Retiring Congressman Ron Paul, former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, comes down on the same side as many progressives on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. A recent post on his website, reiterates comments he made when was president about Gaza being nothing but a vast concentration camp.

It has never mattered to Paul which party was in power. His greatest appeal, especially among young supporters, is his ability to tell the unvarnished truth. He puts the blame for Gazan atrocities squarely where it belongs: with the US government, which is the main supplier of planes and bombs Israel uses to attack Palestinians.

He highlights Obama’s hypocrisy in “racing” to justify Israel’s massacre of Gazan civilians – “No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders” – reminding us of all the missiles our President is raining down on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries.

The libertarian congressman  sides with progressive columnist Glenn Greenwald when he emphasizes that current US policy only exacerbates the loss of human life on both sides. He also points outs that our country’s bellicose Middle East policy serves to reduce, rather than increase US security.

Read more here: How to end the tragedy in Gaza

Palestine's Arab Spring

A September 15^th article (Revolution in the Air at Last) in the highly conservative Economist is predicting possible revolution in Palestine. It’s extremely good news for antiwar activists, economists, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and all other halfway sane people seeking to thwart a threatened Israeli attack on Iran. A full blown Arab Spring uprising in Palestine (Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has referred to growing unrest as the Palestinian Arab Spring) would hopefully keep Israeli war monger Binyamin Netanyahu too busy in his own back yard to start World War III.

Extreme Financial Hardship in the West Bank

In recent demonstrations across the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority (PA) is supposedly in charge, protests over high food prices have escalated to calls for both Abbas and prime minister Salam Fayyad to step down. Tied into Israel’s economy under terms of the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, residents of the West Bank pay Israeli prices for goods while earning a fifth of Israeli salaries. Meanwhile the PA, deeply in debt, limps along from month to month, as previously generous foreign aid slows to a dribble. Gulf donors, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have become reluctant as Palestinians to support an entity that seems incapable of ending Israel’s occupation. Thus most of their aid funds go to Gaza, where Israel ended the military occupation in 2005, and which has been fully run by Hamas Islamists since the 2007 elections.

Europeans, struggling with their own economic crisis, have also drastically cut assistance to the PA. Meanwhile the Obama administration, which has promised $200 million, is making it conditional on a Palestinian promise not to seek the UN recognition of statehood (at least not before the November elections). Thus, at present, the PA relies on Israel for two-thirds of its operating expenses (through a transfer of tax revenues collected in the West Bank).

The Power Struggle in the PA’s Unelected Leadership

The protests also relate, in part, to a long-standing power struggle between Abbas, the Fatah leader who succeeded Yasar Arafat, and Fayyad, an economist trained in America and favored by Washington. What the Economist doesn’t mention is that both Abbas and Fayyad are “appointed” puppets the US and Israel installed in the West Bank after Hamas won the 2007 PA elections (see The Effect of Public Opinion in Palestine). Technically Hamas was the legitimately elected authority in the West Bank, as well as Gaza. Refusing to recognize the elections, the US and Israel replaced the Hamas leadership with Abbas, Fayyad and Fatah party officials. Hamas only retained power in Gaza by undertaking military action to expel the CIA-backed Fatah operatives who had seized crucial security outposts.

At the beginning of September, trade unions and taxi-drivers, who get their licenses from the Fatah-dominated intelligence services, declared a general strike and closed roads, paralyzing the city centers. Fatah-linked Palestinian security officers in plain clothes manned the barricades and lit tires.

By September 10th, the PA was facing the most popular and widespread protests in the 18 years since it was formed in 1993 Oslo accords. In the southern city of Hebron, gangs of youths threw rocks at a police station. In Nablus, they charged a security base. Although the Palestinian police dispersed them with tear gas, the uproar only died down when Fayyad made concessions promised to rescind price rises and pay a first installment of delayed salaries.

The popular uprising is far from over, with Israel’s recent threat to cut off power to the West Bank unless the PA comes up with $200m for unpaid electricity bills.

Read more here

Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin

Hamas

by Beverley Milton-Edwards and Stephen Farrell

(2010 Polity Press)

Book Review – Part II

Milton-Edwards’ and Farrell’s 2010 book Hamas makes it strikingly clear that money and public opinion polls have influenced Palestine Liberation Army (PLO) and Hamas policies far more than lofty political goals. The primary reason the PLO abandoned their pledge, in 1993, to liberate Palestine through armed struggle was that they were nearly bankrupt with the loss of their Gulf donors. Their decision to negotiate a peace with Israel made them enormously unpopular with one million Gazan refugees. Still intent on returning to the lands they had lost in Israel, they had no interest whatsoever in creating a Palestinian state.

