Today's Norway bombing may still turn out not to be perpetrated by Sunni Extremists, however this is the current hypothesis (the article on this link was amended later to point to what is known at this moment that the shooting and probably the bombing were all the doing of a lonely white norwegian man acting on the basis of probably right wing political motives including hatred of Islam).
Sunni extremism has a long history of being used by different countries to fulfill a political aganda. The Mujahidin were used by the west in order to oust the soviet republic from Afghanistan. But this utlimately resulted, after the end of the war in Afghanistan, with a disorientation of the goals of jihad to finally rest their sight on the US with multiple targets hit by Bin Laden and his allies over several years that culminated in 9/11. Whatever the official reasons behind 9/11, the reality is that global sunni jihad was getting out of hand the moment it losts its main enemy, the USSR. New goals were eyed by these jihadis including their own home countries, mainly Saudi Arabia and Yemen. This is probably the main reason why Saudi Arabia worked tirelessly to maintain the money flowing to the global sunni jihad while succeeding at keeping its monarchy out of its line of sight. Evidence from the 9/11 commission points to this complexe relationship between the kingdom and the global sunni jihad.
There are also many local examples in the ME of this flow of Sunni jihad from one country in crisis to another. Lebanon experienced this first hand when an extremist sunni group, Fatah El Islam, fought the Lebanese army for three months in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr El Bared which led to the total destruction of the camp in 2007. This group was formed by former Al Qaida combatants in Iraq. It infiltrated Palestinian camps in Lebanon with the financial help of local sunni politicians.
Similarly, there is a flow of sunni jihadis now from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, from where the US has been reducing its military presence and from where Nato, exhausted by the Lybian campaign, will be pulling out soon, to countries experiencing the Arab spring. The Arab spring could well be hijacked by these extremist movements. In Syria for example a genuine revolution based on specific grievances turned quickly to an organised armed revolt the Syrian government has been fighting for the last four months with these movements. There is an indication that Syrian exiles, as well as Lebanese politicians who are opposed to the Assad regime, are trying to use these movements. There is also an indication that the Lybian revolution has been infiltrated by Al Qaida.
There is actually two possibilities to contain this flow of sunni jihadis:
1. The jihadis are used in an open sectarian war against Shias and this is a prospect the neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia have been caressing recently because it serves the immediate political goals of each of these countries or political movements. It keeps the kingdom and other Arab monarchies, for now, out of the line of sight of the jihadis for political vindication and unrest due to the fact that the Arab spring proved to be a fertile ground for Sunni Islamist groups activism, and for the neocons and Israel, it pits sunnis against shias, a strife that may keep Arabs busy and Israel safe to occupy and oppress, with its usual unrestrained will, Palestinians and the land of Palestine...The Arab spring took Arab monarchies by surprise and they are trying now to protect themselves against it while playing the counter revolution in countries where the Arab spring took hold by using Sunni extremists.
This scenario is gloomy since, even though it may cynically seem at first contained to the US, Israel and the EU, touching only middle eastern countries where citizen lives are of absolutely no importance to the west, there is no guarantee that it will not spill and materialise in terror threats in the west, since the west will be actively engaged in the political transformations and wars of middle eastern countries, as ever.
2. The west is serious about the war on terror and will work to contain the global jihadi network with its many affiliates. In this case, the west won't be fuelling sectarian sunni-shia tensions and wars in the middle east since these wars will increase the likelihood that we will not be able to get rid of this network for a long time and that the west might see some of its side effects if we are to believe that 9/11 was a side effect of the end of the war in Afghanistan against the USSR.
There are many indications now that we are heading for the first case scenario, the first of these indications is the Qatari channel Al-Jazeera's misleading coverage of Syria spilling sectarian hate through sunni tele-preacher and Al-Jazeera frequent commentator, Al Qaradawi*, from day one of the Syrian revolt. But those who think that sunni-shia tensions will somehow weaken the global sunni jihadis might just be playing with fire, because as much as they think they are using these sunni jihadis to attain their political goals, as much as those same jihadis will be using them to attain their own political goals and it will be a slow war of attrition, including many regional wars, for which Arabs and Muslims will pay a hefty price in lives, livelihood, progress and development...
*Al Qaradawi moving to Norway!
Initial claim of responsibility for the Oslo attack.
Norway charges radical cleric with death threats.
P.S. A reader commented on the term 'Sunni extremism'. He wrote that 'Salafi' would be a fairer term. I think he is right. However, I chose 'Sunni extremism' because this extremism is actually condoned by countries with a Sunni majority like Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries who finance the terrorists worldwide in their operations against western targets and direct them regionally at shias in Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
11.6.11
Some personal thoughts on Syria
Photo credit: Voirlemonde
I have not been posting on Syria because the state of this country is a very personal thing to me. I grew up during the Lebanese civil war. I saw the savagery of my fellow men and women. I saw people who used to be friends denounce and kill each other out of fear and under coercion. Militia in Lebanon were intent at destroying each other. Only the presence of the Syrian army prevented one ethnic sect from annihilating the other. Many Lebanese accuse Syrians of having participated, in their own way, with their intelligence and army, in the Lebanese civil war. But Syria didn't start the Lebanese civil war. It was started by Lebanese. Syria watched and made sure no sect triumphed. It was in Baathist and secular Syria's interest that Lebanon kept its religious mosaics. I left Lebanon in 1982 and forgot about it, married a foreigner and threw myself in the pursuit of the ordinary life without ever thinking of even visiting Lebanon. When in 2005 Rafic Hariri was assassinated, I told my husband and children that it was time to visit Lebanon because the country was probably going to enter a new period of unrest. It was also time for me to face up to my repressed fears and my pain. Memories came back. Days and nights were spent with anxiety only at the thought of revisiting the country that I left ravaged by civil war. To calm my fears, my husband decided to give this visit a context that will make it less stressful by including Cyprus and Syria in our itinerary before arriving to Lebanon. We were in Cyprus when the London subway was bombed. Greek Cypriots love Bashar El Assad as much as they hate Turks. In Syria, despite the tensions on the Syrian Lebanese border, we were welcome. I felt free, I felt secure. I loved Damascus and the harmony between the communities. All these years I was outside Lebanon and unable to think about it, it was there before my eyes. I know this might seem an insult because many Syrians consider their government as oppressive and themselves as lacking freedom. But Syria in 2005 reminded very much of Lebanon before the civil war, it was my country lost and found again. Finally we went to Lebanon, and only because I visited Syria before and saw the possibility of different religions living together I was able to see Lebanon again without fear and negative feelings. This is my personal connection to Syria.
I have not been posting on Syria on this blog because there is so much disinformation. The revolution, in the beginning, seemed genuine to me. But also right from the beginning, there was evidence of lies and biases in Arab and western coverage of Syria. The Guardian for instance has been misrepresenting the events from day one, even though they pretended to have a reporter on site in Damascus. They had Katherine Marsh, and now they have Nidaa Hassan. For some reason, Brian Whitaker who has written well on the Middle east and the Arab world, has been openly anti Syrian regime right from the beginning of the events (Whitaker who is in charge of the middle east section at The Gaurdian wrote directly only rarely on Syria since the beginning). The big elephant in this small room of information is Al-Jazeera who has been litteraly lashing out at the Syrian regime and not only presenting unreliable information from eyewitnesses but also manipulating the information.
