September 2011
Vol 11, No. 9
THE FALL OF MUAMMAR GADDAFI By Chandra Muzaffar
A
t the time of writing, Muammar Gaddafi has yet to be captured or killed by the rebels. Whatever his fate, one thing is absolutely certain: the Gaddafi era is over. What brought about the downfall of this often eccentric, sometimes ruthless, leader who ruled over Libya for almost 42 years? Causes Gaddafi was one of the main causes of Gaddafi’s downfall. As noted in the JUST Commentary of March 2011, Gaddafi was an autocratic ruler who in the last two decades allowed wanton abuse of power, corruption and nepotism to discredit and destroy his leadership. There was hardly any latitude for freedom of expression in his highly personalised style of governance. Dissenters were imprisoned, tortured or killed. These were some of the reasons why a sizeable segment of the citizenry turned against Gaddafi and his family. Some of the tribes and clans, respected grassroots religious figures, professionals and even members of his Cabinet and elements within the State’s security apparatus started to desert him from the early days of the uprising. A lot of young people in particular were determined to oust him.
Add to this the concerted opposition of ruling elites within the region. Gaddafi had antagonised a number of them at Arab League and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meetings. It explains why the Arab League eagerly endorsed the idea of a “No Fly Zone” over Libya which effectively crippled Gaddafi’s air force. Qatar was directly involved in military operations, apart from helping to export oil controlled by the rebels and providing them with financial assistance. Like Qatar, the United Arab Emirates also helped to finance and train the rebel soldiers. More than the opposition of Arab rulers, it was NATO’s massive military involvement which brought down Gaddafi. NATO’s bombing campaign– 20,000 sorties, with more than 7,500 strikes against ground targets– pulverised Gaddafi’s military infrastructure. And, contrary to official denials, Western military personnel, in unmarked combat clothing, not only provided training to the rebels but also accompanied them in their operations. In other words, there were Western boots on the ground in disguise. In the final assault upon Tripoli, it is alleged that NATO backed officers played a pivotal role in the planning and execution. Without NATO, some analysts have rightly observed, the rebels would
not have succeeded in defeating the Gaddafi forces. The media was also a significant factor. Arabic television channels gave full backing to the rebels. Al-Jazeera was an outstanding example of a television network that went out of its way to campaign for the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. Arabic newspapers also got into the act. Needless to say, the mainstream Western media made no attempt to conceal its bias. In this regard, it is worth noting that the impact of social media was much less in the case of Libya compared to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. Having looked at some of the causes for the fall of Gaddafi, let us now probe these causes further to understand their real significance and deeper implications.
Turn to next page
ARTICLES POWER ............................................................P 3
.‘WAR ON TERROR’ SET TO SURPASS COST OF SECOND WORLD WAR ....................................P 9
.T HE E NGLISH R IOTS IN C ONTEXT ........................................................... P 4
. I RAN
. C HINA
. R EMEMBRANCE ,
.THE SOMALI FAMINE: HUNGER
AND
S PRATLYS : O PTIONS FOR DISPUTE MANAGEMENT .......................... P5 AND THE
O PENS O IL B OURSE ............................................................. P10 R EFLECTION AND RESISTANCE...........................................P11
2 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 1 Deeper Implications One, Gaddafi’s regime was the epitome of the “despotic dynasty” that has come to characterise so many of the Arab states in the last five or six decades. In a despotic dynasty the ruler, often unelected, would have been in power for a long period of time, and seeks to preserve and perpetuate his power through family and relatives, in collusion with the military, and by resorting to harsh, oppressive and autocratic measures. Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were despotic dynasties of varying shades and degrees. There are other despotic dynasties– some monarchical, some republican– that are still standing in the Arab world. The Arab uprising has shown that the masses will not accept this form of governance any more. This is perhaps the single most significant achievement of the uprising. The rejection of despotic dynasties has expectedly strengthened calls for honest, upright men and women in power who are accountable and answerable to the people through fair and free elections, on the one hand, and for the creation of mechanisms that will enhance popular participation in the democratic process, on the other. Equally important, there is outright anger in much of the Arab world against the lifestyles of the powerful: their ostentatious opulence and their hideous extravagance. It is related to a far more significant demand for the reduction of economic disparities and the equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities. Two, while there was a movement for change, it would be wrong to describe it as “peaceful” or “non-violent.” That the anti-Gaddafi protest resorted to arms within a few days of its eruption in Benghazi is an indisputable fact. This raises a fundamental question about people’s struggles for political change. The struggle for change has to remain peaceful and non-violent however difficult the circumstances may be. Only if it is peaceful, will it be able to minimise the danger of bloody feuds and violent factional wars after its victory. The defenders of the violence that marred the anti-Gaddafi movement argue that faced with Gaddafi’s brutal security apparatus, the movement had no choice
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
but to fight. But other movements for change – against the Shah of Iran in 1979; Marcos in the Philippines in 1986; East European dictatorships in 1989; and Indonesia’s Suharto in 1998– which also had to confront armies that were sometimes far more formidable than Gaddafi’s, refrained by and large from using weapons. What explains their nonviolent approach? Because these movements were genuinely popular mass movements with millions and millions of people on their side– like the movements in Iran and the Philippines– the armies that confronted them did not dare to embark upon some wild shooting spree. In a sense, the Tunisian and Egyptian armies also held back their fire-power because they knew that almost the entire nation was behind the peaceful protesters. But in Libya, the protest movement did not command total overwhelming support from the populace for at least the first four months. It was propped up to some extent by external forces from within and without the region. Besides, as we have seen, there were already armed groups some linked to AlQaeda among the protesters in the initial phase itself who were totally committed to violence. It is in its resort to violence that the Libyan rebel movement is different from the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings. Three, though a number of Arab rulers loath Gaddafi, their aversion to him was not the only reason why they chose to support his ouster. Since government leaders in Paris, London, Rome and Washington wanted Gaddafi out, Arab leaders were only too happy to help fulfil their agenda. Colluding with the centres of power in the West is an Arab elite trait in vogue for a long while which expressed itself in both the Kuwait War of 1991 and the Iraq War of 2003. If collusion that often leads to betrayal of the interests of the Arab people is rife, it is because many Arab rulers are dependent upon the military and political power of the West to keep themselves on their thrones. Four, this brings to the fore NATO’s blatant intervention in Libya which raises fundamental questions about its role in global politics. This is the second time that NATO is involved in a military adventure outside its geographical zone. Is this going to become a pattern in the future – whereby NATO obtains UN