The response from Hamas was to issue a fatwa (death sentence issued by Islamic religious leaders) against the Fatah-led PLO. Determined to derail the negotiations, they also launched a massive campaign of violence, incorporating or the first time a new tactic known as “martyrdom” (i.e. suicide) bombings. Each martyrdom bombing resulted in a payment of approximately $25,000 to the suicide bomber’s family, financed mainly by Saddam Hussein and Saudi Arabia.

The Creation of the Palestinian Authority

The 1993 negotiated settlement, known as the Oslo Accords, granted the West Bank and Gaza limited autonomy under Israeli military control. It also created the Palestinian Authority (PA), a shrewd move the US and Israel employed to split and crush the Palestinian resistance. By making the Palestinian leadership the civil authority, they shifted much popular anger away from Israel and towards the PLO.

Arafat and the PLO leadership returned from exile to run the Palestinian Authority (PA). Owing to a continuing embargo by Gulf donors, Arafat had to lay off hundreds of public sector workers and slash social services to prevent a total meltdown of the Palestinian economy. Israel, meanwhile, made Arafat responsible for controlling Hamas militants. His solution was to put thousands of them in prison and torture them. There were numerous reports of prisoners being beaten, forced to shave their beards and sodomized with coke bottles. Moreover PA security services routinely blackmailed families, with offers to release prisoners in return for bribes of $10,000 or more. All this occurred as Israel was continuing to destroy Palestinian homes and olive trees to build more Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

The Second Intifada

In 2000, Palestinian anger at their extreme poverty and repression boiled over in armed insurrection, the second Intifada. In 2002, the Saudis put forward a peace proposal which would have normalized Israel’s relations with the Arab world in return for their withdrawal from the occupied territories. As before Hamas, which still demanded the right of return (to their homelands in Israel) for all exiled Palestinians, tried to derail peace negotiations with a wave of sniper attacks and car and suicide bombings. These were directed against the PLO security services, Jewish settlers in Palestine and civilians inside Israel. Instead of retaliating against Hamas, Israel punished Arafat by sending tanks into the West Bank to bombard his headquarters, commencing a military siege that kept him prisoner until he died in 2004.

Hamas Enters Electoral Politics

Hamas boycotted the January 2005 presidential elections, giving the Fatah candidate Mahmoud Abbas an easy victory. In May 2005, the Hamas leadership made a controversial decision to pursue direct political power by standing candidates in Gaza and West Bank local body elections. They did so in parallel with militant attacks on Israel. Following Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza in August 2005, this included Qassam rocket attacks on Israeli border towns.

Hamas never expected to win the parliamentary elections in January 2006, a success Milton-Edwards and Farrell attribute to widespread disgust, both in the West Bank and Gaza, with Fatah/PLO corruption and inefficiency. Refusing to recognize the Hamas victory, Mahmood Abbas installed his own non-elected parliament in the West Bank. He also refused to relinquish Fatah-controlled security posts to the new Hamas government. Israel, meanwhile, froze funds needed to pay PA officials in Gaza. When Europe and the US also froze Palestinian developmental assistance, Hamas had no choice but to turn to Iran for training, weapons and financial aid.

The Failed CIA Coup

After a brief experiment with a “unity” government, in which Fatah and Hamas ruled jointly, the CIA and Abbas launched an 18 month military coup, determined to dislodge Hamas from power in Gaza. In June 2006, Hamas came out the victor, employing 16,000 fighters to force 70,000 CIA-backed members of Abbas’ Preventive Security Organization to flee Gaza.

Hamas Drops in the Opinion Polls

By June 2008, their popularity waning owning to brutal sanctions and shortages of food, medicine and other necessities, Hamas was in the exact same situation as Fatah in 1993. In desperation they agreed to a temporary ceasefire (ending suicide bombings and Qassam rocket attacks), on condition Israel end their embargo. Hamas honored the ceasefire for six months, despite Israel’s failure to end their economic blockade. In December 2008, Hamas broke the ceasefire by firing rockets into Israel. The book ends with a description of Operation Castlead, which Israel launched against Gaza in retaliation. Castlead destroyed or damaged nearly every Palestinian security installation, killed 1,300 Palestinians (including 900 civilians) and destroyed hundreds of homes and business institutions.

The good news was that Hamas experienced an instantaneous uptick in the polls.

Beverly Milton-Edwards is Professor in the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy at Queen’s University Belfast. Steven Farrell, who has dual British-Irish citizenship, is Middle East Correspondent for The New York Times.

Hamas

by Beverley Milton-Edwards and Stephen Farrell

(2010 Polity Press)

Book Review – Part I

This review is divided into two parts. Part I describes Israel’s role in promoting and supporting the rise of Hamas. Part II describes the gradual decline of the Fatah-led PLO, which led to their 2006 election defeat.

