MH 17: WHO STANDS TO GAIN?

By Dr Chandra Muzaffar

The Russian military has released military monitoring data which challenge allegations circulating in the media pertaining to the MH 17 crash in the Donetsk Region of Eastern Ukraine on July 17 2014. Questions have been raised about Kiev military jets tracking MH 17, Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the deployment of Buk missile systems. Kiev should also release military data on the circumstances leading to the crash. So should the Pentagon which reportedly has relevant intelligence and satellite data.

Since military data is hardcore information, Kiev and Washington should be persuaded to be transparent and accountable. The UN Secretary-General can play a role in this since there is a specialized agency within the UN, the ICAO, dedicated to international civil aviation. Military data from Moscow, Kiev and Washington should be scrutinized by the independent international panel that is supposed to probe the MH 17 catastrophe.

Such data carries much more weight than videos purportedly revealing the role of the pro-Russian rebels and the Russian government in the crash. One such video showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia is a fabrication. The billboard in the background establishes that it was shot in a town --- Krasnoarmeisk --- that has been under the control of the Ukrainian military since May 11. Similarly, a You Tube video showing a Russian General and Ukrainian rebels discussing their role in mistakenly downing a civilian aircraft was, from various tell-tale signs, produced before the event.

The public should be wary of fabricated “evidence” of this sort, after what we have witnessed in the last so many years. Have we forgotten the monstrous lies and massive distortions that accompanied the reckless allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which led eventually to the invasion of that country in 2003 and the death of more than a million people? Iraq continues to bleed to this day. What about the Gulf of Tonkin episode of 1964 which again was a fabrication that paved the way for wanton US aggression against Vietnam that resulted in the death of more than 3 million Vietnamese? The “babies in incubators” incident in Kuwait in 1990 was yet another manufactured lie that aroused the anger of the people and served to justify the US assault on Iraq.  Just last year we saw how an attempt was  made by some parties to pin the blame for a sarin gas attack in Ghouta, Syria upon the Assad government when subsequent investigations have revealed that it was the work of some militant rebel group.

From Tonkin to Ghouta there is a discernible pattern when it comes to the fabrication of evidence to justify some nefarious agenda or other. As soon as the event occurs before any proper investigation has begun, blame is apportioned upon the targeted party. This is done wilfully to divert attention from the real culprit whose act of evil remains concealed and camouflaged. The colluding media then begins to spin the “correct” version with the help of its reporters and columnists who concoct “fact” out of fiction. Any other explanation or interpretation of the event is discredited and dismissed derisively to ensure that the “credibility” of the dominant narrative remains intact. As the narrative unfolds, the target often embodied in a certain personality is demonized to such a degree that he arouses the ire of the public and becomes an object of venom.

The pattern described here is typical of what is known as a “false flag” operation in which blame for some dastardly deed is consciously transferred to one’s adversary. It has happened right through history and many contemporary nation-states --- and not just the United States --- are guilty of flying false flags.

To protect ourselves from being deceived by such operations, the general public should always ask: who stands to gain from a particular episode? Cui Bono is in fact an important principle in the investigation of a crime. In the case of the MH 17 carnage, the pro-Russian rebels do not benefit in any way from downing a civilian airliner. Their goal is independence from the Kiev government which is why they are fighting Kiev through sometimes violent means including shooting down its military planes.  Massacring 298 passengers in a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur does not serve their cause. Moscow which backs the rebels to an extent also gains nothing from involving itself in such a diabolical carnage.  

10 days after the carnage, it is now clear who is trying to reap benefits from that terrible tragedy in the skies. The demonization of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, orchestrated from various Western capitals, including Kiev, after Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, thus thwarting one of the primary strategic goals of NATO’s eastward expansion, has now reached its pinnacle. After MH 17, it has become a lot easier to convince people--- even without an iota of evidence --- that Putin is a “mass murderer”.  The tarnishing of Putin’s image is crucial for those in the West who want to curb Russia’s political re-assertion so that the US and its allies can perpetuate their global dominance without hindrance.     

MH 17 has helped the elite in Washington in yet another sense. It has strengthened its push for tougher sanctions against Russia which began after the Crimea vote. Given their extensive economic ties with Russia, many European countries such as Germany, France, Netherlands and Italy have been somewhat lukewarm about widening and deepening sanctions. But will that change now? Will an outraged European public, incensed by the MH 17 massacre, demand that their governments punish Moscow?

It is obvious that those who seek to punish Russia and the pro-Russian rebels, namely, the elite in Washington and Kiev, are poised to gain the most from the MH 17 episode. Does it imply that they would have had a role in the episode itself? Only a truly independent and impartial international inquiry would be able to provide the answer.

In this regard, we must admit that while elites in Kiev and Washington may stand to gain from MH 17, those who actually pulled the trigger may be some other group or individual with links to the powerful in the two capitals. It is quite conceivable that a certain well-heeled individual equipped with the appropriate military apparatus and with access to air-control authorities in the region may have executed the act of evil itself.

