Clash of Civilizations or Clash of Values? The Rhetoric of War and Peace.

This article was published in a slightly different version at Iran's View that includes a comment on Obama's first speech in an American Mosque in Baltimore on February 3, 2016.

Values and the West's double standards approach to ethical pluralism.

Ethical pluralism is focused on individual preferences in modern pluralistic societies.  It does not dictate what is ethical or what is not.  It only creates a space for rational dialogue on the diversity of values aimed at reaching a consensus within the limits of reason.  Ethical pluralism is practised in the West for controversial moral issues like abortion, gay rights and Euthanasia.  Although laws are legislated in these cases in some Western countries,  in many cases they do not constrain those who oppose them to live by them.  It is believed that ethical pluralsim creates more tolerance and more freedoms for the individual.  The essence of ethical pluralism is that moral codes cannot be forced, they emerge by consensus through a rational discourse and dialogue on values.  

Within western societies, theorizing ethical diversity and pluralism requires a commitment to dialogue within the limits of reason in order to reach a consensus on values.  I am referring here to the Habermasian theory of ethics for modern democratic societies, which Habermas calls ‘Discourse ethics’.  These pillars of ethical pluralism are denied by the West when advancing its own set of values in non Western societies. 

As such, Western moral values, having emerged by consensus, cannot be forced on other cultures and societies who did not participate in the rational discourse leading to a consensus on these values.  In most non Western societies, values are anchored, not in individual preferences, but in community norms, elders’ wisdoms and local laws, which ancient Greeks used to call ‘nomos’.   Moreover, in most non Western societies, core values are transmitted between generations, not discussed in the public sphere, where they tend to play a cohesive social role in which the individual self identifies more with the community than with the ego.

There is a tension in the West’s approach to values which allows the individual a greater space of liberty within Western societies but denies this liberty to individuals in other societies attached to their traditions and the norms of their communities.  In fact, there is a faulty assumption in the West that the individual Self in non-western societies is modeled on the Western Self, despite historical and cultural differences.  This tension has become palpable with the advent of the globalization of markets, cultures and ideas.  The West stands as the promoter of one set of values, its own, over others.   In many cultures, this tension is being tackled differently, either by total assimilation, peaceful but active resistance, distrust and retreat, or violent resentful extremism directed against the West in the case of Sunni Islam. Colonialism was built on the assumption that the colonized were different in humanity while globalization is built on the assumption that 'there is no such thing as society' (as Margaret Thatcher famously said) whereby only individuals detached from their historical and cultural roots exist as consumers having an infinite set of preferences determined by the markets.

Ethical pluralism, although unequally practised by the West, is not part of the relations the West establishes with other societies, where it is assumed that only individuals exist and that they must consume the product of the ethical consensus built by other individuals in the West.   What we have witnessed so far since 911 is the forcing and enforcing of Western values through military campaigns, invasions and occupations preceded and followed by violent backlashes from extremist fundamentalists.  Post 911, international relations have become a domain of confrontations thought to be confrontations of civilizations and values.

Many Muslims today live in communities, societies and countries which emphasize traditional values and the supremacy of the community over the individual.   However, Muslims are not the only ones who live in traditions which are antagonists to Western values, but they are currently the main culture and religion to react and to be targeted by this confrontation of values and it is mainly Sunni Muslims who are engaged in this confrontation.

A broken dialogue on values.

This is the reason why a dialogue on values is urgently needed between the West and Muslims.  Some in the West as well as in Muslim countries do not believe in the dialogue on values, firmly standing on both sides of the values divide, committed to wars.  But others, and they aren’t many, believe in this dialogue. President Obama articulated his desire for dialogue with Muslims in his Cairo’s discourse early during his first mandate.  But due to many factors, including America’s previous war commitments and voices of confrontation inside his own administration, Obama wasn’t able to act on his Cairo’s discourse. We will never know if Obama was sincere about this dialogue.  But what we know is that he did not blindly follow those who wanted a confrontation to the end with Iran. Recently Ayatollah Khamenei wrote on his twitter account that Obama wrote him a second letter in 2009 full of affirmative statements about Iran.  Khamenei said he had the intention to reply to the letter but after Obama supported the protests against the government in Iran in 2009 he refrained from doing so.  Obama acted against the voices of confrontation with Iran, but not before the failure of the 2009 colour revolution for regime change.  He finally succeeded in reaching a deal with Iran that, if its implementation is unhindered by more confrontation, should naturally open a dialogue on values between Muslims and the West.

On the Iranian side, the deal reached between Iran and the West silenced the voices of confrontation and opened possibilities to initiate a dialogue between Muslims and the West.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was first to open this dialogue on the values of Islam with his two letters to western youth (January 2015 letter and November 2015 letter).  Khamenei’s initiatives came in a context of a renewed wave of Sunni terrorism by ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), more barbaric and more sectarian than the terrorism witnessed since 911, and threatening this time the Near East, the Levant and Europe.

While the nuclear deal was being worked out between the West and Iran during the year 2015, many terrorist attacks by Sunni Muslim extremists hit Muslim countries, especially Iraq and Syria, as well as Europe.  Most notable were the attacks in France claimed by ISIS that attracted wide and sustained attention in Western media.  ISIS is virulently anti-Iran and anti-Shia.  It promotes a return to the  Sunni Caliphate.  The first attacks were on January 7th at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and on a Jewish surpermarket in Paris and its suburb and killed seventeen and wounded others.  Khamenei’s first letter was published merely two weeks after these attacks.  It spoke of a different kind of Islam, attempting to educate Western youth on Islam and the real sources of knowledge on Islam, away from the terrible and negative image that was being presented to the West by ISIS.  The letter was deliberately addressed to youth.  Khamenei argued that dialogue with Western leaders was futile because these leaders not only promoted the kind of Muslim extremism embodied by ISIS but also did not appear to be willing to learn about the true religion of Islam and Muslims beyond the terrorists clichés. The second series of attacks in France in 2015 happened on Novembre 13 at the Bataclan concert venue and a café in Paris and killed hundred and thirty people and wounded many.  Ayatollah Khamenei’s second letter to Western youth was published two weeks later on November 29.  In it, Ayatollah Khamenei chides the West for its double standards towards the victims of terrorism and for the imposition of Western culture by force uniformly on Muslim societies.