Hamas is about the militant Palestinian group which was democratically elected to run the Palestinian Authority in 2006. The main value of the book is the rich context it provides regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which is totally absent from the mainstream media. Hamas clearly documents the role Israel played in promoting the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in Palestine. The book also emphasizes the essential role foreign financial assistance plays in perpetuating this war – with the US heavily backing Israel and other Islamic states backing the Palestinians.

According to Milton-Edwards and Farrell, Israel’s motives in backing the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine were identical to those of the US in Afghanistan and Anwar Sadat in Egypt. In all cases, the goal of supporting the Islamic fundamentalism was to counter the secular Arab leftists and nationalists who controlled most Middle Eastern states prior to 1967. The US and its allies had enormous concerns that that the leaders in power would form a single Arab economic or political block that would thwart US corporate and strategic interests.

Milton-Edwards and Farrell trace the origins of Hamas to the decision by the Muslim Brotherhood to open offices in Palestine in the 1940s, when it was still under the British Mandate. As a condition of their World War I defeat, the old Ottoman (Turkish) empire was divided up among European powers. In 1947 Britain surrendered control of Palestine, and the UN partitioned it into Jewish and Palestinian Arab states. Outraged that Jews, who represented on 32% of the population were awarded 56% of Palestine, in 1949 Syria, Egypt and Jordan joined with Palestinian jihadists, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, in declaring war on Israel. In the resulting settlement, Palestinian Arabs lost even more territory, forcing 726,000 refugees to flee to neighboring states. Gaza, to the west of Israel, came under Egyptian control. Jordan, to Israel’s east, assumed control of the West Bank. The king of Jordan, an autocratic totalitarian ruler, immediately closed the West Bank offices of the Muslim Brotherhood and placed their members under close police surveillance.

In the 1967 six day war, Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked Israel and were once again defeated. The West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli military occupation, while Israel banned the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and forced Yasar Arafat and other PLO leaders to flee into exile.

Israel Turns a Blind Eye to Mijamma Violence

Prior to 1973, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood saw its primary role as performing charitable works and speaking out against the liberal Westernized culture Palestinian youth brought back when they went to university in Egypt. In 1973 they formed a new organization Al-Mijamma ‘al-Islami (The Islamic Center), under the leadership of a charismatic wheelchair bound cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Mijamma’s ultimate goal was to reclaim Palestinian land and homes Israel had seized in 1947 and 1967. However they felt the first step in building a militant resistance organization was to re-establish Palestine as an Islamic society. Thus despite considerable anti-Israeli rhetoric, their main focus was on islamization, which they approached by teaching, preaching and setting up community institutions to provide food and other social services to impoverished Palestinian families.

Initially their political attacks (demonstrations, street ambushes, attacks on homes and offices) were limited to so-called Israeli “collaborators” and individuals linked with the PLO and other secular and leftist groups and institutions, including teaching and medical associations. However once they assumed control of the Islamic University of Gaza in 1973, they began harassing and expelling female students who refused to wear Islamic dress, as well as beating up men who spoke out against these activities.

Israel, which governed both the West Bank and Gaza after 1967, turned a blind eye to this lawless violence. They only provided direct financial aid to the Islamic Academy in Hebron, where many of Hamas’s military leaders would receive their training. Yet in 1978 Israel granted official recognition to Mijamma, allowing it to meet openly and publicly, at a time when all other Palestinian parties were banned as illegal terrorist organizations.

The Birth of Hamas

During the 1987 insurrection, called the Intifada, Mujamma renamed itself Hamas. Their founding document, which disputes Israel’s right to establish a religious state on Palestinian territory, is full of references to common anti-Semitic conspiracies. In addition to quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a proven forgery), it blames “the Jews” for the French revolution, the Communist revolution and secret societies like the Freemasons, Rotary Club and Lions. Nevertheless despite their full participation alongside the PLO in the Intifada, Israel continued to allow foreign money to flow freely to Hamas, while they continued to freeze PLO assets. Likewise Israel allowed Hamas to keep their schools open in Gaza, while they force West Bank Palestinian schools to close.

In 1990, Israel finally began cracking down on Hamas, following the murder of two Israeli soldiers. Their leader Sheikh Hassan was arrested, tried and imprisoned. Three years later, Israel illegally (under international law) deported 400 Hamas members, following the kidnapping of an Israeli border guard.

Meanwhile the PLO, Hamas’s rival, made the tragic mistake of endorsing Sadam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991. This resulted in the suspension of all aid the PLO previously received from wealth Gulf oil states.

To be continued.

Beverly Milton-Edwards is Professor in the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy at Queen’s University Belfast. Steven Farrell, who has dual British-Irish citizenship, is Middle East Correspondent for The New York Times.