Because of who he is, and where his loyalties lie, that individual may have also decided to target Malaysia. Was he giving vent to his anger over our principled stand on the question of justice for the Palestinians? Was he also attempting to divert public attention from Israel’s ground offensive against Gaza which time-wise coincided with the downing of the Malaysian airliner?

As we explore MH 17 from this angle, would we be able to connect the dots between MH 17 and MH 370, between July 17 and March 8, 2014?

We should not rest till the whole truth is known and the evil behind these two colossal catastrophes punished severely.

We owe this to every soul who perished on those fateful flights.

(This article is dedicated to the cherished memory of all those on MH 17 --- especially the 80 children who were on board).

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Malaysia.

26 July 2014.  

MH 370: CONDOLENCES FROM JUST

The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) is deeply saddened  and grieved by the news that all the passengers and crew members of MH 370 may have perished in the air tragedy that occurred on 8 March 2014.

 

Our heartfelt condolences to the kith and kin of the 239 passengers and crew.

 

Our sorrow is all the greater since one of the stewards on that ill-fated flight, Mr. Junaidi Kassim, is an uncle of JUST's Senior Executive, Al-Malik Abdullah.

 

We pray that God will grant solace, strength and fortitude to the families and loved ones of the deceased as they bear the pain and agony of their terrible loss.

 

Al-Fatihah.

 

Chandra Muzaffar,

On behalf of the JUST family.

GOOD TERRORIST; BAD TERRORIST

By Dr Chandra Muzaffar

The French military operation in Mali has brought to the fore the blatant double standards in the approach of certain Western nations to the whole question of terrorism.

In the case of Mali, France, with the support of Britain, Germany and the United States, has committed itself to combating diehard militants who are determined to use violence to establish their power and authority. Yet in Libya, these countries and their allies in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) had no compunctions about colluding with militant groups to oust Muammar Gaddafi in a bloody and brutal campaign which killed tens of thousands of people in 2011.

Their hypocrisy becomes even starker in Syria. Western powers and groups from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Turkey have been providing funds, logistical support and sophisticated weapons to rebels within Syria and mercenaries from a number of other countries, to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad government. Many of these armed groups, like their counterparts in Libya and Mali, justify their acts of terror and violence in the name of Islam --- albeit a distorted and perverted interpretation of the religion.

Different armed groups in Iraq at different times in the course of the US led occupation of that country have also, it is alleged, received material assistance from countries in the region and the US. It is an established fact that the US under Ronald Reagan gave enormous financial and military aid to so-called “jihadist” groups fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The US has often condoned acts of terror perpetrated by its close ally, Israel, against Palestinians and other Arabs. Indeed, the US itself is regarded in some circles as a “terrorist state”, given its record of killing innocent civilians in various parts of the world, including Latin America, West Asia and Southeast Asia. 

What this shows is that there is terrorism that is condoned and terrorism that is condemned by Western powers and other states. If violence serves their interests, it is acceptable. If it doesn’t, the militants are targeted. In other words, there are ‘good terrorists’ and ‘bad terrorists’.

One of the main reasons why the militants in Mali have to be defeated --- from France’s standpoint --- is because France imports huge amounts of uranium from that country for its nuclear plants that generate 80% of its electricity. It is not because France abhors violence or seeks to protect human life! Besides, France wants to maintain its hegemonic grip upon West Africa and parts of North Africa at a time when resource rich Africa is becoming increasingly important to the global economy.

The ulterior motives for Western military action in Libya; for their covert operations in Syria; for their hobnobbing with militant groups in Iraq; and for their collusion with Jihadists in Afghanistan have been exposed in numerous studies. There is no need to repeat them here. Suffice to note that that they have very little to do with defending human rights or upholding democracy. It is the overwhelming desire to perpetuate their military, political, economic and cultural hegemony over the world which is the real reason why the US and its allies seek to crush terrorism in one instance and consort with it in another instance.    

    Why is it that this irrefutable truth about the attitude of the centres of power in the West to terrorism is not widely known?  Why is it that citizens in Western democracies who are supposed to be informed and educated are not ashamed of the double standards and the hypocrisy that surround the war on terror? One of the primary reasons is because the media --- both the old and the new --- does not want to tell the whole truth.

More often than not, the media regurgitates the propaganda put out by the centres of power in the West. If it is the ‘bad terrorists’ that say French troops are pursuing, the latter are projected in the media as heroes on a noble mission, without any analysis of the root causes of the conflict or what the motives are for launching the assault. If, on the other hand, it is the ‘good terrorists’ sponsored by the West who are responsible for some merciless slaughter somewhere, their barbarity is either played down by the media or the whole incident is turned and twisted to present the adversary as the perpetrator of the killing.