L E A D A R T I C L E Security Council mandate to employ its massive air-power to conquer some resource rich or strategically critical state in the Global South? Will the continent of Africa in particular be the target since the scramble for control over its abundant natural resources among the big powers has already begun in earnest? Are we witnessing – in the wake of the abysmal failure of the US, Britain and its allies to establish control over Iraq and Afghanistan– a modified approach to Western hegemony? Instead of direct invasion and occupation (a’la Afghanistan and Iraq), will Western states henceforth use air-power via NATO to emasculate a recalcitrant state’s defence, train and arm rebels, and embark upon covert operations in order to overthrow its leadership? At the same time, one can expect these hegemonic forces to pile up pressure against the targeted regime through the UN’s Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court (ICC), Western human rights NGOs and the media. Of course, they will keep telling the world that they are doing all this to prevent human rights violations and protect civilians. Indeed, the UN’s “Responsibility to Protect” is going to be evoked more and more in the future to justify the hegemons’ intervention and aerial bombardment. It is worth recalling that in the old colonial days, it was “feuding princes”, “chaos and anarchy” or simply “the need to bring civilisation to backward people” that was the justification for conquest and subjugation. The ulterior motives behind intervention will of course be concealed from the public. But the man- in- the -street knows that in the case of Libya it is its vast oil reserves that are the real reason for the West’s intervention. Why should oil be the reason, one may want to ask at this juncture, when Gaddafi had opened doors to major Western oil companies in recent years? True, he had provided access but what the companies wanted is control over Libyan oil. Gaddafi would not allow this. He had after all nationalised oil in the early years of his rule. Besides, Gaddafi, as we observed in an article in the JUST Commentary (May 2011), has been trying to galvanise African states into a sort of United States of Africa that will resist Western attempts to exploit Africa’s resources. He was also opposed to the US idea of an African 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 military command, Africom, which seeks to reinforce the US grip upon the continent. It was because Gaddafi was, all said and done, an obstacle to larger Western economic and military designs in Libya and Africa that he had to be eliminated. In fact, right from the outset, regime change was the goal of the Western powers and their local proxies. They have achieved their goal. But it is regime change courtesy NATO bombs–not a change of government through mass peaceful ‘people power’. Five, if we probed further the role of the biased Arabic and Western media in the Libyan conflict we would discover that they had transgressed basic media ethics. CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera among other television stations portrayed Libya as a country that had lagged behind in economic and social development. None of these channels highlighted, or elaborated on, the fact that Libya recorded the highest human development index score for Africa in 2010, according to the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Report 2010. Even more disappointing, not a single prominent media outlet gave any attention to the details of the African Union (AU)
L E A D A R T I C L E
FOR A JUST WORLD
mediation plan which sought to end hostilities immediately and lay the foundation for a negotiated settlement between the Gaddafi regime and the rebels. Neither did any mainstream television or radio or newspaper accord any emphasis to the involvement of militant groups in the uprising in Benghazi or investigate how and from where they received their weapons or what the sources of their funding were. The media also deliberately downplayed the pivotal role of NATO, especially its clandestine ground operations, in ensuring the defeat of the Gaddafi regime. What Next? Now that Gaddafi has been defeated, what can we expect in Libya? Resistance from Gaddafi supporters may continue for some time for at least two reasons. He had distributed arms to a broad crosssection of the population a couple of months ago. Tribal attachments are still strong and there are tribes –in Sirte for instance–which remain loyal to Gaddafi. What this means is that there is a possibility of a prolonged civil war in Libya. The situation is exacerbated by a National Transition Council (NTC) that comprises disparate groups ranging from longstanding human rights activists to individuals who have just left the Gaddafi leadership, to Muslim Brotherhood
(Ikhwanul Muslimin) functionaries, to hardened religious militants. Once the enemy is no longer a threat, will these groups be able to hold together? Or will severe in-fighting hamper and hinder the NTC’s work to such an extent that it will be rendered ineffective? If it is not able to function, how will it address the humanitarian crisis caused by a shortage of food and fuel and other basic necessities of life that looms large in Tripoli and other parts of the country? To put it another way, is Libya heading towards an Iraq-type situation– political chaos and social turmoil? If it is, the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi would have been a pyrrhic victory. 1 September, 2011 Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and Professor of Global Studies at Universiti Sains Malaysia.
ARTICLES THE SOMALI FAMINE: HUNGER
AND
By Chandra Muzaffar
Once again, the world is witness to a horrendous catastrophe in Somalia and in other parts of the Horn of Africa which some journalists now describe as “The Horn of Hunger.” The famine that has hit the region has already claimed the lives of 29,000 Somali children under 5 years in the past three months. 12 million people need food aid. The UN has requested 2.4 billion US dollars from member states. It has raised only half that amount so far. We can all do much more to help the people of Somalia and the region. Rich countries in particular have a moral obligation to assist the starving and suffering Somalis. For wealthy Muslims, the pain and ordeal of the Somalis — who
are mostly Muslims— carries a special message since this is the month of Ramadan when Muslims all over the world observe the dawn to dusk annual fast. If one of the purposes of the fast is to develop empathy for the poor and hungry, the catastrophe in Somalia offers an opportunity for the wealthy to donate generously to the UN’s food aid programme. In this regard, it is significant that ordinary individuals and communities have responded to the Somali catastrophe in a spirit of solidarity that is most touching. An 11 year-old schoolboy in Ghana, Andrew Adansi-Bonnah, has launched a campaign to raise 20 million Ghanaian cedis (about 13 million dollars) to “Save Somali Children from Hunger.”
POWER
A charity in Gaza, Palestine has named its campaign, “ From Gaza: hand in hand to save the children of Somalia.” When a people with such limited means of sustenance who are amongst the most dispossessed on earth, are ever ready to sacrifice for a people who are in an even worse situation than them, it gives hope to humanity. While we demonstrate our commitment to the plight of the Somali people, we should also try to understand the root causes of the famine. The drought, highlighted by the media, is undoubtedly a cause. But it is not the only cause. Somalia does not have a functioning government. For the better part of the last 20 years since the ouster of President continued next page
4 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 3 Said Barre, it has seen nothing but lawlessness and anarchy. If it had a government that exercised authority and power, there may not be any mass starvation. In the mid-seventies, there was also a prolonged drought in Somalia but it did not lead to widespread hunger because there was a government that acted quickly. Somalia’s famine is also due in part to constant foreign intervention and interference in its internal affairs. Under the guise of the UN’s humanitarian intervention programme, the United States sought to determine the direction of Somalia’s inter-clan politics in 1992 and 1993. Somalia’s oil potential, it is alleged, was one of the two underlying motives, the other being the geostrategic significance of the Horn of Africa. US
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
civil war is a huge impediment to the delivery of food supplies to the starving.
