IPS — Defence Secretary Leon Panetta’s suggestion that the end of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is part of a U.S. military success story ignores the fact that the George W. Bush administration and the U.S. military had planned to maintain a semi-permanent military presence in Iraq.

The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmanoeuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement.

A central element of the Maliki-Iran strategy was the common interest that Maliki, Iran and anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr shared in ending the U.S. occupation, despite their differences over other issues.

Maliki needed Sadr’s support, which was initially based on Maliki’s commitment to obtain a time schedule for U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.

In early June 2006, a draft national reconciliation plan that circulated among Iraqi political groups included agreement on “a time schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq” along with the build-up of Iraqi military forces. But after a quick trip to Baghdad, Bush rejected the idea of a withdrawal timetable.

Maliki’s national security adviser Mowaffak Al-Rubaei revealed in a Washington Post op-ed that Maliki wanted foreign troops reduced by more than 30,000 to under 100,000 by the end of 2006 and withdrawal of “most of the remaining troops” by end of the 2007.

When the full text of the reconciliation plan was published June 25, 2006, however, the commitment to a withdrawal timetable was missing.

In June 2007, senior Bush administration officials began leaking to reporters plans for maintaining what The New York Times described as “a near-permanent presence” in Iraq, which would involve control of four major bases.

Maliki immediately sent Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari to Washington to dangle the bait of an agreement on troops before then Vice President Dick Cheney.

As recounted in Linda Robinson’s “Tell Me How This Ends”, Zebari urged Cheney to begin negotiating the U.S. military presence in order to reduce the odds of an abrupt withdrawal that would play into the hands of the Iranians.

In a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2007, National Security Adviser Rubaie said Maliki wanted a “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to remain but would “eliminate the irritants that are apparent violations of Iraqi sovereignty”, according to Bob Woodward’s “The War Within”.

Maliki’s national security adviser was also seeking to protect the Mahdi Army from U.S. military plans to target it for major attacks. Meeting Bush’s coordinator for the Iraq War, Douglas Lute, Rubaie said it was better for Iraqi security forces to take on Sadr’s militias than for U.S. Special Forces to do so.

He explained to the Baker-Hamilton Commission that Sadr’s use of military force was not a problem for Maliki, because Sadr was still part of the government.

Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on January 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, “This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air.”

Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on March 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.

But Maliki had a surprise in store for Washington.

A series of dramatic moves by Maliki and Iran over the next few months showed that there had been an explicit understanding between the two governments to prevent the U.S. military from launching major operations against the Mahdi Army and to reach an agreement with Sadr on ending the Mahdi Army’s role in return for assurances that Maliki would demand the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

In mid-March 2007, Maliki ignored pressure from a personal visit by Cheney to cooperate in taking down the Mahdi Army and instead abruptly vetoed U.S. military plans for a major operation against the Mahdi Army in Basra. Maliki ordered an Iraqi army assault on the dug-in Sadrist forces.

Predictably, the operation ran into trouble, and within days, Iraqi officials had asked General Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard, to intervene and negotiate a ceasefire with Sadr, who agreed, although his troops were far from defeated.

A few weeks later, Maliki again prevented the United States from launching its biggest campaign yet against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. And again, Suleimani was brought in to work out a deal with Sadr allowing government troops to patrol in the former Mahdi Army stronghold.

There was subtext to Suleimani’s interventions. Just as Suleimani was negotiating the Basra ceasefire with Sadr, a website associated with former IRGC Commander Mohsen Rezai said Iran opposed actions by “hard-line clans” that “only weaken the government and people of Iraq and give a pretext to its occupiers”.

In the days that followed that agreement, Iranian state news media portrayed the Iraqi crackdown in Basra as being against illegal and “criminal” forces.

The timing of each political diplomatic move by Maliki appears to have been determined in discussions between Maliki and top Iranian officials.

Just two days after returning from a visit to Tehran in June 2008, Maliki complained publicly about U.S. demands for indefinite access to military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.