Although the lives lost to terrorism in France weren’t more precious than other lives taken by blind terrorism elsewhere, the attacks were alarming, not only because they touched the heart of Europe, its cultural symbols and its youth, but because they threatened to create a greater wedge between European and Muslim populations inside and outside Europe, in neighbouring countries around the Meditterranean basin, and beyond in the Asian and African continents where the majority of Muslims live.  While American neocons, who so much wished for the clash of civilizations after 911, could observe the increasing wedge between Muslims and non Muslims far from their own shores separated and shielded from this clash by two oceans, Europe is increasingly becoming the theatre of the clash.   

A clash of values is not a clash of civilizations

What is the nature of the clash between Sunni extremism and the West?  It is important to make a distinction here between the clash of civllizations and the clash of values.  While the clash of civilizations includes also a clash of values, it is about more than values.  It is confrontational in essence because civilizations aim for self preservation and fight against their annihilation.  The term ‘civilization’ means not only values but a geopolitical, economic and military space.  The clash of values can be resolved through dialogue.  Values tend to evolve slowly and by consensus according to each society’s needs.   They can intersect between two civilizations and they can be passed on peacefully between civilizations. Many civilizations’ values evolve from the inside, but also from contacts with other civlizations.  In the ancient times, these contacts were mostly established through wars.  The citizens of ancient Greece considered non Greeks as barbarians and non humans because ancient Greece was a ‘closed’ civilization.  This perception changed during the Hellenistic period after contacts were made by Alexander the great with other civilizations through conquest and wars. 

The term ‘clash of civilizations’ is greatly misleading.  It implies a confrontation.  It is both a testimony to the neocons’ warring agenda as well as to their backward thinking.  Wars aren’t needed today to establish contacts with other civilizations.  Today’s means of communication are many, multi-level, fast and easy.

The fall of the former communist bloc countries should have led us to a more cooperative, less confrontational world, militarily speaking.  Instead, the neocons created the clash of civilizations to produce more wars and more confrontations to advance American hegemony in a unipolar world.  With 911 and its aftermath, Sunni Muslim terrorism, initially born out from the collaboration of America’s cold war ideology & Sunni Wahhabism against the former communist bloc, set the scene worldwide for a spectacular and threatening clash of values, mistaken for a clash of civilizations.  Wherever there was a clash of values, the neocons created wars resembling a clash of civilizations with their lot of humiliations, provocations and blasphemy of religious symbols,  leading to a greater clash of values, reinforcing in a loop the ‘clash of civilizations’.   

It is Europe and Asia where most people on the planet, and most Muslims live, that are set to take the full impact of this clash being prepared for decades now by the neocons. The neocons’ game in Europe is to treat Europe’s woes resulting from a clash of  values between east and west, between  north and south, with more confrontations and wars. 

This is the post 911 reality created by the neocons. A world that has every possible tool to make communication and dialogue on many issues, including values, easy and natural, yet is locked in confrontations and wars. As often, it takes two to dance.  The neocons’ project to produce a clash of civilizations is greatly helped by resentful extremism and its state sponsors.

To be aware of this post 911 reality is to make everything possible to prevent a great war in Europe and its geopolitical surroundings.   And fortunately for us, the majority of Muslims do not want this clash of civilizations which has been hurting Muslim countries and Muslims more than others.  Fortunately for us too, Iran refuses to engage in the clash of civilizations.  Amid the tensions of the post 911 world, Iran has shown the world it can make peace without losing its dignity.  I have argued elsewhere that both the nuclear deal and Khamenei’s letter to western youth form a coherent approach by Iran to treat the woes of Islam and show the West that there is an alternative to confrontation with Islam and Muslims, that there is an alternative to terrorism.

Those in the West who want a dialogue on values with Muslims to peacefully resolve differences instead of a clash of civilizations and wars can now count on Iran’s leadership.   A dialogue on values can be much more enriching than the forcing of western values on Muslim societies.  A dialogue on values doesn’t and shouldn’t end by one set of values taking on another but by finding common ground amid differences.  That’s the essence of communication and diplomacy and the respect for the dingity of others and our common humanity. 

Russia, which has worked hard to end Iran’s isolation, has a diplomacy that instinctively understands the potential of resolving the issue of the clash of civilizations that feeds today’s devastating terrorism eating at the heart of all these civilizations.  Because Russia's neighbour, Europe, is by excellence the theatre for this clash.  And because a clash of civilizations that counts on terrorism to provoke a confrontation of values  will undoubtedly lead to the end of civilizations. 

The US however, despite the nuclear deal and the recent détente with Iran, is still very much sitting on the fence, between war and peace.  Hesitations and mixed messages, as well as Obama’s end of mandate, risk annihilitating the dialogue that the Iran deal is promising, putting the initiative back in the hands of the neocons.

As I wrote in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, a dialogue on values is urgently needed to silence the voices of confrontation.  The clash of civilizations is an idea as backward as the barbaric terrorism it sets out to explain... and fight... by curtailing our civil liberties and creating an artificial wedge between civilizations otherwise destined to increase their common ground in an era of rapid communications where societies are becoming more open and more welcoming.  

The promoters of the clash of civilizations are the new enemies of the Open Society.

We Are Many: a unique documentary about the Iraq war worldwide protests

Yesterday I went to watch the only screening in Montreal of the documentary about the worldwide protests against the Iraq war on February 15, 2003. The documentary is directed by Amir Amirani.  The main producers are Wael Kabbani & Omid Djalili.

I still don't understand why the producers chose to screen their documentary at the Montreal Just for Laughs festival, because one of the producers, Omid Djalili, is a comedian? It hurts the documentary more than anything else.

I have to admit I was looking forward and waiting to see this movie and think it is a necessary movie.

The documentary lasts one hour and 50 minutes.  It starts with 911 and ends in 2013 with the vote in the UK not to authorize war on Syria. It is well documented and edited.  It describes well the run up to the Iraq war and the social forces that brought us the protests on this unique day of Februray, 15, 2003.

The director and producer had access to the main protagonists in the anti-war movement and to many prominent experts and politicians who voiced their opposition to the war, some before, others, after the war. It has footage of parliamentary sessions about the Iraq war in the UK.