After the Al-Qaeda dual embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the 9-11 episode in 2001, the US once again stuck its finger in the Somali pie. It provided material support to the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in order to stem the growing popularity of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC). The UIC in fact succeeded in establishing a fairly stable government in 2006 which guaranteed law and order for a short while. But the US, working hand- in- glove with the government of Ethiopia, overthrew the Islamic group alleging that it had AlQaeda links. Remnants from the UIC formed a mass guerrilla movement which controls large parts of the country and even captured most of the capital, Mogadishu, in May 2009. The on-going
Food delivery has been further compromised by an earlier US-UN imposed blockade of areas under the control of one of the militant offshoots of the UIC, Al-Shabaab. The Al-Shabaab, in turn, has prevented international food aid agencies from reaching its strongholds for fear of losing control over them. Needless to say, it is the poor and hungry who are the victims of this tussle for power.
THE ENGLISH RIOTS
IN
By Rebel Griot
Rioting and looting was not the only violent activity being carried out by Englishmen on Sunday night. Some hours before Cameron appeared on our TV screens vowing to take revenge on the risen British youth, his bomber pilots carried out a raid which slaughtered 33 Libyan children, along with 32 women and 20 men in Zlitan, a village near Tripoli. He, along with the rulers of France and the USA, are desperately trying to stave off economic collapse in the same way they always have – through the slaughter of third world people and the theft of their resources. That is the context in which these riots need to be seen. Our mode of living in the West is predicated on violence and looting. For those who do not understand this, you need to look into how Western military forces have turned Afghanistan into a giant heroin poppy plantation with one of the lowest life expectancies on the planet, how they have turned Iraq into a living hell to steal its oil, how they are setting up Syria for an invasion as a prelude to the ‘final solution’ of the Palestinian ‘problem’ and how they are already stealing Libyan oil wealth which Gaddafi had ploughed into African development but will now go straight into the coffers of Western arms companies. This is before we even mention the debt-extortion under which third world countries pay 13 times as
A R T I C L E S
intervention failed miserably leading to even greater chaos.
Somalia underscores the vital importance of an effective functioning government capable of looking after its people that is not, at the same time, the pawn of foreign powers. 15 August, 2011.
CONTEXT
much in loan interest to the West (on loans they have already paid back many times over) as they receive in aid. Our young people have grown up witnessing all of this. They are well aware that the West enriches itself by violent plunder. They are also aware that more than half of their so-called ‘representatives’ in parliament have been systematically stealing TVs, electronic goods, clothes and anything else they think they can get away with, by means of large-scale fraud. They know that the police murder people with impunity, and their communities are subject to harassment and humiliation by police on a mass scale. They know that the bankers who have destroyed the livelihoods of millions, are still paying themselves bonuses extorted from the public purse. They also know that none of these people are ever likely to be bought to justice through legal mechanisms. Most of the MPs guilty of fraud either still have their jobs, or have moved on to lucrative directorships with the companies for whom they did favours whilst in office. The police investigate themselves and find themselves not guilty. The army investigate themselves and find themselves not guilty. Tony Blair investigates himself and finds himself not guilty. The rich and powerful are demonstrating to our young people daily
that the way to succeed is through robbery, theft and violence. This is the world into which they were born. This is the morality which surrounds them. This is the air they breathe. Compared to their role models, the vast majority of the rioters have behaved impeccably. Attacks on small businesses, houses and civilians have been the exception, not the rule; the main activity has been the looting of big chain stores and the besieging of police stations. In so doing, the youth have succeeded in achieving what everyone else has failed to achieve – holding the police and corporations to account. The message to the police has been clear – you cannot murder, beat and humiliate us with impunity. Several police stations have been burned to the ground and all London police have had their summer leave cancelled. When incidents like Mark Duggan’s murder arise, it is never a case of one ‘bad apple’; the process of cover-up is a systematic one which requires largescale collusion. Some officers may now think twice before getting entangled in such matters in the future. As for the big corporations, the efficiency of their exploitation and enslavement of third world people has created such poverty across the globe that people are increasingly unable to afford to buy what continued next page
5 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 4 they produce. This is the major systemic cause of the economic crisis. They may not know it, but the corporations our children are attacking are indeed the primary cause of their own poverty. More than this, these companies employ advertising techniques that ruthlessly target our children with a cruel message that their social status depends on the acquisition of their goods; they should not then feign surprise when poor children also try to acquire them. With their so-called “mindless looting”, the dispossessed youth are in fact carrying out a primitive form of wealth redistribution. What they are doing in a
CHINA
AND THE
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
disorganised and spontaneous way, is precisely what we should be doing in a systematic and disciplined way. We need to build organisations that are serious about creating ‘socialism from below’ taking control of the factories, chain stores and land, and using them in a way that provides for the massive social needs for which capitalism is completely unable to provide. This is the real Big Society – the one Cameron and his ilk are utterly scared of. I am not blaming Cameron, or the politicians, or the media. These are our enemies. They are being true to their class. They are exploiting us and lying to us efficiently and effectively. They
SPRATLYS: OPTIONS
FOR
A R T I C L E S are doing their jobs perfectly. I am blaming those of us who do care, who do want equality and an end to classism, racism and imperialism. We need to step up and provide leadership and organisation, and until we do that – our criticisms of the youth are hollow and deceitful. If we leave it to children to bring accountability to policing and to redistribute wealth, without any leadership or guidance, we shouldn’t be surprised if they do a messy job. 13 August, 2011. Rebel Griot is a blogger and his blog address is http://rebelgriot.blogspot.com/. Source: Countercurrents.org
DISPUTE MANAGEMENT
By Arujunan Narayanan In the international system, states protect and promote their national interest by diplomacy and use of force. When normal diplomacy fails to achieve their political objectives, states resort to war to achieve them by force. But resolving a dispute, conflict or crisis peacefully is always a worthwhile effort given that in war there are no winners but only losers. In the Asia-Pacific region, one of the areas with potential for conflict is the Spratly archipelago in which the territorial interests of China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei overlap. China (and Taiwan) claims the whole archipelago belongs to them based on its nine-dotted-line historical claim (Li Jinming & Li Dexi, 2003). Vietnam too claims the archipelago based on history and French administration while the claims by Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei are based on the United Nations Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS 82). China is the most powerful among these claimant states and how China handles this dispute will determine the situation in the Spratlys and the ensuing consequences for the region’s security. This article will evaluate China’s option to use force from five factors, namely, the geo-strategic situation in the Asia-Pacific, China’s participation in international organizations, China and international law, China’s economic relations with the claimant states and domestic politics. Spratly Islands The Spratly archipelago extends for more