Iraqi Parliament

The American political landscape is undergoing rapid change. A book I published seven weeks ago on political change (Revolutionary Change: An Expatriate View) is already out of date, and I’m hard at work on a second edition. No one dared hope that the simple anti-greed message of five hundred demonstrators camped out in a Wall Street park could instantly overcome decades of political apathy in the US. Moreover there are already small signs that #OccupyWallStreet is impacting US foreign policy.

The first major accomplishment of the antiglobalization movement was in empowering the third world WTO delegates who attended the 1999 Seattle Ministerial to refuse, for the first time, to submit to major concessions the US was trying to ram down their throats. There is already evidence – from Iraq, Palestine, and Pakistan – that OWS is having similar repercussions in the Middle East. This can be seen both in new boldness on the part of Iraq and Pakistan, and a major concessionary move on the part of the US and Israel.

The Iraqi Parliament Pushes Back

In October the mainstream media widely reported that Obama will withdraw all US troops from Iraq by the end of December. Only a few outlets reported the back story – that both the Pentagon and State Department have been pushing for 10,000 US troops to remain past the December withdrawal deadline. The response, in early October, by the Iraqi government and all opposition parties was unanimous: a decision in the Iraqi parliament to withdraw legal immunity (for war crimes) for any US troops who remained after December 2011. This left Obama no choice but to withdraw them. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iraq-pm-immunity-issue-scuttled-us-troop-deal/2011/10/22/gIQAX6k26L_video.html).

Israel Releases 1,027 Palestinian Prisoners

A week later Israel, which is totally reliant on US political and military support for its existence, agreed to the unprecedented release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in return for one Israeli soldier Hamas has been holding in captivity for over five years (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Israel-Arrests-Palestinian-by-Stephen-Lendman-111022-492.html).

Reversal in Pakistan

Meanwhile, over a matter of weeks, there is a 180 degree reversal in harsh Pentagon/State Department rhetoric towards Pakistan, which, in September, seemed to signal impending US military intervention in Pakistan. A month ago Admiral Mike Mullen, who chairs the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan’s intelligence service of direct complicity in terrorist attacks on the US embassy in Kabul. Yet on October 25, five weeks after #OccupyWallStreet began, the State Department released two interviews by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/25/us-not-seeking-overt-military-action-in-fata-says-clinton.html) with a very different message. In them Clinton emphasizes that the US has no plans to send ground troops into as no plans to send ground troops into the tribal areas and no longer expects Pakistan to undertake military action against the Pakistani Taliban. She also acknowledges for the first time that the Pakistani Taliban have safe havens in US-occupied Afghanistan, which they are using to launch terrorist attacks in Pakistan’s cities. Sajjat Shaukat (http://www.newscenterpk.com/shift-in-us-south-asian-policy.html) and other Pakistani analysts attribute this about face, in part, to massive civil unrest (i.e. #OccupyWallStreet) the US government confronts in its major US cities.

Although the mainstream media is unlikely to acknowledge the link between these events and #OccupyWallStreet, it seems highly unlikely that they are totally unconnected.

Banned in the US

Film Review

The War You Don’t See

Produced and directed by John Pilger

Americans now have the opportunity of seeing John Pilger’s critically acclaimed The War You Don’t See as a free download at http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/war-you-dont-see/ The groundbreaking documentary was effectively banned in the US when Patrick Lannan, who funds the “liberal” Lannon Foundation, canceled the American premier (and all Pilger’s public appearances) in June 2010. Pilger provides the full background of this blatant act of censorship at his website www.johnpilger.com. After seeing the film, I believe its strong support of Julian Assange (who the US Department of Justice is attempting to prosecute) is the most likely reason it’s not being shown in American theatres.

Pilger’s documentary centers around the clear propaganda role both the British and US press played in cheerleading the US/British invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. It includes a series of interviews in which Pilger confronts British and American journalists (including Dan Rather) and news executives regarding their failure to give air time to weapons inspectors and military/intelligence analysts who were publicly challenging the justification for these invasions. The Australian filmmaker focuses heavily on the fabricated evidence (Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction and links to 9-11) that was used to convince American and British lawmakers to go along with an illegal attack on a defenceless nation (Iraq).

Making News Executives Squirm

Pilger also confronts the British news executives (from the BBC and ITV) for reporting — unchallenged — Israeli propagandist Mark Regev regarding the May 2010 Israeli attack (in international waters) of the international peace flotilla and murder of nine Turkish peace activists (including six who were executed in the back of the head at point blank range).

Although none of the news makers offer a satisfactory explanation for their actions, British news executives show obvious embarrassment when Pilger forces them to admit they knew about opposing views and failed to offer them equal air time. In my view, the main value of the film is reminding us how essential it is to hold journalists to account for their lack of objectivity. Too many activists (myself included) have allowed ourselves to become too cynical about the mainstream media to hold individual reporters and their editors and managers accountable when they function as government propagandists instead of journalists.