There is also the gay girl in damascus story and it has come to represent the level of lies and manipulations in the information on the Syrian revolution 2011 to the point that soon enough Syrian auhtorities will be accused of the disappearance of a fictional character. This is kafkaesque!
Serious analyses are lacking. The left leaning Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar has published some useful articles on Syria but they are not making their way into other news oultets and they are not cited.
Here are two of them that caught my attention:
And there are facts and analyses by journalists, political analysts and political scientists which were never mentioned in the blogs and Syria news aggregators that are read by Syrians anxious to find a way out to the turmoil in their country:
The weak foundations of Arab democracies: the author puts the blame on Islam and its inability to foster a vital civil society, a necessary condition for democracy, the real one, not the one that is being crafted by the neoliberal cons for Syria and the Arab world.
Understanding Syria's unrests: the author mentions, as early as April 11th, the danger of armed gangs
A third way on Syria is possible, but nobody is listening...
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood by Gary Gambill (an article from 2006 but of some interest to what is happening today in Syria).
The Syrian Baath by Eric Rouleau (1967, English). Sometimes, it is useful to have a look back.
The confrontation in Syria has also changed rapidly. The so called Syrian revolution 2011 has mutated into an armed insurgency against the regime. They have strong elements from the neighbouring Muslim Brotherhood and from external powers including Israel who have stakes in fomenting a civil war in Syria. External powers, especially Israel, have no interest in the emergence of a vibrant Syrian economy and Syrian society, I wonder how those Syrians who are monitoring the Syrian revolution 2011 from Washington DC, Maryland, or Sweden cannot see this, but they are blinded by their hate for Assad. There is no opposition in Syria today if one means by opposition a unified assembly of people having common goals for the country, there is only chaos powered by hate for the Assads and organised by ennemies of Syria in which a minority of Syrians are participating taking hostage some 70% of the population in Damascus and Aleppo. This is not to say that there isn't a need for genuine reforms in Syria and a transition to social justice and freedom (you will never hear the word democracy in my posts because the term, as it is promoted by Neo Liberal Cons and western powers as an excuse to invade Arab countries is now in disrepute), this is to say that the Syrian revolution 2011 is the perfect example of organised chaos, far from being a platform for reforms, social justice and individual freedoms.
One has to feel responsibility for the country and the people when trying to change the order of things. I am not seeing this in any known representative of the Syrian revolution 2011 and the people they are sending to protest are poor and desperate people. So far, this revolution is represented in the outside by people funded by external powers who are not friends of Syria and inside by disenfranchised people. There are no women, no families, no students, no businessmen, no professionals, no intellectuals in these protests. Meanwhile the traditional opposition sits silent and departs from its silence only to mention that it is up to the Shabab (youth) on the streets to assume the revolution. Only Bassam El Kadi, who is younger than your average traditional Syrian opposition figure, has been vocal and I like what he writes. It makes me sad, these old revolutionaries would like to think that there is a real revolutionary spirit on the streets. There is. But sadly, there is also a foreign funded armed insurgency which nobody knows for sure how it will end.
Today is the 'Day Of The Clans' of the Syrian opposition who is hoping to rally the clans of Syria. Just the title makes me suspicious of this opposition. If clanism is going to be part of the new Syria then you can say goodbye to reforms with this opposition (not to mention democracy of course, even their democracy and not mine). They are only going to topple Assad by replacing him with another dictatorship, fragilise the country's ethnic mosaics, its economy, put an end to the last secular regime in the Arab world, and open the door to a more docile Syria. That's the price of freedom, if only they would get their freedom, and if only it will end there but it won't. By ending secular governments in favour of sectarian and theocratic governments, the conditions are set for more tensions in the region. I hope Syrians will find a way out of this mess and wish them well.
A road map to a peaceful solution in Syria.
7.12.10
Saudi Arabia appears from the leaks as the biggest threat to Mideast security after Israel
Each of the above two countries is preoccupied with its own survival, Saudi Arabia is preoccupied by the survival of its ruling class and Israel is preoccupied by its legitimacy as an expansionist state. Both states have a very poor track record in human rights.
Saudi Arabia is a cash machine for terrorists
Saudi King urged US strike on Iran
Saudis proposed to the US Arab force to invade Lebanon
Saudis meddling in Pakistani affairs
US secure record 60 Billions arms sale to Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is a cash machine for terrorists
Saudi King urged US strike on Iran
Saudis proposed to the US Arab force to invade Lebanon
Saudis meddling in Pakistani affairs
US secure record 60 Billions arms sale to Saudi Arabia
28.2.08
The True Cost of the Iraq War
Joseph Stiglitz's appreciation. Read it and you will realise that the Iraq war is pure madness. It is destructing two people, the Iraqi and the American people, and it is destabilising the region, and the wrold, for years to come...
People in the US, even though they were brainwashed to believe that the war was necessary, they overwhelmingly supported it, even electing Bush for a second term after what appeared to be a gigantic blunder. They are not to lament as much as Iraqis because this was their choice according to their own system of democracy. But what about Iraqis and other people in the Middle East who were affected by this war ? Who didn't vote and who didn't ask for it? Lebanese, Palestinians, etc..?
Those who made this war should be tried according to international law, if this law still exist...There is no way we can have our reason and our spirits back if justice, real justice, not the justice of the powerful, is not delivered...And Justice should be demanded both by Iraqis, the American people, and the rest of the world...
People in the US, even though they were brainwashed to believe that the war was necessary, they overwhelmingly supported it, even electing Bush for a second term after what appeared to be a gigantic blunder. They are not to lament as much as Iraqis because this was their choice according to their own system of democracy. But what about Iraqis and other people in the Middle East who were affected by this war ? Who didn't vote and who didn't ask for it? Lebanese, Palestinians, etc..?
Those who made this war should be tried according to international law, if this law still exist...There is no way we can have our reason and our spirits back if justice, real justice, not the justice of the powerful, is not delivered...And Justice should be demanded both by Iraqis, the American people, and the rest of the world...
This is not, then, pure neocon ideology at work, says Stiglitz: "Ideology of convenience is a better description." It is an ideology illustrated even more clearly in another fact that Stiglitz can't believe - that Bush put through tax cuts while going to war. In Stiglitz and Bilmes's reading, this was downright underhand. Raising taxes, and resorting to the rhetoric of shared sacrifice used in the world wars, for example, would have made Americans more aware of exactly what the war was costing them, and would have provoked opposition sooner. The solution was to borrow the money, at interest of couple of hundred billion dollars a year, which, by 2017, will add up to another trillion dollars or so. This government will be gone in nine months; subsequent administrations, and generations, will have to pay it off.
At the same time, Stiglitz and Bilmes argue, the Federal Reserve colluded in this obfuscation, because it "kept interest rates lower than they otherwise might have been, and looked the other way as lending standards were lowered, thereby encouraging households to borrow more - and spend more." Alan Greenspan, by this account, encouraged people to take on variable-rate mortgages, even as household savings rates went negative for the first time since the Depression. Individuals were taking on unprecedented debt at the same time as a long housing bubble made them feel wealthy (and less concerned with derring-do abroad) - a scenario echoed on this side of the Atlantic.