This has been happening in the case of Syria. In one of the most recent episodes the ‘good terrorists’, the rebels, claimed that the horrendous attack on Aleppo University on 15 January 2013 that killed 87 people, many of them students, was the work of the Bashar government. This was the story that most media carried though a number of newspapers and television channels also reported the government’s denial. However, when evidence emerged that showed that the ‘good terrorists’ were the actual culprits and independent journalists and student groups in Syria, apart from a number of foreign governments, condemned the ‘good terrorists’ for their savagery, very few media outlets gave any prominence  to their remarks.

It is through distorted reporting and analysis of this sort that the media conceals the double standards and hypocrisy of the centres of power in the West. This is why we should on our own look for alternative sources of news and analysis and use the information at our command to challenge the powerful to be honest and consistent about the fight against terrorism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

IRAN: THE PRICE OF RESISTANCE

By Dr Chandra Muzzafar             

European Union foreign ministers have agreed to a full-fledged embargo on all imports of Iranian crude oil. Towards this end, various measures will be adopted gradually from 23^rd  January to 1^st July 2012.  In December 2011, the US Congress (with a 100 to 0 vote in the Senate)   presented a mandatory sanctions package to President Obama  which starting June 2012 will prohibit  any third-country banks and companies from dealing with Iran’s Central Bank.  Both the EU and US moves, it is alleged, are aimed at pressurising Iran to stop its so-called ‘nuclear weapons’ programme through the emasculation of its oil exports which account for more than 80% of its national revenue.   

Nuclear Weapons Programme

The first question we should ask is: Does Iran have a nuclear weapons programme? The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) --- its mischievous attempt to raise doubts about Iran’s nuclear energy programme notwithstanding--- admits in its November 2011 Report that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme.  Incidentally, every nuclear installation in Iran has been inspected hundreds of times by the IAEA making them the most thoroughly inspected nuclear facilities on earth!  Even the US’s own classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 2011--- which the well-known investigative journalist, Seymour  Hersh, had exposed in May 2011--- states quite clearly that Iran is not producing nuclear weapons and had in fact halted such a programme way back in 2003.  NIE 2011 in a sense reiterates what is contained in NIE 2007.

Of course, Iran continues to enrich uranium up to the 20% level required for the production of medical isotopes. This is far below the 85% plus necessary to manufacture a nuclear bomb.  Every major leader in Iran has emphasised over and over again that they have no intention of making a bomb. They regard it --- rightly--- as haram (or prohibited in Islam).

Because its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes--- medical research and electricity---- the Iranian government agreed to a nuclear fuel swap deal initiated by Brazil and Turkey in May 2010 which would have seen Iran shipping low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for fuel for a research reactor.  The Western powers and Israel rejected the deal.

Their rejection underscores the stark hypocrisy that surrounds the entire issue of Iran’s nuclear programme.  If it is nuclear weapons that they are concerned about why didn’t they accept a deal that would have, to a large extent, curbed any clandestine move by Iran to produce such weapons?  Or, are certain Western powers and Israel against Iran producing nuclear energy even for peaceful purposes --- a right that Iran possesses as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?  

It is important to raise these questions for two other reasons.  One, the countries that are most vocal in demanding that Iran terminate its uranium enrichment programme are all nuclear weapon states.  The US has an arsenal of more than 5000 nuclear warheads while Israel, an undeclared nuclear state---- the only nuclear weapon state in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) --- has perhaps between 200 and 400 warheads.  Two, countries such as the US, Britain, France and even Israel had no qualms about assisting Iran to launch its nuclear programme in the fifties when it was under the Shah, Reza Pahlavi.  US President, Dwight Eisenhower, saw it as an “atoms for peace” enterprise.  One does not have to second guess why they were all so enthusiastic about the Shah’s nuclear energy programme---- because the dictator was their gendarme in that corner of WANA, protecting their strategic, political and oil interests with all his brutal might.

Why did the West and Israel change their attitude towards Iran’s nuclear programme?  Was it because an Islamic Revolution had occurred in Iran in 1979?  Was Islam the decisive factor?  Islam per se was not the major reason for the change in attitude. After all, the West counts as its allies a number of countries that view themselves as ‘Islamic States’ and   subscribe to a somewhat narrow, exclusive idea of Islam and Muslim identity.  Saudi Arabia, Qatar and most of the Gulf Sheikhdoms would be outstanding examples.  Colluding and collaborating with these states and other Islamic movements has never been a problem for the centres of power in the West.

Independence

The real reason why the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear programme became anathema for the West and Israel was because of Iran’s defence of its independence and integrity in the face of US and Western hegemony.  The Islamic Republic under the guidance of its charismatic leader Ayatollah Khomeini was not prepared to submit to US dominance or acquiesce with Israeli arrogance. From the outset --- from 1979 itself--- Iran was determined to manage its own destiny which is why it nationalised oil and strengthened its self-reliance.

In an earlier period--- in 1953 to be exact--- another Iranian leader, this time a highly principled secular democrat, Mohammad Mosaddegh, had also sought to assert Iranian independence and sovereignty by nationalising oil.  This incurred the wrath of the British and American elites whose companies dominated the local oil industry.  With the help of their intelligence services, they managed to oust Mosaddegh from his Prime Ministership and restore full authority to the Shah.