than 800 kilometres (km) from north to south. It contains over 400 islands, isles, shoals, banks atolls, cays and reefs in the South China Sea. With elevations ranging from two to six meters the archipelago covers an area of 180,000 square km. It is located about 500 km south-east of Vietnam, 500 km west of the Philippines and close to offshore Malaysian Borneo. It is 1,300 km from the Chinese mainland (Leifer, 1995). The sea lanes linking the Pacific Ocean with the Indian Ocean straddle these waters. It is also an important passageway for the regional navies and rich with fisheries and hydrocarbon resources. This makes the Spratly archipelago significant not only to the claimant states but also to the other major economic and military powers in the region adding to its strategic value to international and regional security. Its significance is well reflected in the words of Admiral Liu Huaquing, the commander of the People’s Liberation Army Navy in the 1980s, when he said that “whoever controls the Spratlys will reap huge economic and military benefits” (Taylor Fravel, 2008). When the Cold War came to an end in 1989, three traditional security issues remained unresolved divided Korea, the Taiwan Issue and the territorial disputes in the Spratly archipelago. The Spratly archipelago is forecasted to become a flashpoint involving the claimant states and their military allies. In the 1990s, with the exception of some intermittent skirmishes, diplomatic protests and
tensions, the archipelago remained quite calm. It was due more to China’s accommodating and flexible attitude which was part of its diplomatic “charm offensive” toward Southeast Asia intended to assuage regional anxieties over its growing economic, political and military clout (Schofield & Storey, 2009). However, China’s announcement in 2010 that the South China Sea is one of its areas of core interests similar to Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang caused new worries to the claimants and others that have interest in the South China Sea. The US responded by declaring the South China Sea an area of its national interests. This made the issue more complex adding greater strategic value to the Spratly dispute. China and Recent Development in the Spratlys In recent years, China’s naval forces have made more incursions into the areas claimed by other states including the recent incident with the Philippines on 4 March 2011 when two Chinese patrol boats warned the Philippines oil exploring vessel to move out of the Reed Bank which the Philippines claims to be in its sovereign territory. There were also incidents where Chinese aircraft flew over the airspace of the Philippines- controlled islands. The latter has increased its air and naval patrol in the South China Sea and decided to allocate more finance to improve its naval and air capabilities to protect the areas that it considers as its sovereign territory. continued next page
6 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 5 In June 2011, Chinese military vessels threatened to use their guns against a Vietnamese fishing boat (Thayer, 2011).There were also some recent incidents in which Chinese naval boats cut the cables of Vietnamese petroleum exploration ships. Vietnam responded by having a live military exercise. China too followed with a livemilitary exercise and deployed its naval flagship Haixun 31 (The Star, 15 June 2011). On 14 July 2011, Hanoi alleged that armed Chinese soldiers beat Vietnamese fishermen and threatened the crew members before driving them out of the waters. Chinese fishing boats were also found in the waters claimed by Malaysia and refused to budge when ordered by the Royal Malaysian Navy (interview with a Royal Malaysian Navy officer). These Chinese assertive actions have increased apprehension amongst the claimant states whether China will use its military might in the near future to dislodge them from the Spratly islands. Geo-strategic Situation in the AsiaPacific The geo-strategic situation in the AsiaPacific will influence the behaviour of the states in the region, especially the major powers, US, China, Japan and India. In the post-Cold War era, China has emerged as a dominant economic and major military power in the region. Its defence expenditure for the last few years, especially on its naval and air-force has been increasing significantly. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is acquiring modern military capabilities, especially submarines, frigates, destroyers, long range aircrafts and missiles. In recent years, from its North and Central Naval Commands more naval assets were redirected to its South Sea Command. It is also fast developing the Yulin naval base in Hainan with submarine facilities which once fully operational will help the PLAN to extend its reach up to the Spratlys (East Asia Strategic Review 2011). It is also working hard to launch its aircraft carrier Varyag soon which will extend China’s command over the neighbouring waters. This military development causes some concern among the states that have stake in the Spratlys, as well as other major powers in the region. In the Asia-Pacific, the US is still the most dominant military power in East Asia. During the Singapore
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
Shangri-La Dialogue the then US Defence Secretary Robert Gates observed that the US is considering steps to widen its military presence across the Pacific Rim. He also mentioned the Pentagon’s commitment to developing ways of countering “anti-access” technologies that the US says China is working on – advance anti-ship missiles that could make harder for US aircraft carries and other warships to operate in Asian seas (New Sunday Times 5 June 2011). The US has three military allies in Northeast Asia bordering China, namely Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. In Southeast Asia, Thailand and the Philippines are strategic partners while the US Cold War bilateral relations with other friendly Southeast Asian countries are still intact. The US-Philippines Mutual Defence Treaty is still in existence and has been given a new vitality. The
US bilateral defence agreements with Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia are functioning well. In recent years, the US has reengaged Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia (Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.32, No.3). In the immediate future, the US military is also going to increase its port calls, naval engagements and multilateral training efforts with many countries throughout the region. The US has improved its defence relation with India which is also projecting its power in the South China Sea. The US was considering a range of actions to strengthen military ties with Australia and Singapore. These include the combined US-Australian naval presence in the region and expanding joint-training with Singapore’s forces to help prepare for the challenges both militaries face operating in the Pacific (New SundayTimes 5 June 2011). Seeing the renewed assertiveness of China in the South China Sea will be inimical to the US economic and strategic interest in Southeast Asia, the Pentagon has
A R T I C L E S increased its naval presence in the South China Sea and is assisting in capacity building of the regional states (Schofield & Storey, 2009). Senator Jim Webb, the Head of the Senate Foreign Relation Subcommittee on East Asia urged Congress to condemn China’s recent behavior saying that Washington has been too weak-kneed on South China Sea (The Star 15 June 2011). The US has also enhanced its defence ties with India and has asked Japan to play a more important role in the security of Northeast Asia. If China were to be aggressive, it may encounter a USJapan-India-South Korea encirclement and containment which will be a threat to China’s aspiration to be the leading economic power of the world. In July 2010, during the ASEAN Regional Forum, the US had declared that it has strategic interest in the South China Sea. On 22 September 2010, President Obama discussed with the ASEAN leaders about the Spratly dispute. China is not in a position to antagonize the US which is far superior in its military power compared to China. China is in no position to impose naval hegemony over the entire South China Sea. According to China’s Defence Minister General Liang Guanglie, China’s armed forces are 20 years behind the US despite China’s military buildup (The Star 6 June, 2011), During the Shangri-La Dialogue 2011, the Chinese Defence Minister Gen, Liang Guanglie said that China was committed to peace and stability in the South China Sea (The Star 6 June 2011). During the Dialogue, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the conference that clashes may erupt unless nations with conflicting claims adopt a mechanism to settle disputes peacefully (The Star 6 June 2011). In relation to Southeast Asian states, China’s defence relations with the Southeast Asian states are still fragile compared to the US. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines have bitter memories of China supporting the communist movements in those countries. Among the mainland Southeast Asian states, Vietnam had its bitter experience with China. Although Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia are under the influence of China, these states do fear China’s dominance. They are turning to the US to balance China and the US is taking advantage of that situation. On the other hand, the Southeast Asian states with territorial disputes are acquiring new continued next page