As we now know, this couldn't continue - in part because of yet another effect of the war. Whatever the much argued reasons for bombing Baghdad, cheap oil has not been the result. In fact, the price of oil has climbed from $25 a barrel to $100 in the past five years - great for oil companies, and oil-producing countries, who, along with the contractors, are the only beneficiaries of this war, but not for anyone else. After calculations based on futures markets, Stiglitz and Bilmes conclude that a significant proportion of this rise is directly due to the disruptions and instabilities caused by Iraq. This price rise alone has cost the US, which imports about 5bn barrels a year, an extra $25bn per year; projecting to 2015 brings that number to an extra $1.6 trillion on oil alone (against which the recent $125bn stimulus package is simply, as Stiglitz puts it, "a drop in the bucket").
15.8.07
Iraq Set To Disintegrate And With It The Entire Middle East
The only constant feature to the US policy in the middle east had been to break unity, any kind of unity, arab nationalism, nurtured by secularism in the 70s, and now that this Nationalism was replaced by Islamism, the US is arming Sunnis against Shias. Look at Iraq, it is an example of what will happen in any multiethnic country in the ME where the US has influence. This is too convenient for Israel to hold it innocent in this killing game. Actually, only the Israelis are finding that the Iraq war is a success. Israel and Saudi Arabia are the only monoethnic states in the region, no wonder why they were and still the US's strongest allies. If the middle east breaks apart in small ethnic states, those two countries will benefit the most. Saudi Arabia will not appear as an awkward religious state anymore, and Israel, after refusing to give a viable state to Palestinians can refuse to include Palestinians in a binational state. It would also be unfair to accuse Bush alone of this mess. The US policy was set in this direction before him.
Iraq is set to disintegrate. The report, written by Guido Steinberg, suggests that federalism will be the only hope for Iraq. We have been hearing the federalist siren for a while now (we are hearing it also in Lebanon from USrael's allies there). And even this will not be the end of the mess created by Bush and USrael in Iraq.
"The sectarian wrangling means, the study says, that the best solution -- that of a federalism free of ethnic and religious divisions -- has largely been rendered impossible. But even a federalism resting on the ethnic divisions that have been established seems challenging given the opposition from within the Shiite and Sunni factions to such a solution.
And that's not to mention the opposition of other countries in the region. "The discussion within Iraq is influenced to a large degree by the interests of neighboring countries," the report states. "Due to their potential to become involved, the Iraq federalists have to take their positions into account. And Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria all reject the ethnic-religious federalism model out of hand." Military intervention from Iraq's neighbors to protect their interests, particularly from Turkey in the north, is a very real possibility, the report warns."
Read also: Disappointment at US policies all over the Middle East
Iraq is set to disintegrate. The report, written by Guido Steinberg, suggests that federalism will be the only hope for Iraq. We have been hearing the federalist siren for a while now (we are hearing it also in Lebanon from USrael's allies there). And even this will not be the end of the mess created by Bush and USrael in Iraq.
"The sectarian wrangling means, the study says, that the best solution -- that of a federalism free of ethnic and religious divisions -- has largely been rendered impossible. But even a federalism resting on the ethnic divisions that have been established seems challenging given the opposition from within the Shiite and Sunni factions to such a solution.
And that's not to mention the opposition of other countries in the region. "The discussion within Iraq is influenced to a large degree by the interests of neighboring countries," the report states. "Due to their potential to become involved, the Iraq federalists have to take their positions into account. And Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria all reject the ethnic-religious federalism model out of hand." Military intervention from Iraq's neighbors to protect their interests, particularly from Turkey in the north, is a very real possibility, the report warns."
Read also: Disappointment at US policies all over the Middle East
14.8.07
Political Covergence: Saudi Arabia Is Not An Ennemy Of Israel
Saudi Arabia has let itself be pressured by Arab public opinion into getting involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict only once, in 1973...The Saudi government had been hesitant to take this step, fearing negative economic consequences.
The then King Faisal, who ruled from 1964 to 1975, wanted to avoid taking a clear position against the USA and Israel and he only acted reluctantly on the boycott as a consequence of enormous domestic pressure.
...Since the seventies Saudi foreign policy has been concentrating on the conflict with Saudi Arabia's two powerful neighbours, Iraq and Iran. Whatever the rhetoric coming out of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia has felt more threatened by them than by Israel. More...
The then King Faisal, who ruled from 1964 to 1975, wanted to avoid taking a clear position against the USA and Israel and he only acted reluctantly on the boycott as a consequence of enormous domestic pressure.
...Since the seventies Saudi foreign policy has been concentrating on the conflict with Saudi Arabia's two powerful neighbours, Iraq and Iran. Whatever the rhetoric coming out of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia has felt more threatened by them than by Israel. More...
31.7.07
"Bringing Democracy to the Middle East": Open Conspiracy Against Civil Society
In Israel, the US is supproting the very unpopular Olmert government and rewrading its failed 2006 agression on Lebanon with an increase in its massive aid.
For the most backward and authoritarian regime in the region, a regime that opresses women, minorities, religions, and everybody else except the ruling family, the US has approved a massive arms sale. Israel understands.
In Iraq, the US is arming sunni militia 'against Al Qaida' they say, but these sunni militia are also fighting shias in a civil war that is ravaging Iraq and which the US don't want to name or to recognise.
In Lebanon, the US is not only supporting the weak Islamist Sanyura government but is also intervening to stop any national dialogue between the government and the strong opposition in order to increase the number of ministers from the opposition oin the government and form a national unity government. This last demand was formulated by the opposition after the crisis that ensued the July 2006 Israeli agression on Lebanon in which Israel and the US, and silently their Lebanese allies tried to crush the opposition.
In Iran, the US is financing terror operations conducted by Iranian minorities since 2004.
In Palestine, the US was working with the collaborationnist movement Fatah, until they left Gaza recently, to undermine the security, the economy, and the well being, of the fragile Palestinian society.
Well it appears to me that what the US is doing in the middle east is undermining democracy. This is a conspiracy against civil society, not only in the middle east, but also in the countries contributing to the covert for this consipracy that is 'the war on Terror', in which rulers and political parties have heavy responsibilties in the damage that is being done to their countries and their civil societies. They should be made accountable for it.
Brian Whitaker: "A Green Light To Opression"
The US is pouring oil on fire with Middle East arm sale
For the most backward and authoritarian regime in the region, a regime that opresses women, minorities, religions, and everybody else except the ruling family, the US has approved a massive arms sale. Israel understands.
In Iraq, the US is arming sunni militia 'against Al Qaida' they say, but these sunni militia are also fighting shias in a civil war that is ravaging Iraq and which the US don't want to name or to recognise.
In Lebanon, the US is not only supporting the weak Islamist Sanyura government but is also intervening to stop any national dialogue between the government and the strong opposition in order to increase the number of ministers from the opposition oin the government and form a national unity government. This last demand was formulated by the opposition after the crisis that ensued the July 2006 Israeli agression on Lebanon in which Israel and the US, and silently their Lebanese allies tried to crush the opposition.
In Iran, the US is financing terror operations conducted by Iranian minorities since 2004.
In Palestine, the US was working with the collaborationnist movement Fatah, until they left Gaza recently, to undermine the security, the economy, and the well being, of the fragile Palestinian society.
Well it appears to me that what the US is doing in the middle east is undermining democracy. This is a conspiracy against civil society, not only in the middle east, but also in the countries contributing to the covert for this consipracy that is 'the war on Terror', in which rulers and political parties have heavy responsibilties in the damage that is being done to their countries and their civil societies. They should be made accountable for it.
Brian Whitaker: "A Green Light To Opression"
The US is pouring oil on fire with Middle East arm sale
10.4.07
The Israeli sponsored US invasion of Iraq and the ethnic cleansening of Baghdad and the Middle East
Four years after the US invasion, an ethnic cleansening in Baghdad has been achieved.