Others in WANA, at different times and in different circumstances, have also paid the price for resisting dominance.   Gamal Nasser in Egypt, Houri Boumediene in Algeria, Hafiz Assad in Syria, Yasser Arafat in Palestine (and other Palestinian freedom fighters), Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, had all at some point or other in their lives refused to yield to hegemonic power.  Today, there are leaders like Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon, Khalil Meshal in Palestine, and Bashar Assad in Syria who continue to resist Israeli power and US hegemony and are therefore targeted by Tel Aviv and Washington.

It is appropriate to observe at this juncture that resistance to US hegemony has had a longer and perhaps more tragic history in parts of Latin America.  From Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti to  Salvador Allende, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa these and other illustrious leaders have unflinchingly opposed attempts by the US elite to subjugate the people of Latin America and subordinate the continent to the whims and fancies of its northern neighbour.  Indeed, today there is a new determination in Latin America to strengthen the independence of individual states and of the region as a whole through cooperation and collective action that is both innovative and dynamic.

There is no doubt at all that it is Iran’s refusal to be subservient to the US, Israel and their allies, its readiness to resist, that has incensed the powers-that-be.  It explains why they are going all out to emasculate the Iranian economy, manufacture mass disaffection with the government and, at the right moment, engineer a regime change.  The excuse they are using for this manipulation is of course Iran’s unproven nuclear weapons programme.  In the scenario that is unfolding before our eyes, there are shades of the build-up that led to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein 2003.

Targeting Iran 

While Iran’s desire to remain independent has been a prominent feature of the nation’s personality since the Revolution 33 years ago, there must be situations and circumstances that are more current and contemporary which have given rise to this obsession in Tel Aviv and in certain Western capitals with the targeting and taming of Iran. What are these situations and circumstances?  There are many.  We shall highlight some of them.

1)      In the wake of the Arab uprising, the Israeli elite has become extremely apprehensive about the state’s security and its future.  It is afraid that popular movements sweeping through WANA would eventually challenge the legitimacy of the Israeli regime.  Though Israel’s protector, the US, has sought assurances from some of the Islamic parties that have come to power that they will not question the Israeli presence, the Israeli elite regards the increasing influence of states and movements in WANA that are firmly opposed to Israeli suppression of Palestinian rights--- the most powerful of which is of course Iran--- as a huge threat to Israel’s very existence.  This is why it wants its protector, buttressed by its European allies, to castrate Iran immediately.

2)      This fear has increased dramatically in recent months with the economic decline of its protector and the economic crisis embroiling various European states. Israel knows that the US’s decline is part of a general decline which in a sense is irreversible and would therefore want its protector to act decisively against Israel’s foes like Iran now when the US still has the military muscle rather than wait until it is too late.   For the US elite itself, the most serious implication of its decline is its loss of control over WANA, the world’s major oil exporting region which is, at the same time, of tremendous geostrategic significance.  When hegemonic powers are losing their dominance, do they not become more bellicose in attempting to perpetuate their power and privilege?  Should we be surprised when they turn against other actors on the ascendancy who are perceived as the cause of their decline?

3)      For both the US and Israeli elites and European leaders allied to them, it is Iran which is the lynchpin of the challenge to their hegemony over WANA.  Iran maintains a tried and tested link to the Syrian leadership and to the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hamas is also to a certain degree part of this link which in broad terms constitutes the resistance to US-Israel hegemony.  As the fulcrum of this resistance, Iran has displayed remarkable tenacity--- a tenacity which is now expressing itself in its ability to take on US drones and US spies and to openly challenge US military power. Similarly, the Syrian crisis, orchestrated to a large extent by external forces, has revealed the resilience of the Bashar Assad government.  Likewise, in defending Lebanon against the Israeli assault in 2006, the Hezbollah showed that it possesses both strategic depth and immense courage which in the end thwarted the Israeli agenda. Both Israel and the US are determined to not only break the link of resistance but also to crush each of the component elements of the link.

4)      What has strengthened their determination to act against Iran in particular is the situation in Iraq.  The Israeli and US elites had hoped that the conquest of Iraq would help to create a new environment in WANA which would reinforce their grip over oil and strengthen their geostrategic position in the region through a subservient leadership in Baghdad eager to do their bidding.  Given Iraq’s importance, the Baghdad leadership, they reckoned, would succeed in shaping an atmosphere in the region conducive to Israel even if it were at the cost of Palestinian self-determination.  However, things have not worked according to plan.  While US and British companies have managed to secure lucrative oil deals, Israeli and US elites have failed to gain political control over Iraq.  A nation that is politically unstable, socially chaotic and deeply divided along sectarian lines, there is endless jockeying for power among contending groups.  In the midst of this maelstrom, most of the groups within the majority Shia community seem to have gravitated towards Shia Iran.  Shia affinity has undoubtedly smoothened the forging of political ties across the Iraq-Iran border. Recent political developments in Iraq indicate that the influence that emanates from these ties is considerable.  It is this that annoys and angers the Israeli, US and British elites.   Their political defeat in Iraq which is a major setback for them in WANA and beyond is one of the primary reasons why they are now training their guns on Iran.