7 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 6 air and naval assets which may be used to defend their territories in the Spratlys. Despite this advantage, the US also needs China to protect its interest in the Asia-Pacific. China plays an important role in the Six-Party Talks (US, China, Japan, Russia, North Korea and South Korea) to manage the North Korean nuclear issue. After some setbacks US-China military-to-military relations are back on a positive trajectory. Similarly, for the states in Northeast and Southeast Asia, China is a state they can’t afford to ignore given its increasing regional political economic and military weight. Despite these advantages, China is fully aware that the US military power in the Asia-Pacific will not permit Chinese military adventure in the South China Sea and any military conflict with the US or its allies will be damaging to China’s aspiration to become a global political, economic and military actor in international politics. International Organizations China is increasingly becoming an important member of many international organizations. China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and always has been claiming that it is the representative of the Third World in the UNSC. As a member of the UN, it has to observe the UN Charter which emphasizes peaceful resolution of disputes. Besides, China is also an ASEAN Dialogue partner, member of the ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Plus 3, East Asia Summit, ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus, Asian Security Conference (Shangri-La Dialogue), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Shanghai Cooperation, Six Party Talks and other important regional organizations that have influence in the affairs of the AsiaPacific. On many occasions China has declared to the world that China’s rise is peaceful and it will not be a threat to any state. It openly has announced many times that it will resolve the Spratly dispute by peaceful methods. This was again reiterated by the Chinese Defence Minister General Liang Guanglie during the recent Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore (The Star 6 June 2011). To win the confidence of the international community, China has to live up to its word in exercising its military power to avoid any apprehension among the small states in Southeast Asia with whom it has territorial disputes in the Spratlys.
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
As a member of all these international organizations, China has responsibilities which will restrain China from flexing its military muscle in the South China Sea. While this argument carries weight to some extent, there are many examples where big powers choose to ignore international organizations when they are bent on using military power to achieve their political objectives. Japan’s invasion of China and Italy’s attack on Ethiopia in 1939 ignoring the League of Nations and the US aggression on Iraq in 2003 ignoring the UN are some of the examples from military history. International Law The UN Law of the Sea 1982 which came into force on 16 November 1994 has become the constitution for managing the world’s oceans. Today it is not only a treaty law but also has assumed the character of international customary law which means it is binding on all states. China ratified the UNCLOS 82 in May 1996 and as a party it has to respect that international law. Under UNCLOS 82, the features that China claims in the Spratlys are not islands but sand cays, rocks and reefs; hence China can only claim 12 miles of territorial sea and a 500 meter safety zone. China has not given any legal explanation to justify its claim nor given specific delimitations to its territorial claims (Emmers, 2009). As a responsible member of the international community, China has to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea or any other mechanisms that will help the peaceful resolution of the problem. In the Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) signed on 4 November 2002 in Phnom Penh, China and the ASEAN had agreed to settle the Spratly dispute peacefully by adhering to the UN Charter, UNCLOS, the TAC and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Although the DOC has no binding force, China as the major claimant must facilitate the mechanism that will help to resolve the problem peacefully. In October 2003, China became the first non-Southeast Asian state to adhere to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, a significant commitment by China towards stability in the South China Sea. On 30 October 2006, both China and ASEAN signed the “Friendship and Cooperation between
A R T I C L E S the ASEAN and the PRC” which is another commitment of China towards regional peace. Following the recent involvement of the US in the dispute, China has agreed to work with ASEAN to explore ways to make the DOC more effective and the Joint Working Group to Implement the DOC has been reactivated to look into the matter. Meanwhile Indonesia as the Chair for ASEAN has prepared the “Guidelines for the Implementation of Cooperative Activities between ASEAN and China under the DOC” which will be tabled in the forthcoming ASEAN-China Senior Officers Meeting before the ASEANChina Foreign Ministers Meeting in Bali on 21 July 2011. Given this, China has to give more importance to its international legal commitments to resolve the Spratly dispute along the lines of international law. Despite this, military history again shows that when states are powerful militarily, they have no compunction to not only ignore but violate international law to achieve their political objectives. Economic Relations Trade and investment has become an important tool for China’s influence in the region. Economic growth is one of the four major objectives of China’s modernization . With its emergence as an economic giant, China has developed favourable trade relations programmes with almost all the countries in the world, especially in East Asia, US and the European Union. Southeast Asia is always an important area for China. Over the years it has developed good economic relations with the Southeast Asian states. China’s trade with other Spratly claimant states have developed significantly and is a factor that must be considered when analyzing the Spratly situation. Since normalization in 1991, trade between China and Vietnam increased almost from nothing to US$8.2 billion in 2005. Vietnam runs a large trade deficit with the PRC. China’s cumulative investment in Vietnam is US$540 million and its investment in 2003 reached US$146 million. Beijing has provided small amounts of aid, including a loan of US$36 million for the Thai Nguyen Steel Complex and another US$40 million for the copper mining project. In 2002, China provided a low-interest loan of US$120 million (Bronson, 2007). continued next page
8 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 7 China is the Philippines third largest trade partner with bilateral trade reaching US$13.3 billion in 2004 and US$17.5 billion in 2005. The Philippines investment in China totaled US$186 million in 2003 and US$233 million in 2004, with “contracted investment” of US$683 million. In 2004, Chinese investment in the Philippines was US$1.65 billion. China is principally interested in extracting Philippine natural resources. In 2003, the Philippine National Oil Company and one of China’s energy companies (CNOOC) agreed to joint exploration in Philippine waters off the island of Palawan. In 2005, CNOOC agreed to a “possible” US$10 million investment in this project. In 2005, Shanghai Baosteel and the China Development Bank had agreed to invest US$950 million in Philnico Mining and Industrial to refurbish a mothballed nickel plant in the southern Philippines. The rapid growth in trade and Chinese investment are the lifeline of the Philippines (Bronson, 2007). Malaysia was China’s largest trade partner in Southeast Asia. Trade between Malaysia and China has boomed for the past nineteen years. In 2004, trade with China was about 11% of Malaysia’s total trade and slightly less than 20% of its trade if Hong Kong is included in Malaysia’s China trade. China is Malaysia’s fourth largest trading partner. In 2005, bilateral trade reached US$30.7 billion. In 2004, Malaysia’s cumulative investment in China was US$3.1 billion and China’s investment in Malaysia was US$1.1 billion. In 1999, Malaysia and China agreed to participate in the US$2.5 billion Singapore-Kunming railway and Chinese companies took a 40% stake in a US$1 billion pulp paper project in East Malaysia (Bronson, 2007). China’s purchase of oil from Brunei forms the basis for the current relationship. In November 2000 the two governments signed an agreement for the sale of 10,000 barrels per day of high quality crude, and China took 20,000 barrels in 2004. Chinese leaders have also cultivated close relations with Brunei’s royal family (Bronson, 2007). If China were to become more aggressive in the Spratlys, these economic relations established over the years with its southern neighbours will not only be damaged but also will have its ramifications in China-ASEAN relations.