Le Monde has a map of Baghdad's neighbourhoods in 1919, 1956 with an assessment of post-Saddam Baghdad. If you look at the 1956 map, the yellow covers mixed neighbourhoods in Baghdad. The light yellow is mixed neighbourhood with a Muslim majority and the strong yellow is simply a mixed neighbourhood with no majority.
It emerges that ethnic mix between Sunnis and Shias in Baghdad was well advanced in the fifties and maintained afterward by the Baath party secular regime. However, the US invasion has prompted an unprecedented ethnic cleansening in Baghdad with displaced families by the hundreds thousands and that is probably the only achievement of the US occupation.
It is ironic that today I read an article by former Israeli Knesset member and Gush Shalom director Uri Avnery about to which lenghts Israel is ready to go against those who, even by peaceful and legal means, defy its founding idea as democratic and an ethnically pure state. Avnery underlines the oxymoron that is the definition of Israel as a 'Jewish democratic state', democratic only for its Jewish population.
''According to Ha'aretz, the Israeli Security Agency... "would foil the activity of anyone seeking to harm Israel's Jewish or democratic character, even if that activity was carried out by legal means." This is an admission, ''not only that anyone who strives to alter the Jewish character of the state is considered an enemy and will be treated as such but that the secret service has no respect for democratic practices and procedures.''
Many reasons were advanced for the Iraq invasion, among them Oil. However, an invasion and an occupation of this magnitude might have more than one reason. And I believe that among the many reasons the US went to Iraq is the desire to create small ethnic states at the image of Israel, as we all know by now the prominent role of pro-zionists in the advocacy for the 2003 Iraq invasion. However these new small ethnic states will be unchallenging for Israel because of their submission to the US and because their forced divisions will bring about tens if not hundred years of internal strife leaving Israel the only superpower in the Middle East as the rest of the Middle east will be ruins. At least, the Iraq invasion seems to have achieved this objective very quickly. And the war of agression on Lebanon, despite failing to crush Hezbollah, succeeded in pushing the internal divisions of the country to the surface once again by underminig a fragile national dialogue through an inconditional support for the corrupted sanyura government from the US and the criminalisation of lebanon's high profile and popular party, the Hezbollah. As for Palestine and Israel, the new generation of Israeli Politicians like Gaydamak and Lieberman, if the Israeli electorate is not going to stop them, will make sure that the ethnic cleansening project will take place. Syria will be destabilised by continuous pressure, a refusal to broker a peace deal on the Golan, and support for anti-baathist islamist organisations, until the baathist regime falls apart to be overtaken by Islamist extremists who are already on the wait in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the recently 'liberated' Lebanon from Syrian baathist influence.
It is easier to divide rather than unite. Breaking the fragile social and ethnic cannevasses of the Middle East and stigmatizing part of its population while providing the other part with support and weapons and access to supervised power, are certainly a 'good' start for the Neo-cons. However, despite their troubled history, the peoples of the Middle East have always lived together. Zionist and neo-cons may distort narratives, provoke wars, displace populations, implement government sponsored terror, the natural order of things for us, peoples of the Middle East, is to live together.
14.2.07
Ali Akbar Velayati: Iran Strives Only For Security
The Suiss newspaper Le Temps published an interview with Ali Akbar Velayati who was foreign affairs minister for 17 years before becoming advisor to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme guide of the Iranian Islamic revolution. The interview was available on Le Monde's website. Here is my translation and a personal comment at the end.
Le Temps: Is the present nuclear crisis gearing toward military confrontation or is there any room left for negotiations about your nuclear program ?
Ali Velayati: The problem can be solved without the present crisis because we only strive for our security, the security of the region and of the world.
Le Temps: Do you accept the idea, promoted by the IAEA chief, El Baradei, of a parallel suspension of your nuclear enrichement program and UN sanctions ?
Ali Velayati: I spoke with Vladimir Putin last week in Moscow about this offer and there are no divergences between us on this matter.
Le Temps: Concretely, do you agree on a parallel suspension ?
Ali Velayati: We accept El Baradei as our interlocutor on this dossier. Now he must present us with a written proposal that we can examine. We conducted internal consultations here in Tehran and our negotiator, Mr. Larijani, received instructions about our position.
Le Temps: You did not answer my question.
Ali Velayati: We have no a priori limits for a negotiation with Mr. El Baradei.
Le Temps: You don't even have limits on a suspension of your enrichment program ? Isn't the word 'suspension' taboo anymore in Iran ?
Ali Velayati: We have previously accepted a suspension for two and a half years but it turned out that they wanted us to even suspend enrichment destined for civil energy needs. This is totally unconceivable. This previous suspension did not help to reach an agreement. However, if we continue to decide that the best solution is a pacific solution, we should not discard a priori any idea as unconceivable for us neither for anybody else. We have one red line: the respect of our right to nuclear energy, a right guaranteed by the Non Proliferation Treaty. We do not want to develop nuclear energy for military purposes but I must repeat that we will defend and not give up on our right to civil nuclear energy.
Le Temps: Should we believe that Iran do not want the Bomb when you want to 'wipe off the map' another UN member country ?
Ali velayati: I understand that you are alluding to Israel. Iran's position, as expressed by our supreme guide, is that all the inhabitants of this territory that we call Palestine, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, must decide democratically for the future of their country. It is up to the democratic process to solve this problem.
Le Temps: Should we believe this when Iran has just organised an international conference denying the reality of the holocaust ?
Ali Velayati: I did not participate in this conference which was not actually about holocaust denial. The conference was about holocaust facts. We can for example ask ourselves how many victims died in the holocaust without denying the genocide. May I remind you that this genocide was perpetrated by Europeans, Nazis, and that it was prepared during centuries of persecutions in Europe starting in Spain. The Coran says: ''to take the life of an innocent is to kill the entire humanity''. Jews have never been persecuted in Muslim countries. And when they fled Christian persecutions in Spain they found refuge in the Ottoman empire where they were able to fully excercise their talents.
Le Temps: Is the genocide of Jews thus a historic reality ?
Ali Velayati: Yes, but we do not accept that this reality be used to justify the opression of the Palestinians.
Le Temps: To hear your answers makes one wonder why we have been hearing all these incendiary declarations coming from Iran for the last months.
Ali Velayati: If our declarations were 'incendiary' as you say, they couldn't be more 'incendiary' than General De Gaulle's 'Vive Le Québec Libre'*
Le Temps: De Gaulle never called for Canada to be 'Wiped off the map' !
Ali Velayati: No...he only called for the dismantling of the Canadian confederation.
Le Temps: Iraq is plunging into civil war. Why are you opposed to the federalism solution which is maybe going to stop the escalation ?
Ali Velayati: We never said we are against.
Le Temps: All your diplomats are saying this.
Ali Velayati: We never said this. It is up to the Iraqis to decide whether they want federalism. But again if it is their decision then let it be.
Le Temps: You have a great influence in Iraq. What do you do with this influence ? What do you propose to do there ?
Ali Velayati: We don't only have influence in Iraq. We share 1200 kms of our frontier with this friend country whose political refugees we welcomed and who are now back at the commands in Baghdad. We consider that it is essential to support their democratically elected government and provide help to rebuild the country and end the occupation.
Le Temps: But that's what George Bush wants for Iraq.