5)      Iran’s influence over Iraq has also riled some regional actors.  The monarchical elite in Saudi Arabia, with its Wahabi orientation, often manifests an almost visceral hatred towards the Shia sect.  Some Saudi leaders regard it as their duty to defend the Sunni majority against the rising Shia tide. They are not alone in perceiving growing Shia influence and power --- in Iraq, in Syria through the Alawite  elite, in Lebanon via Hezbollah, and in Bahrain--- as a mortal threat to the Sunnis.  The Qatari leadership and even some Turkish politicians and intellectuals have begun to ring the alarm bells.  The latter, it is said, are backing some hard-line Sunnis in Iraq.  These anti-Shia sentiments which are spreading quite rapidly in WANA have heightened the antagonism towards Iran.  They have strengthened the hand of the US and Israel and their European allies as they prepare to move against the Iranian Republic.

6)      For the US curbing Iran’s influence goes beyond WANA.  Iran has become close to Russia in the last couple of years. The relationship is strategic and economic especially since they have overlapping interests in Central Asia and the Caspian region.  Russia itself is re-asserting its power in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, West Asia and South Asia, much to the chagrin of the US.  That is why it is uneasy about a Russian-Iranian nexus developing in the future.

7)      Of even greater significance to the US’s hegemonic agenda is the relationship between Iran and China.  Largely economic in nature, China imports 9% of its oil and 15% of its gas from Iran.   China has massive investments in the oil and gas industry in Iran, and is helping to upgrade its infrastructure in general.   Since access to energy is critical for China’s development, the US which is determined to contain China, is keen on exercising control over China’s sources of energy supply. What this means is that curtailing Iran’s oil and gas exports may in fact be part of a larger agenda whose principal goal is the containment of China, the nation that the US and the West view as the most formidable challenge ever to their centuries old dominance.

8)      Iran’s expanding ties with various Latin American countries also irks the US. Countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil, among others have become good friends of Iran in recent years. Most of these states are opposed to US dominance over Latin America.  A couple of them have become very critical of Israeli occupation of Palestine.  Since Venezuela and Ecuador are also major oil exporters, the US is worried that the ties that Iran, also an important oil exporter, is forging with them could enhance their collective clout in the global economy to the detriment of the US.  This is yet another reason why the US sees Iran as a challenge to its hegemonic power.

9)      It is not just because of Iran’s ties with oil exporting states in Latin America or its export of oil to China that oil is also a factor that explains the targeting of Iran.  As one of the top five oil exporters in the world, Iran is an attractive destination for a lot of oil companies especially from the US --- a country which has been excluded from Iran’s petroleum sector for more than three decades. According to petroleum experts there are oil and gas fields that have yet to be explored fully.  There is also money to be made from infrastructure investments.  US and other Western oil firms are hungering to go in--- just as they moved into Iraq after the invasion in 2003.

10)  A final factor that is responsible for this fixation with Iran is perhaps the position of the US dollar. The dollar, needless to say, is one of the most crucial pillars of US global hegemony. This is the reason why any attempt to redefine its role as the world’s principal reserve currency elicits an immediate response from US financial and political circles.   In the last few years Iran has been steadily distancing itself from the US dollar in its trade transactions. At the end of December 2011, it signed an agreement with China that states that the Iranian rial and the Chinese yuan would be used in bilateral trade.  In early January 2012, Iran made a similar arrangement with Russia, the rial and the rouble replacing the US dollar. Iran and India are holding discussions on moving out of dollar settlements.  Trading in gold is an option they are considering. These moves by Iran have assumed great significance because others, including US allies, are abandoning the dollar in some of their bilateral trade arrangements.   Japan and China, for instance, have announced that they will trade in yen and yuan.  Because Iran is perceived as one of those nations pushing hard for the abandonment of the dollar, the US has her in its sights.  It has been suggested that one of the reasons why the US decided to invade Iraq in 2003 was because Saddam Hussein had switched from the dollar to the euro for the sale of his country’s oil.

Suffering; Mistakes

The ten points elaborated here prove that the US and its allies have zero tolerance for any challenge, however minor, to US hegemonic power or to the position of Israel.  Those who resist their power and position will pay the price. In the last 30 odd years, Iran has paid the price of resistance in hundreds of ways.  Less than a year after the Islamic Revolution, a war was imposed upon Iran --- a war led by the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, on behalf of all the Gulf Sheikhdoms, a number of other Arab states, the US, Britain, certain other Western governments, and even the Soviet Union.  Though Iran’s adversaries had different motives, their common objective was to crush the Revolution which they saw as a challenge to their interests.  A million lives were lost on both sides of the divide in the eight year war which emasculated the Iranian economy and sapped the nation’s energy.   In June 1981, a vicious bomb explosion wiped out some top political leaders, a huge number of parliamentarians, and leading figures in the Judiciary.  This, and other subsequent terrorist attacks, it is alleged, were master-minded by a militant group operating from Iraq called the Mujahideen-e-Khalq.   In recent years the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme has been subjected to a cyber- attack and four of its scientists have been assassinated. And for decades, Iran has been under US economic sanctions which have had a negative impact upon its development programme.