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
Domestic Politics In the past, the territorial dispute in the Spratlys was not a domestic political issue in any of the claimant states. China was much concerned with the Taiwan Issue and the instability in Tibet and Xinjiang provinces. The Spratly issue was considered peripheral and relegated to be considered by a future generation. However, China’s tremendous economic growth and the need for more energy and the oil and gas potential of the Spratlys made China consider it as an area of its core interest. And with increasing Chinese nationalism it has become an important domestic political issue that the political elite has to address to remain in power (Schofield & Storey, 2009). In Vietnam, the South China Sea dispute is a domestic political issue since China’s eviction of Vietnam from the Paracels in 1974 and the clash in the Spratlys in 1988. The recent incidents have made the issue more volatile and there were demonstrations against China in Hanoi and Ho Chih Minh City in the last five weeks.
In the Philippines too one can witness that the Spratly dispute has become an issue in domestic politics. There were many discussions in the Philippine Congress and demands for increasing naval and airpower in the Kalayan Islands Group which the Philippines considers as its legitimate sovereign territory. In Malaysia, the Spratly issue is not an important domestic political issue but the political, military and bureaucratic elites are closely watching developments in the Spratly archipelago. Despite these political manoeuvrings, political relations between China and other claimant states are still cordial. There were exchange of visits and discussions at the top leadership level which shows some
A R T I C L E S positive signs that the Spratlys as a domestic political issue will not go beyond control. Conclusion For the last six decades China has announced to the world that the Spratly archipelago is the legitimate territory of China and its sovereignty over the archipelago is indisputable. Until the 1980s, China was more concerned with the Taiwan Issue, Tibet and the Xinjiang Provinces. In the 1990s, when China was emerging as an economic and military power she chose not to assert its claims in the Spratlys to assuage the fears of the small states in Southeast Asia. However as it assumes more economic and military clout and with its greater need for energy, China begins to assert its power in the Spratlys to enjoy the marine resources especially oil and gas. The option to use force will not be in China’s interest as it has led to tension with Vietnam and the Philippines which have mutual defence treaties with the US. Meanwhile, the US looks upon China as a threat to its interest in the Asia-Pacific Region. While having allies in Northeast Asia, and maintaining Cold War defence partners in Southeast Asia, the US is also enhancing its defence relations with other states such as Indonesia, Kampuchea, Laos and Myanmar. Given the common interests of the US and other claimant states including some other ASEAN states that have no interest in the Spratlys, there is a possibility that these states would shift their position from “hedging” between the US and China to “bandwagoning” with the US to balance China. Given that US military might is much superior and any military conflict in the Spratlys has the probability to drag the US and its allies into conflict against China, it is not in China’s interest to resolve the Spratly dispute by force. This leaves her with no other option than to resolve the Spratly dispute by peaceful methods. This will call for the role of international organizations and international law to resolve the dispute amicably. This will be in line with the constant and consistent announcement that China is committed to resolve the dispute by peace. While China prefers to resolve the dispute by bilateral means, given the nature of the dispute, a multilateral approach will be more effective in resolving the dispute continued next page
9 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 8 as it could include not only the disputing states but also those that have their interest in the South China Sea. I n t e r n a t i o n a l organizations like the ICJ or the ITLOS or a regional organization like ASEAN could be used to resolve the problem. A decision from such organizations not only will have more credibility but also better acceptability which will assuage the effect of the Spratly issue in domestic nationalism and politics. The peace and the stability that come with amicable settlement of the dispute will facilitate the much needed economic growth that will benefit all states in the Asia-Pacific region. China as the most powerful state among the disputants has to take the lead to find peace in the Spratlys. All this while, China has claimed that it is resolved to settle the Spratly dispute peacefully. China has to show in real action that it is serious to overcome the dispute by peace. It has to take one step backwards to move two steps forward, which means China has to make some “sacrifice” in the Spratlys to emerge as a global economic and military power that can match the US in influencing major
‘WAR
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
events in international relations. The choice is with China. References Bronson Percival, 2007. The Dragon Looks South. China and Southeast Asia in the New Century, London. Regional Security International. Carlyle A. Thayer, 2010. Recent Development in the South China Sea: Grounds for Cautious Optimism?,Working Paper No. 220, Singapore. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. …2011. Security Cooperation in South China Sea: An Assessment of Recent Trends’, Paper presented at the Conference on ‘South China Sea: Towards a Region of Peace, Cooperation and Progress”, 5-6 July 2011. Clive Schofield & Ian Storey, 2009. The South China Sea Dispute: Increasing Stakes & Rising Tensions. Washington. The Jamestown Foundation. East Asia Strategic Review, 2011. The national Institute for Defence Studies Japan, Tokyo, The Japan Times. Leszek Buszynski, 2003. “ASEAN, the Declaration on Conduct, and the South China Sea”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 25, No. 3. Li Jinming & Li Dexia, 2003.The Dotted Line on the Chinese Map of the South China Sea, Ocean Development & International Law, 34:287-295. Michael Leifer, 1995. Dictionary of the Modern Politics of South-East Asia, London, Routledge. Mark J. Valencia, 2007. Whither the South China Sea Dispute, MIMA Bulletin, Vol. 14(3). Martin Stuart-Fox, 2004.”Southeast Asia and China: The Role of History and Culture in Shaping Future Relations”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 26, No. 1. Nazery Khalid, 2011. “South China Sea: Taming the Turbulence” Paper presented at the Conference on
A R T I C L E S ‘South China Sea: Towards a Region of Peace, Cooperation and Progress”, 5-6 July 2011. New Sunday Times, 5th June 2011. Peter Kien-Hong Yu,”The Chinese (Broken) UShaped Line in the South China Sea: Points, Lines and Zones”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 25, No. 3, December 2003. Peter Cozens, 2005. “Some Reflections on Maritime Boundary and Territorial Disputes in the Asia-Pacific with a Focus on the South China Sea” in Joshua Ho & Catherine Zara Raymond (ed.), The Best of Times, The Worst of Times. Maritime Security in the AsiaPacific, Singapore. World Scientific & Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. Ralf Emmers, 2009. Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea: From Competition to Collaboration, in Joshua Ho (ed.), Realising Safe and Secure Seas for All, Singapore. Select Publishing. Ralf Emmers, 2007. ‘Maritime disputes in the South China Sea’ in Kwa Chong Guan & John K. Skogan, Maritime Security in Southeast Asia, London. Routledge. Sam Bateman, Solving the “Wicked Problems” of Maritime Security: Are Regional Forums up to the Task?, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.33, No. 1, 2011. Taylor Fravel M, Strong Borders, Secure Nation, Cooperation and Conflict in China’s Territorial Disputes Princeton University, Princeton. 2008. The Star, 6th June 2011. Wu Shicun & Zou Keyuan (ed.), Maritime Security in the South China Sea. Regional Implications and International Cooperation, Ashgate. 2009.