For someone who went to the protests, recalling this moment through the doucmentary can be quite emotional as the documentary succeeds in recreating the context.

The documentary is flawless as long as it stays within the main subject, but it does not stay within the limits of its main subject, and this is an error in my opinion because it misses on some aspects of the Iraq war and the anti-war movement that were not adressed.

The documentary does not adress the failure of the anti-war movement to act on the Libya invasion in particular and the failure of their movement in general.  It does not even mention Libya.

The documentary does not address Israel’s and the Neocons’ role in the push for the war on Iraq.  It even manages to show an Israeli flag in an anti-war protest at the end when Israel’s anti Iraq war protests were marginal.  Israel and its role in this war are totally absent from the movie.

The documentary rightly attributes the vote in UK not to go to war on Syria in 2013 as being a consequence of the changing public mood after the Iraq war. Although this is partial since it is Libya and its Islamist winter that were on the minds during this vote.

The documentary branches to the Arab Spring and the protests in Egypt and tries to establish a link between the Iraq war protests and the 2011 protests in Egypt.  This attempt is unconvincing and part of many attempts to own the Arab Spring. 

Highlights:

Footage of the protests on February 15, 2003.  Although they were insufficient in my opinion.

The resignation of Robin Cook in the house of parliament before the Iraq war vote.

John Le Carre saying about the Iraq war : This is a crime of a century

Bush jocking about Iraq’s WMD at the 2004 Correspondants' dinner association with the press hilarious is a sordid reminder of the complicity of the press in the Iraq war crime.

I recommend this documentary and hope it will gain a larger audience. 

Charlie Hebdo Tragedy: Will 'Clash of Civilizations' Become A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

Published at RT's Op-Edge.

Iraq: The Destruction Of A Civilization

By James Petras, Global Research.ca

The most important political force was also the least openly discussed. The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC), which includes the prominent role of long-time, hard-line unconditional supporters of the State of Israel appointed to top positions in the Bush Pentagon (Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz ), key operative in the Office of the Vice President (Irving (Scooter) Libby), the Treasury Department (Stuart Levey), the National Security Council (Elliot Abrams) and a phalanx of consultants, Presidential speechwriters (David Frum), secondary officials and policy advisers to the State Department. These committed Zionists ‘insiders’ were buttressed by thousands of full-time Israel-First functionaries in the 51 major American Jewish organizations, which form the President of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO). They openly stated that their top priority was to advance Israel’s agenda, which, in this case, was a US war against Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, occupy the country, physically divide Iraq, destroy its military and industrial capability and impose a pro-Israel/pro-US puppet regime. If Iraq were ethnically cleansed and divided, as advocated by the ultra-right, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and the ‘Liberal’ President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and militarist-Zionist, Leslie Gelb, there would be more than several ‘client regimes’.
Top pro-Israeli policymakers who promoted the war did not initially directly pursue the policy of systematically destroying what, in effect, was the entire Iraqi civilization. But their support and design of an occupation policy included the total dismemberment of the Iraqi state apparatus and recruitment of Israeli advisers to provide their ‘expertise’ in interrogation techniques, repression of civilian resistance and counter-insurgency. Israeli expertise certainly played a role in fomenting the intra-Iraqi religious and ethnic strife, which Israel had mastered in Palestine. The Israeli ‘model’ of colonial war and occupation – the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 – and the practice of ‘total destruction’ using sectarian, ethno-religious division was evident in the notorious massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut, which took place under Israeli military supervision.

...Israeli advisers have played a major role in instructing US occupation forces in Iraq on the practices of urban counter-insurgency and repression of civilians, drawing on their 60 years of experience. The infamous massacre of hundreds of Palestinian families at Deir Yasin in 1948 was emblematic of Zionist elimination of hundreds of productive farming villages, which had been settled for centuries by a native people with their endogenous civilization and cultural ties to the soil, in order to impose a new colonial order. The policy of the total deracination of the Palestinians is central to Israel’s advise to the US policymakers in Iraq. Their message has been carried out by their Zionist acolytes in the Bush and Obama Administrations, ordering the dismemberment of the entire modern Iraqi civil and state bureaucracy and using pre-modern tribal death squads made up of Kurds and Shia extremists to purge the modern universities and research institutions of that shattered nation.

Thanks Homeyra for the link.

Neoconist Convulsions

I am afraid that the remaining days before the elections in the US will bring us some more brinksmanship from the neocons.

First, the Bush administration, which is widely known for its brinksmanship bordering on disaster, threatens to shut down vital services in Iraq (after having shot down vital signs for most Iraqis) unless the Iraqi government signs a proposed deal officializing the occupation of their country illegaly invaded by the US.

Second, and concomittant to the first, pressure was being played on the shia community in Iraq to distract it from public critiques of the deal coming from the Lebanese shia community by spreading false rumours about Hezbollah's leader health.

Third, bombing Syria last night and killing civilians while the rehabilitation of this country, at least by some European allies of the US like France and Britain was well on its way, is one more sign that the neocons are willing to go to the extreme in the incoherence that became the hallmark of their foreign policy. What was the reason for the bombing ? Al-Qaida. But it turns out that they never considered the efforts made successfully by Syria against Sunni muslim extremism while the neocons themselves were cajoling many leaders in Arab countries who are rather sympathetic to the point of financing sunni muslim extremism. Well the reason for the bombing may be miles away actually from the declared narrative, it could be to prompt a response from Iran which the neocons and Cheney are salivating to go to war with.

Fourth, they are also trying a last minute attempt to revive their Lebanese backed politicians, who failed miserably to gain the backing of the Lebanese people, through their local Arab surrogates. Active pan arab diplomacy is on its way now not only to slavage the neocons' legacy but also to salvage their surrogates in the ME as these surrogates are feeling that their protectors are leaving the ship in Washington.
At home, the rats are effectively leaving the ship and those of the neocons who are staying or can't leave the ship are willing to seat Sarah Palin, a woman seen by many insiders of her own party as incompetent, one beat away from the presidency, in order to continue their brinksmanship in domestic and foreign policy matters.

Oh, and let's not forget that they tried also to revive, just for a bit of change, the atmosphere of the cold war era by pushing their ally Georgia in a confrontational war with Russia. But it didn't work.