Indeed, very few countries have been subjected to the pain and suffering that Iran has gone through in the last 33 years. The perseverance and fortitude of the Iranian people, as we have alluded to, is awe-inspiring.  And yet, an objective analysis of Iran’s response to hegemony would suggest that Iranian leaders and activists have also made serious mistakes. From the perspective of international law and diplomacy, it was clearly wrong of Iranian students to seize the US Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 and hold its occupants hostage for 444 days.   Storming the British Embassy in the nation’s capital on 29 November 2011 was also a foolish act for which Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs has apologised. Likewise, allegations of foul-play in the June 2009 Presidential Election could have been better handled. The Iranian authorities should have countered those allegations by demonstrating their commitment to total electoral transparency and accountability. The language that the current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sometimes employs on matters of grave international significance is intemperate and injudicious.  However difficult the situation maybe, there is no need to deliberately provoke or irritate one’s enemies.  As a case in point, though Ahmadinejad’s oft-quoted remarks about Israel were distorted and twisted by the Western media and politicians, the Iranian President could have adopted a more mature yet principled stance vis-à-vis the Jewish state.

Hegemonic Agenda

Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Muhammad Khatami, proved that it was possible to defend Iran’s independence and dignity without being unduly confrontational.  He sought to meet the challenge of hegemony by insisting upon dialogue among civilisations and the politics of inclusiveness.  Khatami was prepared to talk to the US leadership.   But instead of welcoming the offer of dialogue, US President, George Bush Junior, chose to castigate Iran as part of an “axis of evil.”

The demonization of Iran proves yet again that regardless of whether the target adopts a confrontational or conciliatory approach, the hegemon will continue to pursue its agenda. It is an agenda that has a power and potency of its own.  In the context of WANA, Israel, it is so apparent, is the driving force behind US hegemonic power.

Making people everywhere aware of this and what its consequences are is one of the most urgent tasks at hand.  This task is perhaps a little less difficult today compared to the past for two reasons.  One, as we have stated a number of times before, US helmed hegemonic power is declining. People are becoming much more critical of US’s global role now.  Two, the citizens of WANA in particular are acutely conscious of what hegemonic intervention can lead to after witnessing the chaos and catastrophe that have befallen Iraq and Afghanistan. They are also beginning to sense--- after the initial euphoria---- that Libya may also be heading towards calamity.  Foreign intervention they know is not the solution.  It is the problem.

Immediate  Measures

While mass consciousness building about the danger of hegemony as the ultimate repudiation of human dignity will take time, we could propose some immediate measures that should be taken to avert military strikes against Iran and to prevent a war in WANA.  The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping could through the UN Security Council suggest a new nuclear deal which would allow Iran limited uranium enrichment under strict supervision within a larger treaty signed by all the states in WANA and other leading powers that pledges to create a nuclear weapon free zone in the region within a certain time-frame. The manufacture, storage, sale and distribution of other weapons of mass destruction should also be prohibited.   As the formulation of such a treaty begins in earnest, all sanctions against Iran should also be lifted.  There are other challenges notably the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state and the status of Israel, which should also be resolved at the same time.

Is there still time to persuade the powers-that-be to consider proposals like this?  Or is it already too late in the day?  Is the hegemon--- or is Israel--- about to strike?     

........................................................................................................................................................ 

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and Professor of Global Studies at Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Malaysia

27 January 2012               

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE ARAB UPRISING?

by Prof Dr Chandra Muzzzafar

The Arab Uprising is no longer what it was.  Its complexion is changing. 

One of the outstanding features of the first phase of the Uprising was its peaceful, non-violent character. The ouster of both the Tunisian dictator, Ben Ali, on 25 January 2011 and the Egyptian autocrat, Hosni Mubarak, on 11 February 2011 was largely peaceful. But the protesters in Libya resorted to arms within a day or two of their uprising in Benghazi on 15 February.

It is well known that one of the leading groups in what has evolved into a full-scale rebellion is a well-armed militia, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL).The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) is another militant outfit, some of whose founders were veterans from the struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, that is playing a critical role in the rebellion. 

It is reportedly linked to Al-Qaeda. In Syria too, right from the outset, militant organisations had infiltrated peaceful demonstrations and fired upon civilians and security forces alike, killing more than 80 senior military personnel.Some elements in the protest movement in Yemen which at the beginning was peaceful have also begun to resort to violence.

Interference

The other trend which has tarnished the Arab Uprising is the interference of regional actors in the revolts and rebellions that are occurring in individual states.  The most blatant was of course the entry of troops from Saudi Arabia at the head of a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) military force into Bahrain on 14 March 2011 to put down a popular uprising supported by the majority Shiite population against the Sunni Bahraini monarch, ShiekhHamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa. 