Arujunan Narayanan is a member of the JUST Executive Committee.
ON TERROR’ SET TO SURPASS OF SECOND WORLD WAR
COST
By Rupert Cornwell The total cost to America of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the related military operations in Pakistan, is set to exceed $4 trillion – more than three times the sum so far authorised by Congress in the decade since the 9/11 attacks. This staggering sum emerges from a new study by academics at the Ivy-league Brown University that reveals the $1.3 trillion officially appropriated on Capitol Hill is the tip of a spending iceberg. If other Pentagon outlays, interest payments on money borrowed to finance the wars, and the $400bn estimated to have been spent on the domestic “war on terror”, the total cost is already somewhere between $2.3 and $2.7 trillion. And even though the wars are now winding down, add in future military spending and above all the cost of looking after veterans, disabled and otherwise and the total bill will be somewhere between $3.7 trillion and $4.4 trillion.
The report by Brown’s Watson Institute for International Studies is not the first time such astronomical figures have been cited; a 2008 study co-authored by the Harvard economist Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel economics laureate, reckoned the wars would end up costing over $3 trillion. The difference is that America’s financial position has worsened considerably in the meantime, with a brutal recession and a federal budget deficit running at some $1.5 trillion annually, while healthcare and social security spending is set to soar as the population ages and the baby boomer generation enters retirement. Moreover, unlike most of America’s previous conflicts, Iraq and Afghanistan have been financed almost entirely by borrowed money that sooner or later must be repaid. The human misery is commensurate. The report concludes that in all, between 225,000 and 258,000 people have died as
a result of the wars. Of that total, US soldiers killed on the battlefield represent a small fraction, some 6,100. The civilian death toll in Iraq is put at 125,000 (rather less than some other estimates) and at up to 14,000 in Afghanistan. For Pakistan, no reliable calculation can be made. Even these figures however only scratch the surface of the suffering, in terms of people injured and maimed, or those who have died from malnutrition or lack of treatment. “When the fighting stops, the indirect dying continues,” Neta Crawford, a co-director of the Brown study, said. Not least, the wars may have created some 7.8 million refugees, roughly equal to the population of Scotland and Wales. What America achieved by such outlays is also more than questionable. Two brutal regimes, those of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, have been overturned while al-Qa’ida, the terrorist group that continued next page
10 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
FOR
A
JUST
A R T I C L E S
WORLD
continued from page 9 carried out 9/11, by all accounts has been largely destroyed - but in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is democracy exactly flourishing, while the biggest winner from the Iraq war has been America’s arch-foe Iran.
and directly cost the US economy an estimated $50bn to $100bn. In 2003, President George W Bush proclaimed that the Iraq war would cost $50bn to $60bn. Governments that go to war invariably underestimate the cost – but rarely on such an epic scale.
Osama bin Laden and his henchmen probably spent the pittance of just $500,000 in organising the September 2001 attacks, which killed 3,000 people
If the Brown study is correct, the wars that flowed from 9/11 will not only have been the longest in US history. At $4 trillion and counting, their combined cost
is approaching that of the Second World War, put at some $4.1 trillion in today’s prices by the Congressional Budget Office. 30 June, 2011. Rupert Cornwell is known for his commentary on international relations and US politics. With The Independent since its launch in 1986, he was the paper’s first Moscow correspondent. Source: The Independent
IRAN OPENS OIL BOURSE By John Daly
The last three years of global recession have dealt a major blow to American capitalist ideas trumpeted throughout the world on the value of “free markets.” Wall St has been revealed as a form of casino economy, with the bankster insiders gambling with other people’s, and eventually, the government’s money in the form of bailouts. As the Republicans in Congress, scenting victory in the 2012 presidential elections, hold a gun to the Obama administration’s head and rating agencies consider downgrading U.S. government bonds in light of Washington’s possible defaulting, many ideas around the world that previously seemed implausible because of the dominance of the U.S. economy are garnering renewed interest. Not surprisingly, many of these concepts originate in countries not enamored with Washington’s influence, perhaps none more so than “Axis of Evil” charter member Iran, which has seen its economy hammered by more than three decades of U.S.-led sanctions. Now Iran is working a program, that, if it succeeds, could help undermine the dollar’s preeminence as the world’s reserve currency more effectively than a Republican filibuster. Iran’s sly weapon against the Great Satan’s currency? An oil bourse on Kish Island in the Persian Gulf, which has now begun selling high-grade Iranian crude oil. Mohsen Qamsari, deputy director for international affairs of the Iranian National Oil Company was modest about the exchange’s initial capabilities, saying, “The commodity stock exchange has been pursuing a mechanism for offering crude oil on the stock exchange for a long time, and it has taken the preliminary
steps, to the extent possible. Considering the existing banking problems, foreign customers are not expected to be taking part in the first phase of offering crude oil on the stock exchange, and this will be done on a trial basis. Today Bahregan heavy, high quality, low sulfur crude oil with less sourness will be offered on the stock exchange for the first time. In the first phase, a 600,000 barrel shipment will be offered.” Given that the world currently consumes roughly 83 million barrels of crude oil each day, the initial oil offerings at the Iranian stock exchange are hardly going to make or break the market, but they do represent an attempt by a significant oil producer to divert revenue streams from the New York Mercantile Exchange, the world’s largest physical commodity futures exchange, which handles West Texas Intermediate benchmark futures, and London’s Intercontinental Exchange, which deals in North Sea Brent. All trades are in dollars, effectively giving the U.S. currency a monopoly. The Kish Exchange dates back to February 2008, when instead of Tehran, Kish was chosen because it had designated as a free trade zone. The Exchange was set up to trade contracts in euros, Iranian rials and a basket of other currencies other than dollars. The previous year, Iran had requested that its petroleum customers pay in non-dollar currencies. But the Exchange initially traded contracts only for oil-derived products, such as those used as feedstocks for plastics and pharmaceuticals. Now the institution has taken the next step. Even as Congress remains tone-deaf to the recession’s effect on American jobs