Ali Velayati: The problem is that Bush's words don't match his deeds. And even those in the US who call for a withdrawal want to maintain military bases in Iraq in order to influence the future of the region.
Le Temps: Sunni regimes in the region want the US to maintain military bases because they are anxious about your increasing influence in Iraq and the region.
Ali Velayati: The worries of the sunni regimes are unfounded. We did not elect a Chiite government in Iraq. The Iraqis did because 60% of them are chiites. As everywhere, the majority must reach out to the minorities on the basis of a mutual understanding. For this reason we have proposed a regional stability conference to tackle the problems of terrorism. We all have to face the rise of terrorism since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the event of September 11th, the greatest catastrophe of our contemporary history because its victims were innocents.
Le Temps: This will to stabilise the region is contradicted by your support for Hezbollah. This support is again worrying many sunni regimes. Isn't about time to ask Hezbollah to disarm ?
Ali Velayati: To make it easier for Israel ?
Le Temps: What are you talking about ? Israel retreated from Lebanon seven years ago and one feels that Hezbollah's obsession is to bring Israel back, as they did last summer.
Ali Velayati: Israel must withdraw from Cheb'aa farms, which are Lebanese land. There are still things to achieve before disarming Hezbollah. As long as the Lebanese government is weak, Hezbollah can act as a dissuasion force against Israel. Before anything else, the Lebanese government must be empowered.
*(My Comment) Mr. Velayati knows his History. The reference to 'Vive le Québec Libre' gives us a clearer picture of Iran's regional ambitions. First, at the height of the separatist movement in Québec, Québecers felt alone and isolated in their struggle and De Gaulle's declaration gave them hope and confort. Second, Québecers turned to France because of Historic ties and because they always perceived France as their mother country and a protective figure while being resentful of this country who abandoned them to the English coloniser. Third, Québecers separatism meant, above all, to safeguard the French language which they felt threatened of extinction as in the US. Clearly, and in my opinion, exhausted at home, the Iranian Islamic revolution is seeking a second life by transforming its internal image from the outside; giving to millions of Arab Muslims, hope, protection and breaking their isolation by showing its solidarity.
In 1967 De Gaulle was answering a distress call from Québecers as much as he was trying to ease France's social distress at the time. This was five years after Algeria acquired its independance from France prompting a wave of discontent across France directed at De Gaulle's contribution to the final act of the Algerian independance, and just one year before this discontent became a major factor leading to the May 68 social unrest which was again directed against De Gaulle.
I think what we are experiencing in the Arab world and the Middle East now is a similar situation. There is distress on both sides. There is distress among ordinary Arab and Muslim citizens because of the US and Israel's wars on the Palestinians and Arab and Muslim countries and because of their worldwide isolation, and there is discontent in Iran because the islamic revolution did not achieve the optimal conditions for peace and economic prosperity the Iranians have been looking for and have become desperate of ever achieving under this revolution. Foreign interference, and especially armed foreign interference will make things worse for both Arabs and Iranians and will harden positions around national and ethnic identities. The way US foreign policy is conducted in the ME is stupid or is intended to harm the aspirations of the people of the ME for democracy, development and progress. It is driving the ME into the abyss.
13.1.07
Francis Fukuyama: 2008 And the End of NeoCons History
In an interview with Le Monde's Daniel Vernet, Francis Fukuyama, the Author of 'The End of History', contends that forces of moderation and realists inside the Republican and the Democratic parties are already operating center stage in Washington and that the only obstacle to a real change in policy concerning Iraq is in the American constitution that gives full power to the president when it comes to foreign policy. The only way opponents to Bush's foreign policy can act is through a vote on the budget but here again, Fukuyama explains, politicians are reluctant to vote against sending support to the army out of fear of being labeled as anti-patriotic. And he concludes that we must wait until 2008 in order to see a real foreign policy change in Washington.
Here is an excerpt from the interview translated from French:
Q: Is the ''New Strategy'' of president Bush for Iraq really new or is it just the same old policy in a different form ?
F.F: It is the old strategy applied, this time, to a new situation. This is why it is not going to work. The assumption that drives this strategy is that we have in Baghdad a democratic government, beyond religious sectarianism, which is being attacked by forces representing the diverging interests of diverse religious sects. The official objective is that we have to militaryly support this government. One can see that this line of thinking is erroneous. Maliki's government is part of the religious sectarian conflict. It represents communities struggling to achieve domination in the balance of power in Iraq. The hidden objective of the new plan for Iraq is to defeat the clan of Moqtada Al-Sadr. Here again the problem is that Al-Sadr clan represents the most powerful community in Iraq. It is very difficult to inflict a military defeat on a sizeable part of the population.
Q: Do you consider what is going on in Iraq as a civil war ?
F.F: There is a stupid debate going in the US on the technical definition of a civil war. I believe that what we have in Iraq is a multidimensional conflict, a struggle to size power along sectarian religious and ethnic lines.
Q: How do you explain that the president and his advisors seem not to understand the real nature of the conflict ?
F.F: Despite the results of last elections and the critiques targeting this administration, there is an incapacity to recognise reality as it is. One of the most significant moments in this regard was a declaration made by president Bush during a farewell reception given for Rumsfeld's departure from the Pentagon. Bush said at the reception that the invasion of Iraq represented a formidable surge in the history of human freedom. That gives the impression that the president lives in a different world.
Q: Is it ideological blindness ?
F.F: In Bush's last speech, we have all this rethoric taken from WWII like ''There are there democratic forces who are waiting for our help...''
Q: Senator Kennedy said that Iraq was George Bush's Vietnam. Is he right ?
F.F: Yes, in a certain way. Iraq is, without any doubt, the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.
Q: Liberals, including some American liberals, are making comparisons between Muslim fundamentalism and Communiusm, between the present War on Terror and the Cold War...
F.F: I believe that we have exaggerated the strategic threat of 9/11 and that this was an error. After 9/11, there was only some two to three dozen persons in the whole world capable of conducting terror operations inside the US and ready to do so. The result of our poor management of the aftermath of 9/11 is a self fulfilling prophecy. The parallel made between the present situation and the cold war is dubious. Islam is not comparable to Communism and Muslim fundamentalism is a more complex issue. It is more of a cultural issue than an ideological threat. The political discourse making parallels between Muslim fundamentalism and the Communist threat during the cold war is tailored to mobilise opinions around president Bush's projects and vision, but it represents, at the same time, an obstacle to understand the problems this kind of vision is tackling.
Q: What is the measure of the responsibility of your old friends, the NeoCons, in this vision ? What went wrong in Iraq ? Was it the war itself or the way it was done ? Your last book is titled 'Where the NeoCons come from' but my question is what will become of them ?
F.F: They are still around. They have followers. They also have an influence in this administration. The president consulted with them before announcing his new plan for Iraq to the nation on January 10th. However, I believe that after 2008, their time will be gone. The problem is the war itself. It was certainly poorly managed but the concept in itself is flawed. I am outraged by the fact that this flawed policy is being applied to Lebanon and Iran in the absence of any will to learn from the Iraqi adventure. The NeoCons are pushing for the bombardment of Iran's nuclear sites. This is simply madness.
Q: Do you think the president is going to take the decision to bomb Iran ?
F.F: I heard that Bush is going to do it just to show his determination, despite and against the public opinion.
In the same interview Fukuyama said that only Bush and Lieberman think that the US must bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
On Bush and reality read The Osterley Times: 'Bush continues to think that he can create his own reality'.