The brutal suppression of a peaceful movement for basic human rights and democracy --- 52 civilians were massacred ---- has been a severe setback for the Uprising as a whole.   But Saudi officials insist that it is Shiite Iran that is instigating the protest in Bahrain.Turning to another kingdom in the region, Qatar has been giving military and financial assistance to the rebels in Libya. It is alleged that Syrian protesters are being armed and funded by Bandar Sultan of Saudi Arabia and Saad Hariri in Lebanon. 

The motives behind interference and manipulation by individuals, groupsand states are not difficult to discern. The Saudi-GCC move into Bahrain was to preserve the status quo in Bahrain for fear that democratisation of the Sheikhdom would undermine the Saudi Ruler’s absolute power in his own kingdom especially since there is a restive Shiite minority in his  eastern province. Qatar’s role in the Libyan rebellion has nothing to do with democracy since Qatar is an absolute monarchy with the Emir exercising total suzerainty over the Emirate’s oil. By supporting the rebels,Qatar is actually acting at the behest of Western powers that are determined to affect a regime change in Libya. 

Qatar is after all a close US military ally whose air-base is used by the US for its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Qatar also has commercial ties with Israel. It is partly because they are pursuing the agenda of Western powers and Israel vis-à-vis Syria that Sultan and Hariri are actively engaged in fomenting unrest in that country. For Hariri in particular it is also a question of hitting back at Syrian President, Bashar Assad, for allegedly manoeuvring him out of office in Beirut.

Western Powers

If manipulations and manoeuvres by regional players have impacted adversely upon the Arab Uprising it is largely because they are intertwined--- as we have seen--- with the interests of certain Western powers.This is the third negative trend that should concern us.It is alleged, for instance, that the NFSL is funded by the CIA and French Intelligence.  France, Britain, the US and other Western countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal and Canada have gone beyond imposing a ‘No Fly Zone’ upon Libya to attempting to eliminateGadaffi physically. 

His youngest son, Saif al-Arab, and three grandchildren, killed in a NATO air-strike on 30 April, have become the tragic victims of this diabolical assassination plan.  In Syria, evidence has surfaced to show that the US has been financing opposition groups, “including a satellite TV channel beaming anti-regime programmes into the country.”   

The London- based Barada TV channel which began broadcasting in April 2009 is linked to a London-based network of exiles, the Movement for Justice and Development, which has received as much as US 6 million dollars from the US State Department since 2006. In Yemen, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Algeria, where there is--- or there was --- unrest in some form or other, Western powers are involved, directly or obliquely, in ensuring that the eventual outcome would be in their favour. 

As a case in point, in Yemen, the US, it is alleged, is trying very hard to persuade the President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, an ally, to step down and hand over power to a leadership inclined towards the US. The GCC, a grouping that is closely aligned to the US and the West, is helping the US in this scheme. Even in Tunisia and Egypt, the US,working through individuals and groups in various institutions and segments of society, is determined to ensure that its interests and the interests of Israel will be preserved and perpetuated in the emerging democratic scenarios in the two countries.   

Interests

What are those interests that the US elite and other Western elites are determined to protect at all costs? They are not homogeneous though they revolve around some recurring themes. In the case of Libya, for Europe, more than the US, the desire to control the country’s huge oil and gas reserves is a factor. For the US, which has denied vehemently that it harbours any strategic designsvis-a-vis Libya, the latter’s critical role in facilitating China’s access to its own oil and gas and the energyresources of other African states is an important consideration. 

Since access to energy would be sine qua con for China’s ascendancy as a global power, the US which fears this new reality is going all out to control the flow of oil and gas in China’s direction. According to Paul Craig Roberts, a former senior US government official, “China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.” 

Besides, Gadaffi has, in recent months, intensified his mobilisation of African states to form a sort of United States of Africa which will resist Western exploitation of the continent’s vast natural resources. This would run counter to the Pentagon’s idea of an African Command (Africom) launched in 2007. With Syria, US and other Western elites are unhappy that the Bashar Assad government remains a “resistance state” opposed to the unjust Israeli occupation of Arab lands. 

Because it has close ties to the Hezbollah in Lebanon which is now in the driver’s seat in Beirut, and is also an ally of the Iranian government ---both of which are in the crosshairs of Washington and Tel Aviv---- Syria has become a threat to the US and Israeli drive for hegemony over the region. Israel and the West would prefer a government in Damascus that would be more accommodative of their dominance. 

The US’s primary concern in Yemen is to ensure that the strategic port of Edenis under the watchful eye of a reliable ally while it would like to see Bahrain remain in the grip of the Khalifa family mainly because the island is the home of the US fifth fleet. Saudi Arabia is of critical importance to the US and Israel not only because of its mammoth oil reserves but also because it is a huge importer of US weapons. This is why the US is determined to keep the King on his throne. Some of the same considerations--- albeit on a lower scale---apply to Qatar and Kuwait. Egypt and Jordan are crucial because both have signed peace treaties with Israel. 