I am a bit anxious of what will happen to us all in those remaining days that, according to all polls, will see the end of the neocons power. This doesn't mean that Washington will become more moral or more friendly to the oppressed in matters of domestic and foreign policy, it will only mean probably a bit of the much needed realism and pragmatism, which even cynical, will be a nice welcome and a relief from madness. While Arab rulers who tended to this madness in order to keep their positions must be panicking at the prospect of a more reasonable foreign policy in the region.

The War in Ossetia

I have not been contributing with meaningful posts on this blog as of late. But the war in Ossetia clearly needs our attention and this very informative post from The Two Wolves actually cheered me up.

Read here on Israel's role in this war as a top arms and training provider to Georgian troops.

From Jews Sans Frontières: Pulling an Israel in the Caucasus.

Putin Outmaneuvers The West

Mikhail Gorbachev: Russia had no choice

UPDATE, WOW...'Georgia War A Neocon Election Ploy?' (And the answer to the question...)

UPDATE, August 28th 08: Putin accuses Bush of provoking Goergia crisis to help elect McCain

UNSC Votes a Resolution for an International Tribunal on the Assassination of Lebanese Billionnaire Rafiq Hariri

Just In from Angry Arab. To those who don't know him (and who doesn't know Angry Arab ?), Angry Arab writes in allegories, often on the satirical side.

Also from Angry Arab. UN team investigationg soil samples related to the assassination in Saudi Arabia.

So the infighting between Fatah El-Islam in Northern lebanon and the Lebanese government led by the Hariri coalition has had at least one clear conclusion; the establishment by the UN security council of the controversial and controversed international tribunal for the assassination of billionnaire, former PM, and an all time Saudi ally, Rafiq Hariri. Really, in all this mayhem, the presence of a clear military aid from the US, and the tension, Hezbollah and his allies (more than half the Lebanese) who are opposed to the tribunal, are not going to protest or they incur the risk of setting the whole country on fire.

The way the Hariri coalition, backed by the neocons, does Politics in Lebanon is simply appalling !
In addition to subjugating a whole country to a vision of one man and his family, -you may want to have a look at Hariri's neoliberal economic policies through this radio interview. The history of the Hariris' reign on lebanon's destiny is revealing of the relation between neoliberalism and wars.

Members of the Lebanese army and Palestinian civilians have died just to serve as a smokescreen, and to put pressure on all parties, outside and inside Lebanon, into adopting and accepting the tribunal. As if 15 years of civil war are not enough, Lebanon has been plagued, since Taef, by a political elite composed of racist and criminal warlords, corrupted Politicans, foreign influence, notably Syria and Saudi Arabia, and recently the neocons, the whole oligarchy led by a family with ravenous and insatiable appetites for power and money, the Hariris. Welcome to the dark world of unrestrained neoliberal ideology in a non democratic state.

Both UrShalim and Blacksmiths of Lebanon have linked to the text of the resolution.

Early Accounts:
Read an early account from Today's The Guardian on the resolution.

A view on the tribunal from the IHT.

Early Reactions:
Speaker of Lebanese Parliament: UN ignored Lebanon's constitution.
Update: Some afterthoughts on the UNSC Hariri tribunal resolution from Angry Arab.
BBC: Tribunal divides Lebanese

Questions: Who will enforce the tribunal ?

Ask the Expert: Experts in international legal affairs expose their analysis of the controversial tribunal in Le Monde Diplomatique.

Article below

UN manipulates international justice
Lebanon: a court without the law
A climate of distrust reigns in Lebanon, the scene of a silent civil war. The status of the international criminal court invented to prosecute the killers of the prime minister, Rafik Hariri, is part of the problem, further complicating the formation of a government of national unity.

By Géraud De Geouffre de La Pradelle, Antoine Korkmaz and Rafaëlle Maison

The United Nations Security Council began an exceptional international investigation after the death of the Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in a bomb attack on 14 February 2005. It may lead to a special tribunal with extraordinary powers. There is nothing surprising about this; consider the jurisdictions established by the UN, or under its aegis, for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Cambodia (1). But in the case of Lebanon there are no actual international crimes to prosecute. Several aspects of the investigation suggest that international justice is being manipulated. It is too fragile to endure such ill treatment.

We should be in no doubt about the political nature of the Security Council. The UN Charter established it that way. The council enjoys far-reaching discretionary powers, with few legal checks or balances on its actions. However, under the pretence of upholding the law, there have been serious violations of civil liberties, while nothing has been done to resolve the situation in Lebanon. This is particularly so with the Hariri investigation. The special tribunal is still no more than a project, yet it is already worsening tension.

The Security Council set up the international independent investigation commission (IIIC) at the instigation of Beirut. It was to be headed by a German prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis (2). UN Resolution 1595 of 7 April 2005 instructed the commission to assist the Lebanese authorities in “identifying the perpetrators” of the terrorist bomb that killed Hariri and called “for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the government”. But it also noted that “the Lebanese investigation process suffers from serious flaws and has neither the capacity nor the commitment to reach a satisfactory and credible conclusion”.

On 3 June 2005 the UN and Beirut signed an agreement settling the terms for their cooperation. The IIIC would supervise the work of the Lebanese authorities, which were relegated to a secondary role. The commission would not restrict itself to independent fact-finding, but carry out a complete criminal investigation. None of the usual checks and balances applied. Lebanese authorities, especially the courts, could no longer act on their own initiative, their role being to answer the IIIC’s questions.

In Resolution 1636, adopted on 19 October 2005 after the IIIC’s presentation of its first report, the Security Council commended the Lebanese authorities for their full cooperation and congratulated them on “the courageous decisions they have already taken . . . upon recommendation of the commission, in particular the arrest and indictment of former Lebanese security officials suspected of involvement in this terrorist act”.

The Security Council considered that the crime and its implications were a threat to international peace and security, and so, for the first time, invoked chapter VII of its charter, which covers actions taken in response to such a threat. It required states to take measures against suspects identified by the IIIC. The first report alleged that there was plenty of evidence implicating high-ranking Syrian and Lebanese officials directly or indirectly in the assassination. The second report, submitted on 10 December 2005, prompted another resolution (1644, 15 December).