Here is an excerpt from the interview translated from French:
Q: Is the ''New Strategy'' of president Bush for Iraq really new or is it just the same old policy in a different form ?
F.F: It is the old strategy applied, this time, to a new situation. This is why it is not going to work. The assumption that drives this strategy is that we have in Baghdad a democratic government, beyond religious sectarianism, which is being attacked by forces representing the diverging interests of diverse religious sects. The official objective is that we have to militaryly support this government. One can see that this line of thinking is erroneous. Maliki's government is part of the religious sectarian conflict. It represents communities struggling to achieve domination in the balance of power in Iraq. The hidden objective of the new plan for Iraq is to defeat the clan of Moqtada Al-Sadr. Here again the problem is that Al-Sadr clan represents the most powerful community in Iraq. It is very difficult to inflict a military defeat on a sizeable part of the population.
Q: Do you consider what is going on in Iraq as a civil war ?
F.F: There is a stupid debate going in the US on the technical definition of a civil war. I believe that what we have in Iraq is a multidimensional conflict, a struggle to size power along sectarian religious and ethnic lines.
Q: How do you explain that the president and his advisors seem not to understand the real nature of the conflict ?
F.F: Despite the results of last elections and the critiques targeting this administration, there is an incapacity to recognise reality as it is. One of the most significant moments in this regard was a declaration made by president Bush during a farewell reception given for Rumsfeld's departure from the Pentagon. Bush said at the reception that the invasion of Iraq represented a formidable surge in the history of human freedom. That gives the impression that the president lives in a different world.
Q: Is it ideological blindness ?
F.F: In Bush's last speech, we have all this rethoric taken from WWII like ''There are there democratic forces who are waiting for our help...''
Q: Senator Kennedy said that Iraq was George Bush's Vietnam. Is he right ?
F.F: Yes, in a certain way. Iraq is, without any doubt, the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.
Q: Liberals, including some American liberals, are making comparisons between Muslim fundamentalism and Communiusm, between the present War on Terror and the Cold War...
F.F: I believe that we have exaggerated the strategic threat of 9/11 and that this was an error. After 9/11, there was only some two to three dozen persons in the whole world capable of conducting terror operations inside the US and ready to do so. The result of our poor management of the aftermath of 9/11 is a self fulfilling prophecy. The parallel made between the present situation and the cold war is dubious. Islam is not comparable to Communism and Muslim fundamentalism is a more complex issue. It is more of a cultural issue than an ideological threat. The political discourse making parallels between Muslim fundamentalism and the Communist threat during the cold war is tailored to mobilise opinions around president Bush's projects and vision, but it represents, at the same time, an obstacle to understand the problems this kind of vision is tackling.
Q: What is the measure of the responsibility of your old friends, the NeoCons, in this vision ? What went wrong in Iraq ? Was it the war itself or the way it was done ? Your last book is titled 'Where the NeoCons come from' but my question is what will become of them ?
F.F: They are still around. They have followers. They also have an influence in this administration. The president consulted with them before announcing his new plan for Iraq to the nation on January 10th. However, I believe that after 2008, their time will be gone. The problem is the war itself. It was certainly poorly managed but the concept in itself is flawed. I am outraged by the fact that this flawed policy is being applied to Lebanon and Iran in the absence of any will to learn from the Iraqi adventure. The NeoCons are pushing for the bombardment of Iran's nuclear sites. This is simply madness.
Q: Do you think the president is going to take the decision to bomb Iran ?
F.F: I heard that Bush is going to do it just to show his determination, despite and against the public opinion.
In the same interview Fukuyama said that only Bush and Lieberman think that the US must bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
On Bush and reality read The Osterley Times: 'Bush continues to think that he can create his own reality'.
5.1.07
Puppet Politics
The US foreign policy can be viewed as an enterprise consisting of installing puppet governments wherever they think they, and their ally Israel, have vital interests. It happens also that American foreign policy is now focused on the interests of Israel. It is also focused on those countries who oppose the unbridled expansionnist colonialism Israel has been following in its regional and international politics, and not interests limited to survival and nationhood for the victims of the Holocaust, which they supposedly claim to have.
The US thus helped to install puppets as rulers in many Arab countries, strenghtening the hold of Israel on the palestinians and producing the absence of any reasonable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Puppets are in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon,Iraq, etc... Even Bashar El-Assad is a candidate, but they don't want him. After all, it is the masters who choose their puppets...
Now the US has turned to Muslim countries outside the Middle East but of vital geopolitical significance to the Midlle East. They have just reintsalled their puppets in Somalia.
The dangers of such foreign policy is that it creates resentment and hatred. It strips people from their dignity as a group and a society and discourages their free will. It leads to lower self-esteem derived from the feeling the citizen of these countries have of not commanding respect, and, of course, from resentment and hatred. Resentement feeds terrorism in the sense that it supresses positive mobilisation around a constructive project and therefore a true resistance.
Lets suppose that Terrorism exists by itself, outside any foreign policy and any resentment, as an abnormal phenomenon of failed states, as the US pretends, and I am not denying that this kind of terrorism exist ed actually in Afghanisan, it may be easy to fight it. But the kind of generic terrorism that the US is fighting is derived not from failed states but mostly from US failed foreign policies. Is it then necessary to fight a terrorism willingly provoked by these foreign policies ? And if so can anybody tell me how to end this kind of terrorism ? I am just wondering because it appears to me that to end this kind of terrorism requires that people around the globe, but especially in Muslim and Middle Eastern countries, must be totally submitted to USrael or must be exterminated. Submission or Death. It reminds me of a slogan I saw on Cuban highways 'Socialismo O Muerte'. There is no other alternative.
What kind of foreign policy is this ? This is no foreign policy. This is madness.
The US thus helped to install puppets as rulers in many Arab countries, strenghtening the hold of Israel on the palestinians and producing the absence of any reasonable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Puppets are in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon,Iraq, etc... Even Bashar El-Assad is a candidate, but they don't want him. After all, it is the masters who choose their puppets...
Now the US has turned to Muslim countries outside the Middle East but of vital geopolitical significance to the Midlle East. They have just reintsalled their puppets in Somalia.
The dangers of such foreign policy is that it creates resentment and hatred. It strips people from their dignity as a group and a society and discourages their free will. It leads to lower self-esteem derived from the feeling the citizen of these countries have of not commanding respect, and, of course, from resentment and hatred. Resentement feeds terrorism in the sense that it supresses positive mobilisation around a constructive project and therefore a true resistance.
Lets suppose that Terrorism exists by itself, outside any foreign policy and any resentment, as an abnormal phenomenon of failed states, as the US pretends, and I am not denying that this kind of terrorism exist ed actually in Afghanisan, it may be easy to fight it. But the kind of generic terrorism that the US is fighting is derived not from failed states but mostly from US failed foreign policies. Is it then necessary to fight a terrorism willingly provoked by these foreign policies ? And if so can anybody tell me how to end this kind of terrorism ? I am just wondering because it appears to me that to end this kind of terrorism requires that people around the globe, but especially in Muslim and Middle Eastern countries, must be totally submitted to USrael or must be exterminated. Submission or Death. It reminds me of a slogan I saw on Cuban highways 'Socialismo O Muerte'. There is no other alternative.
What kind of foreign policy is this ? This is no foreign policy. This is madness.