Oil, Israel, China, geostrategic interests, and weapons are the five reasons why the US and its western allies are hell-bent on shaping the Arab Uprising to fulfil their agenda. This is why there is so much meddling and interference on their part. It explains their military intervention in Libya. Some analysts would argue that the West is staging a “counter –revolution” to the Arab Uprising, with the connivance and collusion of their Arab allies and clients.  

Suggestions

How should we respond this challenge?  More and more governments and civil society organisations should speak up and make it lucidly clear to the US and its NATO allies, the Gaddafi government and all the opposition groups that there is no military solution in Libya. A ceasefire should be declared at once. It should be observed by everyone under the supervision of international observers. 

The African Union and Turkish peace plans which have many similarities should be revived with some modifications, and merged. Apart from opening a humanitarian corridor in the country through which aid will be transported to all those in dire need, the emphasis should be upon building institutions for a viable, sustainable democracy. 

At the same time, the merged peace plan should contain provisions for the departure of Gaddafi and his family. Given the terrible atrocities the dictator has committed against his own people and others over decades--- atrocities which now outweigh the good that he has done--- there is no other option. One hopes that after the exit of the Gaddafi family and its cronies, a free and fair election in Libya will produce a leadership that is not only honest and accountable but also one that will defend and protect the nation’s sovereignty and independence. It should not be subservient to Western powers or other powers for that matter.

In the case of Syria too, the citizens of the world have a role to play.  They should demand, in unequivocal language, that the US, Britain, France, Israel, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia stop immediately their machinations and manipulations. It is the people of Syria who will determine the destiny of their nation. The Bashar Assad government for its part should hasten the meaningful reforms it has promised the people in recent weeks. Many of these reforms have not been translated into action. Other laws that are in the offing related to local administration elections, the formation of political parties, and the freedom of the media, should be expedited. 

Indeed, Bashar should go beyond these reforms and announce publicly that there will be a democratic Presidential Election before the end of this year and he is prepared to defend his presidency in an open contest. At the same time, he should realise that while he has the right as Syria’s legitimate President to act firmly against murderous militias, his security forces should exercise maximum restraint when faced with peaceful, unarmed protesters. The killing of such protesters is totally unacceptable to the human conscience. It is this that provides fodder to Western governments that are so eager to intervene in Syria in pursuit of their own nefarious agenda.

These humble suggestions on how we can respond to the challenge posed by a “counter-revolution” engineered by certain Western powers and their Arab allies, especially in the context of Libya and Syria, are being made in the hope that the Arab Uprising can still be saved. If the Arab Uprising can be returned to its pristine ideals, it will emerge once again, as a genuine struggle by a people determined to re-affirm their dignity and their humanity.

3 May 2011

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and Professor of Global Studies at UniversitiSains Malaysia.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI IS FREE !

The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) warmly welcomes the release of Aung San SuuKyi, the world’s most famous political prisoner, from house arrest on 13 November 2010.

Imprisoned for 15 out of the last 21 years by a military junta which has suppressed the people’s struggle for human rights and democracy in Myanmar, SuuKyi has emerged as an enduring, universal symbol of the eternal quest for freedom. Her indomitable courage and her unwavering perseverance have won accolades from individuals and groups all over the world. What is remarkable about her commitment to her cause is her ability to retain her dignity and her integrity in the face of formidable odds.

There is much speculation on why the junta set her free. Since a political party spawned by the junta, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP)             won a farcical election by a huge margin a few days ago, the regime may have felt that its position is secure enough to release SuuKyi. On the other hand, given widespread allegations of electoral fraud, her release may also be a way of refurbishing the regime’s tattered public image. It is also true that for some years now, Myanmar’s ASEAN partners and even its close ally, China, have been quietly cajoling the regime to end SuuKyi’s incarceration. 

Whatever the reasons, JUST hopes that her freedom will not be short-lived. She was released in 1995, after six years in detention. Then in 2000 she was arrested and imprisoned again for two years. After a brief spell of freedom, she was imprisoned for a third time in 2003. She remained in prison or under house arrest for the next seven years.  ASEAN governments and China should go all out to dissuade the military junta from detaining SuuKyi again. 

To prove that it is sincere about SuuKyi’s release, the junta should set free the 2,200 political prisoners languishing in jails in different parts of the country. It should also begin to relax its iron grip upon the media and allow social groups to exercise a degree of autonomy in their evaluation of the regime’s governance. Myanmar’s monks should also be given some latitude to act as the nation’s conscience.

SuuKyi would certainly want to encourage the regime to move in this direction.  In this regard, she should be more strategic than she has been in the past. While holding on to her principles, she should act in such a manner that the regime will have no excuse to abrogate her freedom or to tighten even further its hold upon society.

Let SuuKyi’s freedom this time pave the way for the eventual liberation of the people of Myanmar.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,

President,

International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Malaysia

14 November 2010