The War You Don’t See was released in Britain in December 2010, in the context of a Parliamentary investigation into the Blair government’s use of manufactured intelligence to ensnare the UK into a disastrous ten year foreign war. Government/corporate censorship is far more efficient in the US, and the odds of a similar Congressional investigation occurring in the US seem extremely low.

Edward Bernays: the Public is the Enemy

The film begins with a thumbnail history of modern war propaganda, which Pilger traces back to Edward Bernays, the father of public relations. Bernays, who began his career by helping Woodrow Wilson to “sell” World War I to the American people, talks in his famous book Propaganda about the public being the “enemy” which must be “countered.”

Independent Journalism is Hazardous to Your Health

The most powerful segment features the Wikileaks gunship video released in April 2010, followed by Pilger’s interview with a Pentagon spokesperson regarding this sadistic 2007 attack on unarmed Iraqi civilians. This is followed by excerpts of a public presentation by a GI on the ground at the time of assault, who was denied permission to medically evacuate two children injured in the attack.

The documentary also focuses heavily on the Pentagon’s deliberate use of “embedded” journalists to report the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the extreme threat (often from American forces) faced by independent, non-embedded journalists. According to Pilger, a record 240 independent journalists were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Palestine, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) has killed ten independent journalists since 1992. The War You Don’t See includes footage of a recent IDF attack on a Palestinian cameraman, who miraculously survived, despite losing both legs.

Pilger goes on to talk about the deliberate bombing of Al Jazeera headquarters in Kabul and Baghdad, mainly because the Arab network was the only outlet reporting on civilian atrocities. This section features excellent Al Jazeera footage of home invasions of two civilian families — in one case by British and the other by American troops — who were brutally terrorized and subjected to torture tactics.

The Interview that Got the Film Banned

The film concludes with a brief interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who discusses the increasing secrecy and failure of democratic control over the military industrial intelligence complex. Assange presents his view that this complex consists of a network of thousands of players (government employees and contractors and defense lobbyists) who make major policy decisions in their own self-interest with virtually no government oversight.

Pilger and Assange also discuss the aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers by Obama, who has the worst record of First Amendment violations of any president. They also discuss the positive implications of the willingness of military and intelligence insiders to leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents. It shows clear dissent in the ranks about the blatant criminality that motivates US foreign policy decisions.

1987 Intifada - note slingshot

Like the 1976 Soweto uprising, the teenagers who sparked the first Palestinian Intifada in 1987 were influenced by a similar breakdown in parental authority, though for different reasons. From 1967, when Israel first seized the Gaza strip from Egypt, until the 1987 Intifada, Gaza, which has always been much poorer than the West Bank, was little more than a cluster of refugee camps. This meant there was no central authority, other than the soldiers from the Israel Defense Force (IDF), who maintained order. According to a recent study by EuroMed Youth  (http://www.euromedyouth.net/IMG/pdf/07-EuroMedJeunesse-Etude_PALESTINE.pdf), the lack of central authority laid the groundwork for the breakdown of parental authority. Because civil society broke down following Gaza’s separation from Egypt, it was up to young people, who freely intermingled in schools, universities and the streets to create the social/political arena in which intellectual debate could occur. In 1987, Yasar Arafat and the other Palestinian resistance leaders in the PLO – who would later assume this role – were still in exile.

Children Who Supported Their Families

Other factors contributed to the strong sense of autonomy Palestinian teenagers felt from their families. Witnessing the routine humiliation of their parents by Israeli soldiers was a major factor in undermining their authority. Although some Palestinians were allowed to cross into Israel to work, their wages were extremely low. Many families depended on the income of children and teenagers, working as street vendors. In some cases young people were the sole source of income.

Demographic factors also played a major role in the empowerment of Palestinian youth in the late eighties. Approximately 65% of Palestinians were under 25 (due to low life expectancy, older age groups are underrepresented). In 1987, this group had a 37% unemployment rate.

Children take on the Israel Defense Force

The first Palestinian Intifada started spontaneously when Palestinian children, teenagers and college students rioted in response to the killing of six Palestinian students by the IDF. Initially Palestinian youth battled Israeli solders armed only with rocks, bottles and slingshots. The movement quickly spread to the West Bank and was joined by underground Palestinian resistance organizations, such as Fatah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, who taught the youths how to make Molotov cocktails and sophisticated tactics, such as burning tires or constructing barricades to protect themselves from retaliation.

The response by the IDF was massive brutality, with random killings, arbitrary detention and torture of Palestinian children and teenagers. By 1989 13,000 Palestinian teenagers were in Israeli jails.