30.12.06
Saddam, Iraq and USrael's dirty politics in the ME
This cartoon on Saddam's hanging, by famous Cuban cartoonist Angel Boligan, was published on December 29th by El Universal, Mexico, and by the Arabic language Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar on Saturday Dec. 30th. I woke up this morning at six O'clock, opened the door for the dog, read the news. 'Saddam hanged at dawn' . It might have been six to eight hours before...An expected outcome. I had a strange feeling; the intuition that a new dark era was opening to us, people of the middle east*. It hasn't to do with Saddam's hanging but with the way his trial and ending were robbed from his victims by a blind neocolonialist enterprise.
Saddam's hanging will always be remembered not for his crimes and his tyranny on his own people but it will be remembered for the US's dirty politics in the Midlle East...
Saddam's trial and hanging were not meant to return dignity and justice to Iraqis but were meant as terrifying examples for other Middle East head of states of what might happen to them if they don't comply...Those who are tyrants know very well that the only way out for them is to stick to US's wills and policies in the ME and those who are not tyrants, and they are very few in the ME, know that just resisting the US is enough to be labeled as tyrants in the eyes of the US becoming candidates for embargos, invasions, hasty trials and hanging...
Saddam's swift hanging while in physical US custody and in 'legal' and virtual Iraqi custody show the level of trust the US puts in its new puppets in Iraq...After all wasn't Saddam always in US custody ? Waging a war on Iran when the US wanted it and a war on Koweit when the US suggested they might not react to such a war and might actually give their blessings, and then retiring from active collaboration with the US, after the Koweit war, to a passive one under successive embargos, suggested to the UN by the US, reinforcing his tyranny on his people, bleeding Iraq and tearing apart its social and ethnical canevas under pressure. Saddam, with the US's connivence, handed Bush an aneamic Iraq whose total collapse into fighting ethnies is being encouraged by the US since March 2003 and applauded by Israel who sees in this 'achievement' the blueprint for 'their' middle east.
What, when, where and who will be the next job in this blind neocolonialist enterprise ?
After fighting secularism hand by hand with the most brutal and backward regimes in the ME, the US is fighting now 'Islam' or more exactly a fabricated image of Islam, manufactured with the help of Osama and large media outlets, with the same brutal and backward regimes in the ME, those same regimes who are feeding with some reality the fabricated and 'scary' image of Islam in the West. However, this time around, it will be a never ending war because what the US is fighting is what the US is producing by its policies in the ME. The US has thus succeeded in installing a self sustained production and consumption apparatus for unending wars in that region. Because the wars that produce divisions produce hate not only between the fighting factions but also for those who are involved with these factions.
Why they hate us ?
History will show that nowhere else was neocolonialism as brutal and savage as in the ME because it isn't neolcolonialism alone; it is both colonialism and neocolonialism, ditsant and proxy at the same time, US and Israel hand in hand, with all their cruel modern weaponry and old fashioned brutality disregarding our modern standards for Human rights and the plight of the people of the Middle East and especially the Palestinians to live in peace and dignity. We are living a new kind of neocolonialism, a missionary, USraeli neocolonialism that is ready to sacrifice the long term interests of both countries and their people for the interests of a pervasive racist ideology born from the negation of the people of the Middle East and their aspirations, just like the old fashioned way. It is history rewinded; wasn't the US born from this kind of European colonialism in the New World and weren't these processes that installed these colonialists and neocolonialists ideologies, hundreds years apart, similar ? For anybody who doubt this affirmation take a close look at the history of the New World; a mix of ill missionarism to extend the kingdom of heaven, greed, adventurism, racism and unbridled criminal impulse in the denial and the negation of the other.
All the rethoric about the democratisation process in the ME is bullshit. If they really wanted to implement a democratic process then they should have conducted themselves differently. But do the people of Iraq deserve a democratic process, a fair trial and a real legal 'ownership' on their tyrant ? The answer of the US is No because the facts are different from the rethoric.
This is why Saddam's trial and hanging were cast as a farce, a filmed farce which is an attempt to transform a farce into a reality and to write history with images destined for instant persuasion.
When images impose themselves upon reality, one needs only perception. There is no need for thinking anymore. Let the images** flow. Saddam's hanging images as 'proofs' for the US's civilizing mission in the ME...Thank God I don't own a TV.
Saddam's hanging will always be remembered not for his crimes and his tyranny on his own people but it will be remembered for the US's dirty politics in the Midlle East...
Saddam's trial and hanging were not meant to return dignity and justice to Iraqis but were meant as terrifying examples for other Middle East head of states of what might happen to them if they don't comply...Those who are tyrants know very well that the only way out for them is to stick to US's wills and policies in the ME and those who are not tyrants, and they are very few in the ME, know that just resisting the US is enough to be labeled as tyrants in the eyes of the US becoming candidates for embargos, invasions, hasty trials and hanging...
Saddam's swift hanging while in physical US custody and in 'legal' and virtual Iraqi custody show the level of trust the US puts in its new puppets in Iraq...After all wasn't Saddam always in US custody ? Waging a war on Iran when the US wanted it and a war on Koweit when the US suggested they might not react to such a war and might actually give their blessings, and then retiring from active collaboration with the US, after the Koweit war, to a passive one under successive embargos, suggested to the UN by the US, reinforcing his tyranny on his people, bleeding Iraq and tearing apart its social and ethnical canevas under pressure. Saddam, with the US's connivence, handed Bush an aneamic Iraq whose total collapse into fighting ethnies is being encouraged by the US since March 2003 and applauded by Israel who sees in this 'achievement' the blueprint for 'their' middle east.
What, when, where and who will be the next job in this blind neocolonialist enterprise ?
After fighting secularism hand by hand with the most brutal and backward regimes in the ME, the US is fighting now 'Islam' or more exactly a fabricated image of Islam, manufactured with the help of Osama and large media outlets, with the same brutal and backward regimes in the ME, those same regimes who are feeding with some reality the fabricated and 'scary' image of Islam in the West. However, this time around, it will be a never ending war because what the US is fighting is what the US is producing by its policies in the ME. The US has thus succeeded in installing a self sustained production and consumption apparatus for unending wars in that region. Because the wars that produce divisions produce hate not only between the fighting factions but also for those who are involved with these factions.
Why they hate us ?
History will show that nowhere else was neocolonialism as brutal and savage as in the ME because it isn't neolcolonialism alone; it is both colonialism and neocolonialism, ditsant and proxy at the same time, US and Israel hand in hand, with all their cruel modern weaponry and old fashioned brutality disregarding our modern standards for Human rights and the plight of the people of the Middle East and especially the Palestinians to live in peace and dignity. We are living a new kind of neocolonialism, a missionary, USraeli neocolonialism that is ready to sacrifice the long term interests of both countries and their people for the interests of a pervasive racist ideology born from the negation of the people of the Middle East and their aspirations, just like the old fashioned way. It is history rewinded; wasn't the US born from this kind of European colonialism in the New World and weren't these processes that installed these colonialists and neocolonialists ideologies, hundreds years apart, similar ? For anybody who doubt this affirmation take a close look at the history of the New World; a mix of ill missionarism to extend the kingdom of heaven, greed, adventurism, racism and unbridled criminal impulse in the denial and the negation of the other.
All the rethoric about the democratisation process in the ME is bullshit. If they really wanted to implement a democratic process then they should have conducted themselves differently. But do the people of Iraq deserve a democratic process, a fair trial and a real legal 'ownership' on their tyrant ? The answer of the US is No because the facts are different from the rethoric.