and the economy, others have taken careful note. On 17 June 2008, addressing the 29th meeting of the Council of Ministers of the OPEC Fund for International Development in the Iranian city of Isfahan, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told those in attendance, “The fall in the value of the dollar is one of the biggest problems facing the world today. The damage caused by this has already affected the global economy, particularly those of the energy-exporting countries. ... Therefore, I repeat my earlier suggestion, that a combination of the world’s valid currencies should become a basis for oil transactions, or (OPEC) member countries should determine a new currency for oil transactions.” What it would take for Iran’s new exchange to survive and flourish are some heavyduty customers that Washington would be wary of picking a fight with, and Tehran already has one – China. China, the world’s largest buyer of Iranian crude oil, has renewed its annual import pacts for 2011. In 2010 Iran supplied about 12 percent of China’s total crude imports. According to the latest report of the China Customs Organization, Iran’s total oil exports to China stood at continued next page
11 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 10 8.549 million tons between January and April 2011, up 32 percent compared with the same period last year. Iran is currently China’s third largest supplier of crude oil, providing China with nearly one million barrels per day. China simply ignores Washington’s squeals about sanctions, but it is concerned about the bottom line, and unless Iran makes its oil prices more attractive versus competing supplies from the rest of the Middle East or South American exporters, it may be hard for the OPEC member to boost its share in
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
the rapidly expanding Chinese market. Enter the Kish Exchange. China’s Ambassador to Tehran Yu Hung Yang, addressing the Iran-China trade conference in Tehran on Monday, said that the value of the two countries’ trade exchanges surged 55 percent during the first four months of 2011 over the same period a year ago to $13.28 billion and further predicted that the figure would surpass $40 billion by the end of the year. So much for sanctions, eh? So, while Washington prepares to
REMEMBRANCE, REFLECTION
AND
By David Krieger
We remember the horrors of the past so that we may learn from them and they will not be repeated in the future. If we ignore or distort the past and fail to learn from it, we are opening the door to repetition of history’s horrors. In August, we remember the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. Both were illegal attacks on civilian populations, violating longstanding rules of customary international humanitarian law prohibiting the use of indiscriminate weapons (as between combatants and non-combatants) and weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. In a just world, those who were responsible for these attacks, in violation of the laws of war, would have been held to account and punished accordingly. They were not. Rather, they were celebrated, as the atomic bombs themselves were celebrated, in the false belief that they brought World War II to an end. The historical record is clear about these facts: First, at the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were leveled, each with a single atomic bomb, Japan had been trying to surrender. Second, the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew that Japan had been trying to surrender. Third, prior to the use of the atomic bombs, the only term of surrender offered to Japan by the US was “unconditional surrender,” a term that left the Emperor’s fate in US hands. Fourth, the precipitating factor to Japan’s actual surrender, as indicated by Japanese
wartime cabinet records, was not the US atomic bombs, but the Soviet Union’s entry into the war against them. Fifth, when Japan did surrender, after the atomic bombings, it did so contingent upon retaining the Emperor, and the US accepted this condition. The US drew a self-serving causal link from the bombings, which was: we dropped the bombs and won the war. In doing so, we reinforced the US belief that it can violate international law at times and places of its choosing and that US leaders can attack civilians with impunity. Following the victory in Europe, the Allied powers held the Nazi leaders to account at the Nuremberg Tribunals for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Charter creating the Nuremberg Tribunals was signed by the US on August 8, 1945, two days after it had dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. One day after signing the Charter, the US would drop a second atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki. Both atomic bombings were war crimes that, if they had been committed by Nazi leaders, most certainly would have been universally denounced and punished at Nuremberg. Upon reflection, we must come to understand Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes, if such crimes are not to be repeated. We must resist the double standard that makes crimes committed by our enemies punishable under international law, while the same crimes committed by our leaders are deemed to
A R T I C L E S commit political hara-kiri, Iran is preparing to take away a little of the capitalist glow from New York and London. If the Chinese decide to start paying for their Iranian purchases strictly in yuan, expect the trickle away from the dollar in energy pricing to become a stampede. That ought to give Washington politicos an issue to think about besides gay marriage. 19 July, 2011. John Daly is a Eurasian foreign affairs and defense policy expert for the Jamestown Foundation based in Washington, D.C. Source: Oilprice.com
RESISTANCE be acceptable. We must resist nuclear weapons themselves. They are citydestroying weapons whose possession should be considered prima facie evidence of criminal intent. It has been two-thirds of a century since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic bombs. There remain over 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world. We must resist the tendency to normalize these weapons and consign them to the background of our lives. They reflect our technological skills turned to massively destructive ends and our failed responsibility to ourselves and to future generations. Looking back at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General Eisenhower said that the bombings were not necessary because Japan was already defeated; and Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, compared us to barbarians of the Dark Ages and said that he was not taught to make war by destroying women and children. Einstein said that, looking forward, we must change our modes of thinking or face unparalleled catastrophe. Changing our modes of thinking begins with remembrance, reflection and resistance. 5 August, 2011.
David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Source: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
TERBITAN BERKALA
Bayaran Pos Jelas Postage Paid Pejabat Pos Besar Kuala Lumpur Malaysia No. WP 1385
About the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) 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.
P.O BOX 288 Jalan Sultan 46730 Petaling Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan MALAYSIA www.just-international.org
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$