A new phase
The replacement of Mehlis, the controversial chief investigator, by a Belgian criminologist, Serge Brammertz, began a new phase, different from before. The IIIC became more cautious and less provocative in its behaviour in the field and the content of its reports. Resolution 1644 mentioned for the first time the creation of an international tribunal.

The IIIC presented its third report in March 2006. The Security Council then asked the secretary-general to “negotiate an agreement with the government of Lebanon aimed at establishing a tribunal . . . based on the highest international standards of criminal justice”. The document distinguished “the adoption of the legal basis of, and framework for, the tribunal” and “the gradual phasing-in of its components”. The start of its work would depend on progress with the investigation.

By doing that, the Security Council loosed a spectre that has since haunted both the enquiry and Lebanon’s internal affairs.

The affair became critical when the secretary-general sent a draft agreement to the Lebanese government on 10 November 2006, proposing that most of those who would serve on the special tribunal would be international judges; there would only be a few from Lebanon. The Office of the Prosecutor would be an independent body: a prosecutor appointed by the secretary-general plus a Beirut-appointed deputy prosecutor. The court would be empowered to judge those accused of involvement in the Hariri assassination, and of other murders committed after 1 October 2004.

A system of concurrent competence with the Lebanese courts would be set up to deal with the “other murders”, although the primacy of the international tribunal would be maintained. It would base its judgments on local criminal law. The agreement added: “Appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that there is a coordinated transition from the activities of the IIIC . . . to the activities of the Office of the Prosecutor”, confirming the IIIC’s criminal focus. It promised that “the special tribunal shall commence functioning on a date to be determined by the secretary-general in consultation with the government, taking into account the progress of the work of the IIIC.”

The Lebanese government — without its Shia Amal and Hizbullah ministers who had resigned — approved the draft on 13 November 2006 but the court is still a long way from its first hearing. There are several legal and technical hurdles yet to be overcome. Unless the political situation in Lebanon changes, there will be no progress made with the internal constitutional procedure, which is delaying ratification of the agreement with the UN.

President Emile Lahoud, whose approval is required, is against the plan. Parliament must approve the agreement but its Shia speaker, Nabih Berri, has so far refused to do so.

A serious preliminary question
The particular powers of the tribunal raise a serious preliminary question. Under the terms of its draft statutes it will focus primarily on the Hariri assassination, referred to as a “terrorist act”. It can also prosecute other killings committed between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005, and even later crimes, if the Lebanese government and the Security Council agree. At least until now, the killings came under the jurisdiction of the Lebanese courts.

UN resolution 1595 originally qualified the attacks as acts of terrorism. Then resolution 1636 added that chapter VII of the UN charter applied to the Hariri assassination. Yet the laws of Lebanon still apply and its courts are still competent to judge these crimes. International conventions on acts of terrorism require states to condemn and prosecute such crimes, this being the preserve of national jurisdictions enforcing national law. Until resolution 1664 the bomb attacks did not count as crimes that needed to be tried by an international tribunal.

In fact, the UN has only previously taken such measures to prosecute the most serious international crimes. The courts set up to prosecute those responsible for ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda have competence over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. They are not competent to prosecute any other crimes, even those covered by international conventions but which fall within the competence of national courts.

The special tribunal for Lebanon would be the first international jurisdiction established exclusively to prosecute less serious crimes that are only international because the Security Council decided they should be so. It would be the only international court with the task of enforcing national law, with the addition of provisions excluding capital punishment. This measure emphasises the importance the UN attaches to prosecuting the murder of leading Lebanese figures. It is unlikely that this episode will enhance the image of the UN or of international justice.

Last summer’s fighting between Hizbullah and Israeli forces claimed 40 civilian lives in Israel and more than 1,000 in Lebanon. On both sides of the border several hundred thousand refugees had to flee their homes under extreme duress. People who came home to Lebanon after the conflict are still in mortal danger and will go on being endangered by unexploded anti-personnel mines and other munitions. The war caused massive destruction of civilian sites in Lebanon and substantial damage on the Israeli side.

Some of the deaths, injuries, population displacement and destruction were the result of serious violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocol on the protection of the victims of international armed conflicts. These violations were serious war crimes, ranking with crimes against humanity and genocide. But no UN resolution has recognised them as such, or condemned them. There has never been any question of setting up an international commission, let alone a tribunal, to investigate the violations of humanitarian law committed during the 33 days of fighting.

Are some deaths more important than others?
This is in stark contrast with the treatment reserved for Hariri’s assassins. It suggests that the international community thinks some deaths are more politically important than others. It damages the credibility of humanitarian law and gives the impression that political considerations drive international justice.

Undeniably, international criminal justice is a way of restoring and maintaining peace, and as such may serve the fundamental aims of the UN. Until now international criminal tribunals never appeared to serve other aims but this is no longer the case.

The attitude of the forces competing for power in Lebanon towards the tribunal has been partial and self-seeking from the start. The supporters of the current parliamentary majority, which backs the government of Fuad Siniora, believe that only an international court would dare rule that Syrian agents infiltrated deep into the Lebanese state were implicated in the assassination (3). They have the obvious support of the United States, France and influential Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia; and they are convinced that by denouncing crimes said to be carried out on orders from Damascus they will help Lebanon free itself from foreign domination.

The Security Council seems to have been a party to this, and to have decided to encourage the projected tribunal. It is easy to understand why the Syrian authorities should oppose what they see as a hostile move. The Lebanese opposition, especially Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic movement led by General Michel Aoun, support this view. The opposition groups see themselves as the true defenders of Lebanese independence, combating its real enemies — the powers that enslave the peoples of the Middle East and want to disarm the Lebanese resistance led by Hizbullah. They are convinced the international tribunal is a tool in the hands of these powers and that talk of punishing Hariri’s killers is a pretext. They are afraid the UN might decide to extend the tribunal’s powers and have cited this as a reason for resigning from the government, which deprived the government of its legitimacy. (It now seems to be hardly more than a pawn moved by foreign powers.)

One side has always seen the court as a way of avenging the death of political figures while combating the Syrian regime; the other side saw it as a tool for the US, Israel and France. These views have mobilised opposing factions in Lebanese society, paralysed the country and triggered fighting. The court is a hostage in this conflict, having lost its way before it even had a chance to operate as a real court, prosecuting crimes.

