and pressure the criminals to release him. In Arrigoni’s case, merely few hours stood between the release of a horrifying video showing a blindfolded and bruised activist, and the finding of his motionless body. The forensic report said that he was strangled. His friends said that he was tortured. Vittorio Arrigoni’s murder was an opportunity for Israel’s supporters. Most notorious amongst them was Daniel Pipes. He wrote, in a brief entry in the National Review Online: “Note the pattern of Palestinians who murder the groupies and apologists who join them to aid in their dream of eliminating Israel.” Pipes named three individuals, including the Palestinian-Israeli filmmaker, Juliano Mer-Khamis, and Arrigoni himself, and then proceeded to invite readers to “send in further examples that I may have missed.” Pipes’ list, however, will have no space for such names as Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall and James Miller, for these individuals were all murdered by Israeli forces. Pipes will also fail to mention the nine Turkish activists murdered aboard the Mavi Marmara ship on its way to break the siege on Gaza in May 2010, and the nine activists abroad Irene (the Jewish Boat to Gaza) who were intercepted, kidnapped and humiliated by Israeli troops before being deported outside the country in September 2010. 82-year-old Reuben Moscowitz, a Holocaust survivor, was one of the activists aboard the Irene, as was Lillian Rosengarten, an American “who fled the
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
Nazis as a child in Frankfurt,” according to a New York Times blog. The people Pipes failed to mention truly represent a rainbow of humanity. Men and women of all ages, races and nationalities have stood and will continue to stand on the side of the Palestinians. But this story is selectively ignored of pseudo-intellectuals, intent on dismissing humanity to uphold Israel. They refuse to see the patterns in front of them, as they are too busy concocting their own.
Writing in UK Guardian from Rome, on April 15, John Hooper said, “Arrigoni’s life was anything but safe. In September 2008 he was injured (by Israeli troops) accompanying Palestinian fishermen at sea. Two years ago he received a death threat from a US far-right website that provided any would-be killers with a photo and details of distinguishing physical traits, such as a tattoo on his shoulder.” The group that murdered Arrigoni, like others of its kind, existed for one specific, violent episode before disappearing altogether. The mission in this case was to kill an International Solidarity Movement activist who dedicated years of his life to Palestine. Shortly before he was kidnapped, he wrote in this website of the “criminal” Israeli siege on Gaza. He also mourned the four impoverished Palestinians who died in a tunnel under the Gaza-Egypt boarder while hauling food and other goods. Before his murder, Arrigoni was anticipating the arrival of another flotilla – carrying activists from 25 countries boarding 15 ships – that is scheduled to
A R T I C L E S sail to Gaza in May. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adamantly called on EU countries to prevent their nationals from jointing the boats. “I think it’s in your and our common interest…that this flotilla must be stopped,” he told European representatives in Jerusalem, according to an AFP report, April 11. Israeli officials are angry at the internationals who are ‘de-legitimizing’ the state of Israel by standing in solidarity with the Palestinians. Arrigoni has done so much to harm the carefully fabricated image of Israel as an island of democracy and progress. Along with other activists, he has shattered this myth through simple means of communication. Vik signed his messages with “Stay human”. His book, detailing his experiences in Gaza, was entitled Restiamo Umani (Let Us Remain Human). Mary Hughes Thompson shared with me some the emails Arrigoni sent her. “I can hardly bear to read them again,” she wrote. This is an extract from one of them: “No matter how (we) will finish the mission…it will be a victory. For human rights, for freedom. If the siege will not (be) physically broken, it will break the siege of the indifference, the abandonment. And you know very well what this gesture is important for the people of Gaza. That said, obviously we are waiting at the port! With hundreds of Palestinians and ISM comrades we will come to meet you sailing, as was the first time, remember? All available boats will sail to Gaza to greet you. Sorry for my bad English…big hug…Stay Human. Yours, Vik” Vik’s killers failed to see his humanity. But many of us will always remember, and we will continue trying to “stay human”. 22 April, 2011 Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story is available on Amazon.com. Source: Countercurrents.org
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$