Israel Forced to Establish the Palestinian Authority

The first Intifada didn’t end until 1993, when under the Oslo agreement, Israel agreed to establish the Palestinian Authority, and Yasar Arafat and other PLO members returned from exile to run it.

My last blog suggested that the current US wars in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia are really proxy wars with China over oil and gas resources. I continue the discussion by outlining the crucial Chinese and US alliances in the region.

The prime ministers of China and Pakistan

China‘s Strategic Alliance with Pakistan

Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s recent threats against Pakistan for allegedly promoting Taliban terrorism are pure rhetoric. Their purpose is to conceal the strategic importance of Pakistan (and Afghanistan) in US competition with China over oil and national gas resources. It also conceals the reality that the undeclared US war against Pakistan (approximately 2,000 civilians have been killed since the drone attacks started in 2004 – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan) is really a proxy war against China.

Pakistan is China’s strongest ally in protecting the oil supply critical to its booming economy is Pakistan. At present China imports 46% of its oil. In contrast the US imports 60%. (See http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90860/6891500.html). Twenty percent of Chinese oil imports come from Saudi Arabia and somewhat less from Angola (see http://www.presstv.ir/detail/183746.html.) Ten percent of China’s oil imports come from Iran.

Growing Military Tension in Pakistan

Until recently, all oil originating from Saudi Arabia and Iran had to be transported via the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, which is under the control of the US Navy (see http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62604/dennis-blair-and-kenneth-lieberthal/smooth-sailingthe-worlds-shipping-lanes-are-safe). To counterbalance this de facto US control over their oil transhipments, China built a port in Gwadar (in Balochistan province) Pakistan to facilitate overland oil transport – via an extensive Chinese-built super highway and eventually the IPIC (the Iran- Pakistan- India-China) pipeline.

Since 2002, covert CIA support for the Baloch separatist movement and daily “terrorist” bombings and assassinations have seriously disrupted operations at the Gwadar Port (see “Our CIA Freedom Fighters in Pakistan” at http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2011/03/07/our-cia-freedom-fighters-in-pakistan/). As this obviously has more effect on the Pakistan economy than on China, the Pakistani government has recently given China permission to build a naval base in Gwadar http://corredorbioceanico.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/great-game-in-the-indian-ocean/.This move is also partly motivated by continued US violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty with CIA drone strikes in Waziristan.

China’s Other Strategic Alliances

As US influence in Saudi Arabia declines (in 2003 they demanded the US withdraw their troops from Saudi military bases – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia), the Chinese also strengthen political and economic ties with the Saudis.

Meanwhile as the US prepares to withdraw from Afghanistan, the US State Department is extremely concerned about growing Chinese investment and influence in Afghanistan, especially in view of China’s strong alliance with Pakistan and the latter’s historic links with the Taliban (which seems positioned to take power following US withdrawal). Important context often omitted by the US media is that the CIA collaborated with Pakistan to create the Taliban in CIA-funded Madrassas (fundamentalist Islamic schools) to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-1988). The subsequent Taliban takeover was fully supported by both Bush senior and Clinton, in the belief that they had the ability to bring peace and stability to a country devastated by decades of civil war. Both were essential to enable US oil companies to employ Afghanistan as a transit route for newly discovered Caspian Sea oil and gas. It was only when the Taliban balked at the Bush administration’s proposed oil-gas pipeline in 2001 that they became the enemy.

It’s no surprise that China is also one of the strongest political and economic supporters of Hamas and the Palestinian peace process (see http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-03/26/content_12231765.htm). At present Israeli terrorist victims are suing a Chinese bank that provided major financial support to Hamas (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=228728).

US Allegiances in the Middle East

India, Pakistan’s long time enemy, is a strong ally of the US (second only to Israel) in this strategic war over resources. Indian intelligence (RAW) is a longstanding supporter of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance. With US military support, the Northern Alliance install Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan following the US invasion, although Karzai only controls a small area around Kabul. RAW provided the Northern Alliance with weapons, training and financial support while the US and Pakistan were still supporting the Taliban. In addition, RAW provides major support for the Baloch separatist movement in Pakistan (see “Our CIA Freedom Fighters in Pakistan” at http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2011/03/07/our-cia-freedom-fighters-in-pakistan/). According to many Pakistani analysts, it’s also responsible for cross border terrorism on the Kashmir-Pakistan border (see http://www.newscenterpk.com/indian-double-game-with-bangladesh.html).