In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.

The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down.

In the end, however, Bush administration officials realised that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was then far ahead of Republican John McCain in polls, would accept the same or an even faster timetable for withdrawal. In October, Bush decided to sign the draft agreement pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.

The ambitious plans of the U.S. military to use Iraq to dominate the Middle East militarily and politically had been foiled by the very regime the United States had installed, and the officials behind the U.S. scheme had been clueless about what was happening until it was too late.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

DISSIDENT VOICES

THE idiot of the headline is me in the sense that I am not an economist and have never had any formal association with study of the theory and practise of economics, but… I began to understand why what is today called Western capitalism was bound to crash way back in the early 1970’s when I was researching and producing an epic documentary on the everyday reality of global poverty and its implications for all.

When I reflected on what I had witnessed and learned while researching in 120 countries (as well as at the World Bank and many UN agencies) and filming in 69 of them, I let commonsense be my guide. It led me to the conclusion that capitalism was not of itself the problem. It was the short-sighted and stupid way Western capitalism was managed.

Now I’ll put some flesh on that bone.

By the early 1970’s truly informed development experts were drawing attention to the fact that our one small planet was divided into two worlds – the Rich World containing about 20% of humankind (and known in development jargon as the North), and the Poor World containing about 80% of humankind (and known in development jargon as the South).

In the Poor World an estimated 15 million children under five were dying each year from malnutrition and related and easily preventable diseases such as diahorrea, measles and whooping cough – in a word poverty, abject poverty. And an estimated 300 million more were born brain damaged because of malnutrition in the wombs of their mothers. But those statistics told only a part of the story. The majority of the human inhabitants of Planet Earth were living on the margins of life, without some and in many cases all of the basic necessities for life – shelter, adequate nutrition, clean water, health care, education and work/job opportunities. On each and every continent I asked the poorest parents what was the one thing they most wanted. This was before the age of the mobile telephone and I expected many of them to say a television or some such gadget. What they all said in their various ways echoed one of the poorest Indian women. Her answer was, “Education for my children so they don’t have to live like animals as we do.”

The rich nations were creating their wealth by selling goods and services. It followed that if this wealth creating process was to have a sustainable future and Rich World citizens were to enjoy ever rising material standards of living as promised by their politicians, the global market place needed more and more consumers with the purchasing power to buy what the Rich World nations had to sell.

If the managers of Western capitalism (corporate chiefs, bankers and politicians) had not been short-sighted and stupid, they would have said to themselves something like the following. “If we don’t now invest in the development of the poor of the world and bring them progressively into the market place with purchasing power, we are going to run out customers in the numbers needed to buy what we have to sell in order to sustain our system.”

If the necessary investment had been made over 10, 15 and even 20 years, (it would have needed that amount of time in order to guarantee that the money and other development assistance provided could be absorbed and put to best use with minimum corruption), victory in the war against global poverty and underdevelopment – the only war that matters – would have been assured. To give just one example… The disastrous population drift from the rural areas where there was a future to the urban centres where there was not and is not a future for many of the drifters could have been halted and even reversed.

Making the investment needed on the necessary scale would have meant that the investing Rich World nations would not have grown so rapidly and their citizens would have had to accept a little less in the way of ever rising material standards of living, but that would have been a small price to pay for giving Western capitalism a sustainable future and all of our children wherever they live the prospect of a future worth having. (Whereas today they do not have a future worth having).

Instead of starting down the road to making capitalism work for the benefit of all in global terms, the system’s Western managers opted to keep things going by flooding the Rich World with credit cards to enable its citizens to live beyond their means and get deeper and deeper into debt. “I need” was replaced with “I want”. (My working class father used to say to me, “Boy, if we can’t afford it, we don’t look in the shop window.”)

There was bound to come a time when Rich World citizens simply could not afford to go on buying on the scale needed to keep Western consumer capitalism going.