Worse still, under the pretence of setting up the tribunal, rough justice has been meted out to the suspects taken into custody by the IIIC. They include four Lebanese generals, officially designated as the perpetrators of the attack on Hariri. The Security Council repeated this allegation in resolution 1636, intended to oblige the Syrian government to cooperate with the IIIC. Those in custody have been denied their legal rights, in violation of the most basic standards upheld by the UN, especially the international covenant on civil and political rights of 16 December 1966.

A succession of mistakes
As with the other prisoners, the predicament of General Jamil al-Sayed is the result of a succession of mistakes by the commission and the lack of an impartial independent court to which to appeal. The behaviour of the IIIC was reprehensible when Mehlis was in charge. Although al-Sayed said that he had no knowledge of the preparation and execution of Hariri’s assassination, he was pressed to name credible culprits — that is, to give false testimony. The IIIC has proof, provided by al-Sayed, of this attempt to pervert the course of justice. The offer was made in relatively friendly terms before his arrest, then repeated more forcefully once he was in custody.

He was arrested on 30 August 2005 on a search warrant issued by the commission, which alleged that he was directly implicated in the planning and execution of the attack on Hariri. Not until three days after his arrest did a Lebanese prosecutor formally register that after a brief interrogation he had been taken into custody. The IIIC subsequently ruled that al-Sayed should not be released on bail; officially it was not empowered to make arrests or to take decisions on bail.

Brammertz, the chief investigator, has since made it quite clear in his letters to the defence that only the Lebanese courts have such powers. But abuses of this sort are part of the rationale beneath the Security Council’s decision to set up the tribunal.

No specific charges have been brought against al-Sayed or the other suspects. They have not been able to consult evidence submitted to the Lebanese authorities during the IIIC investigation. Hearings have been conducted with or without defence lawyers, who have never been allowed to talk to their clients in private. Al-Sayed, despite repeated requests, has never been confronted with the “witnesses” cited by IIIC reports, apart from one person who was wearing a mask.

After Mehlis left office, these abuses stopped, and the IIIC has not interrogated al-Sayed since. Its conduct of the investigation now seems acceptable. All the evidence cited in its first two reports has been checked and shown to be unfounded; the last four reports do not refer to the suspicions to which the Security Council unwisely reacted.

However al-Sayed and his fellow suspects have not been able to lodge any complaints. Officially it is up to the Lebanese courts to uphold the law of the land. Having hurriedly complied with the commission’s recommendations when Mehlis was in command, they are now refusing to assume any responsibility for those in custody. There is no higher authority to which those in custody may appeal.

All the talk about an international criminal tribunal seems to have been a cover-up for a travesty of justice at national and international level. The problem is the system invented by the Security Council in resolution 1595. The projected international tribunal is a key factor in the failure to uphold law and order.

Is the Hariri family financing Al Qaida and are the neocons profiting from the operation?

Enough of the Hariris, their Saudi mentors, and their neocon 'friends'. Since Rafiq Hariri died, Lebanon is on the brink of civil war again. The political heir, Saad Hariri, has been, like his father, pressuring the international community into accomplishing his political goals in Lebanon, at the expenses of the stability of the country. With his wealth, his closeness to the Saudi reigning family and, by extension, with the world class neocons including the newly elected French president Nicolas Sarkozy and his foreign affairs minister Bernard Kouchner (a doctor who supported the Iraq war), and his friendship with Chirac, former French president, Hariri has been pulling all the strings in order to establish a permanent vassalization of Lebanon to the west with himself as the self appointed viceroy. My husband calls him Harmani. When we visited Lebanon in 2005 it was after a victorious parliamentary election for Hariri won in the wave of indignation about his father's assassination. He was on all posters, sometimes under his father's picture (Lebanon is the only country where dead people can campaign in elections), sometimes standing with a smile, a well trimmed beard, a hand in his pocket (which we all know is anything but empty) and a cellphone in another hand. My husband asked who was on the poster and I told him. We laughed when he confided that he thought that this might have been an ad for Armani. Since then we call him Harmani. But now is not the time to laugh. Now is the time to cry. Lebanon is on the brink of civil war again, thanks, among other things, to this little corrupt rich brat and his overambitious father.
Now is also the time for some less narrower perspective from what we read in the press on what is going on in lebanon now. And as always these perspectives cannot be found easily in the mainstream press, especially when it comes to matters related to the middle east.

Alain Gresh writes on his blog:

More than one party can be interested in taking profit from the actual instability in Lebanon. Syria, without doubt. But also the actual Lebanese government trying to force the international community into adopting an authoritarian UN security council resolution imposing on Lebanon an international tribunal on the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, despite a clear hostility to this kind of tribunal from the Lebanese opposition. The actual Israeli government as well as the US also have interest in destabilising Lebanon. However, contrary to what is generally written in the press, what is hapenning in lebanon now is not a confrontation between the Lebanese people with the backing of the international community, and Syria and its « agents ». There is a multilayered confrontation in Lebanon. One of these layers is the division of the country between two distinct political camps with equal importance. On one side we have the Sanyura government backed by Hariri and the Sunnis, the Lebanese forces and half the Christian community, and the Druzes. On the other side we have the Shias with the Amal and Hezbollah movements, as well as the Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun with half the Christian community. Is France making a good choice by taking sides in this conflict ? Bernard Kouchner, Sarkozy's foreign minister, and notable French neocon, is today in Beyrouth to support the Lebanese people and the Sanyura government while it is the Palestinian people who are being bombed. For what ? For a bank robbery that turned ugly ? Or for what to come in Lebanon ?

Bien des gens ont intérêt à l’instabilité au Liban. Le gouvernement syrien sans doute, mais aussi la majorité libanaise actuelle (qui cherche à pousser la communauté internationale à une résolution autoritaire pour créer un tribunal international sur l’assassinat de Rafic Hariri), le gouvernement israélien, les Etats-Unis, etc. Mais, contrairement à ce qui s’écrit généralement, ce qui se passe dans ce pays n’est pas un affrontement entre, d’un côté, le peuple libanais allié à la communauté internationale et de l’autre la Syrie avec ses « agents ». Se superposent plusieurs affrontements, dont le premier divise le Liban lui-même en deux camps d’à peu près égale importance. En privilégiant l’un des deux, la France fait-elle le bon choix ?