This is why Saddam's trial and hanging were cast as a farce, a filmed farce which is an attempt to transform a farce into a reality and to write history with images destined for instant persuasion.
When images impose themselves upon reality, one needs only perception. There is no need for thinking anymore. Let the images** flow. Saddam's hanging images as 'proofs' for the US's civilizing mission in the ME...Thank God I don't own a TV.
My Review of News and Blogs about the execution:
How Washington and London helped to create the monster they went to war to destroy
Guardian correspondant in Iraq watches the execution with Sunni insurgents
Angry Arab on Saddam
Pierre tristam on Saddam's hanging
Guardian correspondant in Iraq watches the execution with Sunni insurgents
Angry Arab on Saddam
Pierre tristam on Saddam's hanging
Old Brit: 'So, Saddam Hussein swung; so what ?'
The Osterley Times on the execution
Juan Cole: ''The body of Saddam, as it swung from the gallows at 6 a.m. Saturday Baghdad time, cast an ominous shadow over Iraq. The execution provoked intense questions about whether his trial was fair and about what the fallout will be. One thing is certain: The trial and execution of Saddam were about revenge, not justice. Instead of promoting national reconciliation, this act of revenge helped Saddam portray himself one last time as a symbol of Sunni Arab resistance, and became one more incitement to sectarian warfare. ''
*Our little Bush, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, commented the hanging this way: 'A dark era had come to an end'. And when I told my husband of my feelings of the beginning of a dark era, which are contradictory with Stephen Harper's (we are not, Harper and I, at our first disagreement), my husband answered that Harper's comment was a typical feel good shallow affirmation. Suppose, he told me, that Harper might feel obliged to tell Canadians about the civil war in Iraq, the sectarian divide that the circumstances of this hanging might worsen and the lawlessness of the whole process of Saddam's trial and hanging, the way Italia's Romano Prodi commented actually the same news, Harper could face some incomprehension from a majority of Canadians who lack sufficient knowledge of the situation in Iraq or, worse, such a comment might prompt some to look more carefully into the situation. Thus, the news about Iraq, and most generally all the news, are made of circumstancial barbarism and circumstancial comments meant to make us feel good about the not so good images... Thank God I don't own a TV...
The Osterley Times on the execution
Juan Cole: ''The body of Saddam, as it swung from the gallows at 6 a.m. Saturday Baghdad time, cast an ominous shadow over Iraq. The execution provoked intense questions about whether his trial was fair and about what the fallout will be. One thing is certain: The trial and execution of Saddam were about revenge, not justice. Instead of promoting national reconciliation, this act of revenge helped Saddam portray himself one last time as a symbol of Sunni Arab resistance, and became one more incitement to sectarian warfare. ''
*Our little Bush, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, commented the hanging this way: 'A dark era had come to an end'. And when I told my husband of my feelings of the beginning of a dark era, which are contradictory with Stephen Harper's (we are not, Harper and I, at our first disagreement), my husband answered that Harper's comment was a typical feel good shallow affirmation. Suppose, he told me, that Harper might feel obliged to tell Canadians about the civil war in Iraq, the sectarian divide that the circumstances of this hanging might worsen and the lawlessness of the whole process of Saddam's trial and hanging, the way Italia's Romano Prodi commented actually the same news, Harper could face some incomprehension from a majority of Canadians who lack sufficient knowledge of the situation in Iraq or, worse, such a comment might prompt some to look more carefully into the situation. Thus, the news about Iraq, and most generally all the news, are made of circumstancial barbarism and circumstancial comments meant to make us feel good about the not so good images... Thank God I don't own a TV...
**Many new visitors to this blog for the last day arrived through a search page on Saddam's hanging pictures, movie and proofs...I let you draw the conclusions...
25.12.06
11.7.06
War, Peace And The Quest For The Ordinary Good Life
This artificial mound was erected in Waterloo, Belgium, to commemorate the victory of European armies on Napoleon. The Lion's gaze and one of his paws are directed at France in a sign of defiance. It is called 'La Butte du Lion'
Napoleon's defeat was achieved in 24 hours in a fierce battle that is reenacted at the site in a Panorama of images and sounds.
Listening to the sounds of the battle I thought that it must have been very brave of these men to fight and die. Of course, most of them were forced to go to war but then some did it willingly, as in every battle. But as in every battle, all were expected to act heroically.
Heroism was the number one moral value in ancient societies but this moral value is replaced in our modern societies by 'The quest for the ordinary life', as argued by Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor in his book 'The sources of the Self: the making of the modern identity'. Taylor views 'ordinary life' as no less interesting than heroism on the battlefield when it is oriented toward the Good in us and others. However, it is characterised by the rejection of suffering. It is within this quest for the better in ourselves and others that the ordinary life becomes the good life.
The question that occupied my mind for quite a while after visiting 'La Butte du Lion' was: how are we to reconcile, in the West, our shifting moral values from heroism on the battlefield to the quest for the ordinary life ? I wasn't sure of the answer until my husband asked me the question differently: how come people are ready to suffer and die and sacrifice their life and renounce the 'ordinary life' and the pursuit of happiness?
I realised that we live today in a divided world. There are those who live the ordinary good life and those who die. As I am writing this post, I learn by Al-Jazeera that Israel had just invaded Lebanon. The move is designed to exhaust the Resistance. I hear from the leader of Israel terrible statements about the use of 'full force to turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years if the Israeli soldiers were not returned'.
But these threats won't do. The Resistance definitely belongs to the category of the people willing to die. It is not because they do not like life or they are not engaged in the pursuit of the good life, it is just that there could be no good life if you are daily threatened, and occupied. Without dignity, there could be no good life. Heroism is still a thing for those the West wants to keep humiliating through a neocolonial proxy like Israel.
Napoleon's defeat was achieved in 24 hours in a fierce battle that is reenacted at the site in a Panorama of images and sounds.
Listening to the sounds of the battle I thought that it must have been very brave of these men to fight and die. Of course, most of them were forced to go to war but then some did it willingly, as in every battle. But as in every battle, all were expected to act heroically.
Heroism was the number one moral value in ancient societies but this moral value is replaced in our modern societies by 'The quest for the ordinary life', as argued by Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor in his book 'The sources of the Self: the making of the modern identity'. Taylor views 'ordinary life' as no less interesting than heroism on the battlefield when it is oriented toward the Good in us and others. However, it is characterised by the rejection of suffering. It is within this quest for the better in ourselves and others that the ordinary life becomes the good life.
The question that occupied my mind for quite a while after visiting 'La Butte du Lion' was: how are we to reconcile, in the West, our shifting moral values from heroism on the battlefield to the quest for the ordinary life ? I wasn't sure of the answer until my husband asked me the question differently: how come people are ready to suffer and die and sacrifice their life and renounce the 'ordinary life' and the pursuit of happiness?
I realised that we live today in a divided world. There are those who live the ordinary good life and those who die. As I am writing this post, I learn by Al-Jazeera that Israel had just invaded Lebanon. The move is designed to exhaust the Resistance. I hear from the leader of Israel terrible statements about the use of 'full force to turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years if the Israeli soldiers were not returned'.
But these threats won't do. The Resistance definitely belongs to the category of the people willing to die. It is not because they do not like life or they are not engaged in the pursuit of the good life, it is just that there could be no good life if you are daily threatened, and occupied. Without dignity, there could be no good life. Heroism is still a thing for those the West wants to keep humiliating through a neocolonial proxy like Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006