Then, partly to fuel debt-driven consumer and government spending, the greed-driven, totally irresponsible bankers drove the final nail into Western capitalism’s coffin by playing their leveraging games, producing debt instruments with a face value of hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars but which were not backed and supported by real assets. (A good friend of mine was the senior risk manager for one of the world’s biggest banks headquartered in London. She told me that for five years she and her team tried to warn top management that leveraging with Mickey Mouse instruments was creating a catastrophe, but top management didn’t want to listen. It was focused only on bonuses).

If Jeremy Clarkson had said that banking chiefs should have been taken out and shot in front of their families, I would have smiled and said to myself, “If only.”

And I would not have bailed out the banks with taxpayers’ money. I would have let them go bust. (The first rule of capitalism is supposed to be that if you get it wrong you go bust). But before making that decision public I (as prime minister) would have said to my people something like the following. “Don’t panic. The money we would have to put into bailing out reckless and irresponsible banks will instead be used to create a new national bank which, rather like the High Street banks of the old days, will exist only to serve the needs of their customers.”

There’s no question that banking chiefs were short-sighted, greedy and stupid, but… They were not the architects of what future historians will call the crash of Western capitalism. They, the architects, were the politicians who deregulated the banks and financial markets. The leading architect was Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. On 27 October 1986, she initiated the “Big Bang” in the City of London, the sudden deregulation of the banks and financial markets. In the name of “financial liberalism” she truly believed that markets would work better, more efficiently, if they were free of rules and restrictions. In her view millions of decisions made every day by traders in a free market would be better for all of us than decisions that had to be made with reference to rules and regulations drawn up by committees of the great and the good.

Though I might be exaggerating to make a point and may be misrepresenting her to some extent, she seemed to be saying, “We need not bother too much with our old industries and ways of creating wealth, the banks and the markets will do it for us.”

Events were to prove that she could not have been more naive and more wrong, but before they did American presidents starting with Ronald Reagan had followed her lead.

My understanding of the situation today can be summarized as follows. The debts of Western governments are so big that no Western country will be able to generate the growth and so the money needed to repay them. On that basis I can see only two scenarios for the future.

One is that in order to repay the debts, governments slash expenditure across the board, cutting, cutting and cutting back massively on budgets for everything including state pensions and social welfare benefits and services. Unemployment rises to unthinkable levels and living standards plunge to unacceptable levels. Eventually the citizens revolt and violence escalates. What passes for democracy is shut down and martial law is established. Orwell’s 1984 finally arrives. (Soon after Edward Heath ceased to be prime minister, my wife and I had lunch with him. I asked him what his biggest fear for the future was. I expected it to be related to global poverty because he had been a member of the Brandt Commission which studied it. His reply, calm in delivery and matter of fact in tone, was, “That Britain will become the first police state in the democratic world.”)

In the other scenario all debts, including mortgages on homes, are written off and we all start again.

By definition a re-start would have to be based on a rock-solid commitment to fairness with a real intention to make capitalism work for the benefit of all.

This idiot is in quite good company. American Martin Weiss is the founder of the Weiss Rating Agency (WRA). In his latest presentation he makes the following claims about his agency’s astonishing success in predicting economic disasters of the past 40 years, a claim which is confirmed by all the major American newspapers and economic journals.

Months in advance WRA warned about the S&L crisis of the 1980’s; the great insurance company failures of the 1990’s; plus the great “Tech Wreck” of the early 2000’s.

WRA was the only firm in the world to warn of the financial crisis of 2008 more than a year in advance, specifically naming nearly every major company that later collapsed.

Today Martin Weiss says this:

Barring a miracle, an historic, world-changing event is about to end the American way of life as we know it. This monumental event will plunge vast numbers of families into the nightmare of poverty, homeless and hunger. In a worst case scenario you will see soaring crime, the confiscation of property, the suspension of civil rights, and even the enforcement of martial law by the U.S. military.