Nidal, at Loubnan Ya Loubnan, has an interesting perspective. Nidal's perspective shows the ideological and practical links between the different parties interested in Lebanon's descent into chaos. One can fairly say that these parties are organised in a loose network of interests in which the main puppeteers of the unfolding tragedy are the Hariri family closely linked to the Saudis, and by extension to the neocons. Nidal shows also how the Hariri family is financing Muslim Sunni extremists in Lebanon and worse, their migrations into Lebanon. One can fairly assume that we have here a paradigm for both the mobility and the survival of global sunni jihad relying entirely on local respectable sources of money totally immune to scrutiny and close to the neocons.

Nidal starts with an article written today by the Lebanese and Hariri paid journalist Michael Young in which Young tries to refute Seymour Hersh's assertions of March 2007 about the financing and the support provided by Hariri and the Lebanese government to Sunni extremist groups in Lebanon in order to counter the influence of Hezbollah. In his article, Young explains that if the Hariri family did in fact paid for a bail out of prison for members of Jund-Al-Sham, who later joined Fatah El-Islam already implemented in Nahr El-Bared in Northern Lebanon, it was to buy peace in the south. However, this assertion, claims Nidal, which Lebanese consider as normal political dealings, has the potential to open to us a window on how the Hariri family does Politics in Lebanon.

What is interesting about Jund Al-Sham is that this organisation, who is on the Russian list of terrorist organisations but not on the US list, has claimed responsibility for the Hariri assassination but this was discarded by the Mehlis commission who operated entirely under the mentorship of Hariri. Jund Al-Sham has nonetheless claimed responsibility for three of the fourteen carbombs investigated by the Mehlis commission. Jund Al-Sham has also claimed responsibility for the 2006 bombing fo the US embassy in Damascus and for the killing of a Hezbollah member in 2004. Moreover, two of its members who infiltrated the Ain El Hilweh camp in south Lebanon, were arrested by the Lebanese army in June 2006 for the murder of two members of the Islamic Jihad in south Lebanon. One of them confessed working for the Mossad. The army seized at his house documents proving that some members of this extremist organisation have actually trained in Israel. Hussein Khattab, brother to prominent sheikh Jamal Khattab suspected of organising recruitement fro Al Qaida Iraq, was also arrested in June 2006 by the Lebanese army on the charge of directing a spy netwrok for Irsael in palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon. There was very little information in the news about this incident.

Knowing all this, how the Hariri family, as Michael Young claims, could have given money to members of Jund El-Sham ? Michael Young seems to considerthis as a gaffe. I think we should consider this as a serious financing for extremists groups with the goal of destabilising Lebanon opening wide the doors for foreign intervention as in Iraq. It is more than time to hold this family, who claims to have reconstructed Lebanon and who is now pushing the whole country into civil war and destruction, accountable.

One of the many links between Fatah El-Islam, Fatah organisation in Palestinian camps, and the Hariri family, the last two being the actual and semi-official allies of the US administration in its 'war on terror'.

And between assassinations, denials and justifications the march 14th movement and the Hariri clan are confirming in a way their ties to Sunni extremist groups related to Al Qaida. Here is two more:
Ahmad Fatfat, minister of sports and interior minister by interim during the Israeli agression on Lebanon.
Bahiyya Hariri, sister of Rafiq and aunt of Saad (the chief of the actual parliamentary majority in Lebanon and major fund provider) deputy member of the Lebanese parliament.
Assassination of Abu Jandal by Lebanese Security Forces (special army of Sanyura and Hariri.

Fatah El-Islam's alleged bank robbery: nothing more than a scheduled visit gone awry at the cashier to collect the regular amount send by Hariri. They discovered that the payments were stopped and helped themselves.


A very important and remaining question is how the lebanese army, which is under the authority of the president (who is opposed to the Hariri family), was drawn into this fight ? The answer is here. This answer also explains why the Hezbollah is supporting the army. Hassan Nasrallah will be speaking to Lebanese on Friday evening to explain his party's position. Stay tuned.

Now, the US in all that ? As Always in the Frontline when it comes to fighting Al Qaida.

Please read these short notes from prominent blogger Angry Arab, with links:

Lebanese government asks the US for 280 millions in military aid to fight 200 members of Fatah El-Islam.

Six US cargo flights with ammunitions are scheduled to land in Lebanon over the next two days.

US assistant secretary of state David Welsh met with Lebanese army chief last week.

Interview

There is a wealth of information in this interview on Nahr El-Bared's conflict of Angry Arab blogger As'ad Abu Khalil by Ali Abunimah from Electronic Intifada.

How the US media sold the Iraq War

Get video codes at Bolt.

Sarkozy et les néocons: même combat contre la société civile

Ce qu'il y a peut-être de plus significatif dans la charge de Nicolas Sarkozy sur Mai 68 est sa parenté evec le projet des néoconservateurs US. Ces derniers ont voulu eux aussi se débarrasser des valeurs léguées à leur société par la révolution tranquille des années soixante comme la libéralisation sexuelle et ce qu'ils considèrent comme le relâchement des moeurs et le pacifisme.

Mogadishu: the new killing zone on the neocon 'liberation' trail

''There are so many wounded people; from babies to 90-year-olds. They are brought to the hospitals near my house in wheelbarrows and donkey carts, bleeding, missing limbs.
The smells and sounds are unbearable. I find myself crying. I need to go to the hospitals to chronicle what is happening. But it is getting too hard emotionally. As a reporter for Reuters I am an observer, but I am also a human being.''

READThe return of Somalia warlords by Amina Mire (Thanks to Reclaiming Space, Forever Under Construction, and Ben Heine who featured Mire's article on his blog)

US Policy New 'Turn' in the ME: 'Iraqi Bloodshed Is Not Our Responsibility'

What did I tell you before ? When I heard of an invitation made to Syria and Iran to join talks on security for Iraq's neighbours in Baghdad, I didn't think, like most professional western analysts, that this was a turn in the Bush's adminstration policy in the ME. I immediately thought that this was the Bush adminstration's way to pin the blame of the bloodshed in Iraq on Syria and Iran !