Book Review

US vs Islamic Militants: Invisible Balance of Power by Sajjad Shaukat is, in essence, a review of western military history as it relates to Balance of Power theory. The latter is based on the premise that in the absence of an international body capable of enforcing international law, “balance of power” between dominant nations is the only force capable of containing wanton military aggressors with “excessive” economic and political power. This 2005 book presents the novel theory that the rise of stateless terrorist groups has created an “invisible balance of power,” which performs the same function in curbing US state terrorism as the Soviet Union did prior to its collapse.

Shaukat begins by tracing various balance of power relationships starting with the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greece, through the rise of European nation states and the complicated alliances that followed and finally the Cold War balance of power between the US and the Soviet Union. He points out that during the 1945-90 Cold War period, the threat of Mutually Assured (nuclear) Destruction was responsible for a lengthy war-free period in the developed world, although the two super powers continuously jockeyed for political advantage via proxy wars in the Third World.

Wanton State Terrorism By the US

Shaukat goes on to demonstrate that since the demise of the USSR, the US has felt free to blatantly and repeatedly violate international law. As examples, he cites

• The 1998 air strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan, condemned by Iran and China as a violation of international law.
• The 1999 air strikes against Serbia, condemned by Russia and China as “terrorism” and a violation of international law.
• The 2003 invasion of Iraq, condemned by UN Secretary General Kofi Anan as a violation of international law.

US Military Failures in Iraq and Afghanistan

However since 2003, the political influence of “group terrorism” has replaced the USSR in providing a clear check on US military ambitions. Shaukat points to failure by the US military to achieve their objective of turning Iraq and Afghanistan into economic colonies to improve strategic access to Middle East and Central Asian oil and gas resources.

He then gives numerous examples of political and diplomatic objectives Islamic groups have accomplished via specific terrorist acts. He describes the use of suicide bombers and random bombings to force the UN and Spain to withdraw from Iraq and the US from Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of high profile kidnappings and videotaped executions to pressure the Philippines, Russia, India and Kuwait to withdraw troops and workers.

Suicide Bombings as a Rational Response to Genuine Grievance

Shaukat also disputes propaganda efforts by Western leaders to portray suicide bombers as psychological deranged and/or jealous of western democracy and culture. In fact, I think he makes a compelling case for suicide bombings being a totally rational Third World response to US state terrorism, in the absence of an international body strong enough to prevent the US from victimizing weak nations. He argues that the rise of militant Islamic groups is clearly a direct response to the increasing dominance over the world economy by wealthy nations and their corporations, to the detriment of most of the citizens of the globe. He then points out that suicide bombings are always a direct response to genuine grievances (either state terrorism in the form of massive civilian casualties from carpet bombing, shelling, random shootings at checkpoints and in house to house searches, unlawful detention and torture of innocent civilians, including women and children – or “coercive diplomacy” (imposing free markets, privatization and denationalization on Third World countries). Finally, and most importantly, he points to the wide support Islamic militants movements in Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir receive from intellectuals in Muslim nations.

The Concept of Moral Force

According to Shaukat, the latter relates in part to the greater “moral force” enjoyed by “group terrorism,” in contrast to US state terrorism. Many in the Third World who have directly experienced US “state terrorism” and/or “coercive diplomacy” view the war launched by the Islamic militants as a “just war,” aimed at correcting a massive injustice. In addition to facilitating recruitment, this also gives “group terrorism” substantial military advantage over state terrorism, as it results in greater discipline, morale, cohesion, toughness, courage, and, if necessary, readiness to die.

Shaukat sees very little support in the Third World for US attempts to revise the definition of state terrorism based on the so-called “intent” of the aggressor (for example, if the US accidentally kills civilians in pursuing a terrorist leader or tortures prisoners to access information vital to security, this doesn’t count as terrorism).

Future Dangers and Potential Solutions

Shaukat devotes a full chapter to the potential dangers the world faces from a continuation of the “invisible balance of power.” Chief among them is the real risk Islamic terrorists will access and deploy nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

For me, his final chapter “Lessons for the US” was the most valuable, with the specific solutions it proposes for ending the highly dangerous “invisible balance of power”:

1. Foreign policy needs to be based on the collective interest of humanity. Developed nations can only secure their global interests by helping to resolve the political, economic and social problems of weak nations that are the breeding ground of terrorism. There will never be economic justice in a world run by Wall Street.
2. The UN needs to be reformed to give it real power to enforce international law. The weak nations represented by the General Assembly must be given equal power as the Security Council, which is dominated by the countries with the greatest economic and military power.
3. Secret diplomacy must be ended. Diplomacy must be transparent and open to public scrutiny.
4. The US needs to end its current policy of “encircling” (economically and militarily) the emerging superpower China. US support of India in this exercise greatly increases the probability of (nuclear) conflict between India and Pakistan.
5. The US needs to return to incremental diplomacy and political solutions, instead of supporting state terrorism in Palestine and Kashmir – both major breeding grounds for the Islamic militants.
6. The US needs to respect the traditions and values of Arab states and allow their democracies to develop from below.
7. The US needs to reduce the debt burden of Third World nations, as poverty and hunger breed terrorism and remain the central obstacle to global security.
8. The US must recognize that less developed nations need economic democracy prior to political democracy. Using economic aid (as well as sanctions and freezing of assets) to dictate political reform is counterproductive. It hurts ordinary people more than their leaders and only further enables terrorist recruitment.
9. The US needs to give up their anti-Muslim policies, which are a major recruiting tool for terrorists.
10. The US must stop using economic aid (as well as sanctions and the freezing of assets) to control political reform – this type of “coercive diplomacy” always hurts ordinary people more than their leaders – and thus further enables terrorist recruitment.
11. In Iraq, the US needs to cede full military control to the UN, which is the only way other Islamic countries will provide troops to contain sectarian violence.
12. The US needs to lead a genuine global arms reduction effort to reduce the likelihood of war.

Sajjad Shaukat is a Pakistani writer with a master’s degree from Punjab University in journalism, English and international relations. His book can be purchased for $12.50 at emarkaz.com

Sam Vaknin’s third criterion for a semi-failed state is that other countries regard it with derision, fear and abhorrence. This, like Americans’ attitude towards government, is hard to measure objectively. My personal experience, in talking to New Zealanders and other immigrants willing to talk about attitudes in their home country – is that most foreigners are quick to make a distinction between Americans and the US government. Also in most cases, negative feelings about the US government fall well short of “derision, fear, and abhorrence.”

Nevertheless there seems to be universal disapproval of the US wars in the Middle East, which everyone I encounter views as an America’s attempt to dominate global oil resources. To many Kiwis’ dismay, the New Zealand government joined the October 2002 invasion of Afghanistan. We currently have a 140 member reconstruction team stationed there, as well as 67 “Special Forces” (members of the New Zealand SAS, modeled after the British SAS).

Fortunately, by March 2003, the New Zealand antiwar movement was large and vocal enough to keep this country out of the “Coalition of the Willing” that invaded Iraq. (Canada also refused to join.)

Harsh Condemnation for US War Crimes

In general, people tend to be less critical of the wars themselves  than of the blatant war crimes the US government has committed in the prosecution of these wars – and their military support for the Israel occupation of Palestine:

1. The harsh, indefinite detention of so-called “terrorists” in Guatanamo, without adequate legal representation or regard for UN and Red Cross conventions regarding humane treatment of prisoners of war.

2. The use of torture in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other Afghan and Iraqi prisons.

3. The repeated and callous targeting of civilian populations by ground forces, bombers, and drones.

4. The  use of “extraordinary rendition” – the CIA kidnapping of civilians on European soil to be transported to totalitarian regimes that engage in torture.

5.  Continued US support ($2.77 billion in military aid in 2010) for the brutal and illegal (under UN convention) Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Only Refugees Express Derision, Fear, and Abhorrence

I only encounter frank “derision, fear, and abhorrence” in refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan – or from other countries affected by US military or economic “intervention.”  This could include replacing (through military aggression or covert CIA economic sabotage or “terrorism”) a democratically elected government with a puppet dictator, active suppression of a popular movement to overthrow a dictator, or devastation of a third world economy via predatory IMF and World Bank lending practices or the wholesale dumping of cheap US agricultural surpluses.

List of countries where democratic governments and popular movements were destroyed by the US government:

• Iran 1953
• Vietnam 1954-1975
• Guatemala 1954, 1993
• Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960
• Iraq 1963, 1968, 1973
• Brazil 1964
• Indonesia 1965
• Ghana 1966
• Chile  1973
• Afghanistan 1973
• Argentina 1976
• Iran 1980
• Nicaragua 1981-1990
• El Salvador 1980-1992
• Cambodia 9980-95
• Angola 1980-90
• Philippines 1986
• Serbia 2000
• Haiti 2004
• Palestinian Authority 2006-2011
• Somalia 2006-2007

Predatory US Economic Policy

This topic is far too complex to do justice in a short essay. Economist Michael Hudson wrote an excellent article in Counterpunch in 2009 regarding the destructive role the IMF plays in the developing world: http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson04062009.html

I also highly recommend John Perkins’ 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

The following are excellent articles regarding the role of predatory US trade practices in creating famine in Haiti and Africa:

http://www.theafricareport.com/typerighter/index.php?post/2010/03/30/After-the-crisis%2C-is-now-the-moment-to-cut-Western-farm-subsidies

http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?RefID=37655

http://humanrights.change.org/blog/view/what_bill_clintons_mea_culpa_should_mean

To be continued with a discussion of Vaknin’s last two criteria for a semi-failed state and implications for activists.

.