The world-changing event he is anticipating is a decision by China to stop buying U.S. debt, which will mean, he says, that America will no longer be able to borrow money; and that, he adds, will see the beginning of “America’s Financial Doomsday”.

My own biggest fear which I have been expressing to friends in private for a number of years is that the unfolding economic crisis may take us all the way to World War 111. It could happen for two related reasons. One is the need of governments to deflect the attention of their own people away from the mess within. The other is the need to have an outside party to blame. There’s a case for saying that some American politicians are already setting up China for blame.

We shall see…

Footnote

European plans to bring in tough budget controls are irrelevant, even a farce. They are designed to stop the present unfolding catastrophe from happening again, but they won’t do anything to solve the present debt crisis. European leaders are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and globally as a researcher, author, BBC and a correspondent for ITN and BBC. visit Alan's website.

WHEN the Vietnam War became history, and the protest signs and the bullhorns were put away, so too was the serious side of most protestors’ alienation and hostility toward the government. They returned, with minimal resistance, to the restless pursuit of success, and the belief that the choice facing the world was either “capitalist democracy” or “communist dictatorship.” The war had been an aberration, was the implicit verdict, a blemish on an otherwise humane American record. The fear felt by the powers-that-be that society’s fabric was unraveling and that the Republic was hanging by a thread turned out to be little more than media hype; it had been great copy.

I mention this to explain why I’ve been reluctant to jump with both feet on the Occupy bandwagon. I first thought that if nothing else the approaching winter would do them in; if not, it would be the demands of their lives — they have to make some money at some point, attend classes somewhere, lovers and friends and family they have to cater to somewhere; lately I’ve been thinking it’s the police that will do them in, writing finis to their marvelous movement adventure — if you hold the system up to a mirror the system can go crazy.

But now I don’t know. Those young people, and the old ones as well, keep surprising me, with their dedication and energy, their camaraderie and courage, their optimism and innovation, their non-violence and their keen awareness of the danger of being co-opted their focusing on the economic institutions more than on the politicians or political parties. There is also their splendid signs and slogans, walking from New York to Washington, and not falling apart following the despicable police destruction of the Occupy Wall Street encampment. They’ve given a million young people other ideas about how to spend the rest of their lives, and commandeered a remarkable amount of media space. The Washington Post on several occasions has devoted full page or near-full page sympathetic coverage. Occupy is being taken increasingly seriously by virtually all media.

Yet, the 1960s and 70s were also a marvelous movement adventure — for me as much as for anyone — but nothing actually changed in US foreign policy as a result of our endless protests, many of which were also innovative. American imperialism has continued to add to its brutal record right up to this very moment. We can’t even claim Vietnam as a victory. Most people believe that the US lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, by poisoning the earth, the water, the air, and the gene pool for generations, Washington in fact achieved its primary purpose: preventing the rise of what might have been a good development option for Asia, an alternative to the capitalist model.

It has greatly helped Occupy’s growth and survival that they have seldom mentioned foreign policy. That’s much more sensitive ground than corporate abuse. Foreign policy gets into flag-waving, “our brave boys” risking their lives, American exceptionalism, nationalism, patriotism, loyalty, treason, terrorism, “anti-American”, “conspiracy theorist” … all those emotional icons that mainstream America uses to separate a Good American from one who ain’t really one of us.

Foreign policy cannot be ignored permanently of course, if for no other reason than that the nation’s wealth that’s wasted on war could be used to pay for anything Occupy calls for … or anything anyone calls for.

The education which Occupy has caused to be thrust upon the citizenry — about corporate abuse and criminality, political corruption, inequality, poverty, etc., virtually all unprosecuted — would be highly significant if America were a democracy. But as it is, more and more people can learn more and more about these matters, and get more and more angry, but have nowhere to turn to, to effectuate meaningful change. Money must be removed from the political process. Completely. It is my favorite Latin expression: sine qua non — “without which, nothing”.