Zionists and Neocons alike have been promoting the idea of a bloodshed between Sunnis and Shias as the main obstacle to peace and stabilisation in Iraq. Forgotten are the first gulf war, the embargos on Iraqi populations, the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq and the destruction of a whole country and society, the looting of Iraq's oil resources and cultural heritage, and the presence of 150000 active US soldiers making sure Iraqi puppet politicians are doing what the US asks them to do. Now we are invited to believe that the problem of Iraq is between the hands of Sunnis and shias in Iraq and the rest of the ME. From now on, the nightmare in the ME is not the US and Israel's faults, it is the fault of Muslims fighting each other and Palestinian factions fighting each other. Some Arab fools are buying into this narrative, king Abdullah of Jordan for example. Speaking of, why Jordan is not named as responsible for Iraq's security ? That's a question the Bush adminstration would have to answer and that no journalist will ask.

Today, at the opening of the talks, US puppet Iraqi prime minister Nouri El Maliki is reproted to have ''issued a stern warning that unless Iraq's neighbours - including Iran and Syria - united to help to shut down networks supplying both Sunni and Shia extremists, Iraq's escalating sectarian bloodshed would inevitably engulf the Middle East.''

And to realise that this conference on the stabilisation of iraq is a farce one must listen to puppet Maliki asking neighboring countries to stop their interference in Iraq while he seems to be confortable with 150000 USW soldiers in his country and a US adminstration dictating Iraqi policies.

Bagdad demande l'arrêt des ingérences étrangères
LEMONDE.FR 10.03.07

©

Well, the US wages illegal wars in the world and asks others to take responsibility for the post-war stabilisation. As in Afghanistan where an alliance, once powerful, is battling a guerrilla made of few radicals and fundamentalists.

Nobody should follow the US on this path. Reason must prevail and countries around the world should boycott the Bush adminstration or any adminstration who conducts such a failing and irrational policy. This nonsense must stop ! We shoudl ask our governments not only to stop supporting this policy but to fight it tirelessely to curb the actual terrible state of the world !

Angry Arab's first comment on the conference of Iraqi neighbours.
Angry Arab's second comment on the conference of Iraqi neighbours.

Analysing Jumblatt

How to make sense of Jumblatt , by one of the most gifted of Lebanese bloggers.

Irving Lewis Libby: Guilty !

It is this simple fact, the uncovering of a lie in a chain of lies and deception that will affect the course of foreign policy of the Bush adminstration more than anything else. For to keep the ugly truth for itself this administration had to lie, small lies, big lies, any size.

The neocon ideology and agenda rest entirely on lies. Should we halt these conspirators we must continue chasing their lies down their memory holes, track their web of false beliefs and smoke them out. The stakes are great, they are not ideological, they are humanitarian. There are men, women and children dying from their lies, there are shattered lives, mourning parents and families, an entire region wrecked, an entire religion persecuted and marginalised, and a nastier world.

The Libby verdict must become an indiction for every man and woman involved in this criminal ideology that is the neocon ideology and it must become the wake up call for self criticism starting with the western 'free' press who stupidly swallowed the neocon lies and gave them the mantle of objective information. Otherwise, if we don't follow in uncovering the lies, prosecuting them and learning from them, the Libby verdict would be useless. It would come to symbolise the accidental fall of one unlucky man instead of symbolising the will of the people of the free 'world' to rise against soft opression dressed in anti-terror law.

We owe it to the children of Iraq, the children of Lebanon and the children of Palestine, all these children who died as 'pirthpangs' for the Neocons Middle East, to bring down the people who performed at great lenght the art of the big lie forgetting in the process that some things have changed since Goebbels including our unwillingness to live in a constant state of fear and war.

We Give You Lies And Laughter and We Promise You Blood and Tears: The New Case for Another Neocon War in the ME

Stef from Famous for 15 megapixels is one of the best in the British blogosphere. He has recently posted two stories on the Iranian weapons found in Iraq.

Size matters and its follow-up Even More Urban Myths . And while at it, Stef has produced a third post on the subject.

And yet, despite the ridicule of their affirmations and the cynicism this time around, the neocons seem to be traveling the same path again. Another excellent Brit tackles the credibility question of these affirmations.

However, in countries supporting the war against Iran the press seems to be lending credibility to US lies. I detected in yesterday's coverage of the news about Iran a clear difference between Le Monde and The Guardian. Le Monde insisted on Ahmadi-Nejad's and Iran's will to negociate and to find solutions within the international legal framework, IAEA, etc...: ''Today, we are announcing that Iran's will is to achieve a negociated deal with the international community through a constructive dialogue... We don't want to aggravate the security situation in the region.'' declared Iran's supreme council chief of national security Ali Larijani in Munich. Even Ahmadi-Nejad showed restraint in face of the US frenzy to throw fabricated accusations at Iran. He declared yesterday that Iran's nuclear activity will stay in the framework of the IAEA and within the non proliferation treaty*.
While Mark Tran in the Guardian shows an Iranian president and a British PM both on the offensive: ''The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today accused the US of seeking to blame others for its problems in Iraq.''
''Britain today weighed into the issue of alleged Iranian support for the insurgency by backing US claims of Iran's complicity at the highest level with insurgent attacks on American and allied forces that have left 170 soldiers dead.'' Added Mark Tran.

Are we witnessing here a repeat of the divergences we saw in the run up to the Iraq war; each newspaper expressing the official position of its government ? Are we going to witness another Freedom fries campaign on Capitol hill ? Are we going to hear the same spin, lies, relayed and broadcasted to us by our media hundreds thousands times in order to prepare the public opinion for war ? Are we going to let the Bush administration and Israel drive us into a silly war again ?

L'Iran réitère son offre de dialogue sur le dossier nucléaire
LE MONDE 12.02.07

©

* Israel, who possess not less than 200 nuclear war heads ready to strike anywhere in the region, does not subscribe to the non proliferation treaty and is not inspected by the IAEA. Yet, the western press wants us to believe that Iran, who does not possess nuclear war technology, is a biggest threat than Israel. Actually, nobody is talking about Israel's nuclear war capacity.