USrael and Iran

There’s no letup, is there? The preparation of the American mind, the world mind, for the next gala performance of D&D — Death and Destruction. The Bunker Buster bombs are now 30,000 pounds each one, six times as heavy as the previous delightful model.

But the Masters of War still want to be loved; they need for you to believe them when they say they have no choice, that Iran is the latest threat to life as we know it, no time to waste.

The preparation of minds was just as fervent before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. And when it turned out that Iraq did not have any kind of arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) … well, our power elite found other justifications for the invasion, and didn’t look back. Some berated Iraq: “Why didn’t they tell us that? Did they want us to bomb them?”

In actuality, before the US invasion high Iraqi officials had stated clearly on repeated occasions that they had no such weapons. In August 2002, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told American newscaster Dan Rather on CBS: “We do not possess any nuclear or biological or chemical weapons.”¹

In December, Aziz stated to Ted Koppel on ABC: “The fact is that we don’t have weapons of mass destruction. We don’t have chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponry.”²

Hussein, himself, told Rather in February 2003: “These missiles have been destroyed. There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations [as to range] in Iraq. They are no longer there.”³

Moreover, Gen. Hussein Kamel, former head of Iraq’s secret weapons program, and a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, told the UN in 1995 that Iraq had destroyed its banned missiles and chemical and biological weapons soon after the Persian Gulf War of 1991.⁴

There are yet other examples of Iraqi officials telling the world that the WMD were non-existent.

And if there were still any uncertainty remaining, last year Hans Blix, former chief United Nations weapons inspector, who led a doomed hunt for WMD in Iraq, told a British inquiry into the 2003 invasion that those who were “100 percent certain there were weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq turned out to have “less than zero percent knowledge” of where the purported hidden caches might be. He testified that he had warned British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a February 2003 meeting — as well as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in separate talks — that Hussein might have no weapons of mass destruction.⁵

Those of who you don’t already have serious doubts about the American mainstream media’s knowledge and understanding of US foreign policy, should consider this: Despite the two revelations on Dan Rather’s CBS programs, and the other revelations noted above, in January 2008 we find CBS reporter Scott Pelley interviewing FBI agent George Piro, who had interviewed Saddam Hussein before he was executed:

Pelley: And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?

Piro: He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the ’90s, and those that hadn’t been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

Pelley: He had ordered them destroyed?

Piro: Yes.

Pelley: So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk? Why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?⁶

The United States and Israel are preparing to attack Iran because of their alleged development of nuclear weapons, which Iran has denied on many occasions. Of the Iraqis who warned the United States that it was mistaken about the WMD — Saddam Hussein was executed, Tariq Aziz is awaiting execution. Which Iranian officials is USrael going to hang after their country is laid to waste?

Would it have mattered if the Bush administration had fully believed Iraq when it said it had no WMD? Probably not. There is ample evidence that Bush knew this to be the case, or at a minimum should have seriously suspected it; the same applies to Tony Blair. Saddam Hussein did not sufficiently appreciate just how psychopathic his two adversaries were. Bush was determined to vanquish Iraq, for the sake of Israel, for control of oil, and for expanding the empire with new bases, though in the end most of this didn’t work out as the empire expected; for some odd reason, it seems that the Iraqi people resented being bombed, invaded, occupied, demolished, and tortured.

But if Iran is in fact building nuclear weapons, we have to ask: Is there some international law that says that the US, the UK, Russia, China, Israel, France, Pakistan, and India are entitled to nuclear weapons, but Iran is not? If the United States had known that the Japanese had deliverable atomic bombs, would Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been destroyed? Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, has written: “The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.”⁷

It can not be repeated too often: The secret to understanding US foreign policy is that there is no secret. Principally, one must come to the realization that the United States strives to dominate the world. Once one understands that, much of the apparent confusion, contradiction, and ambiguity surrounding Washington’s policies fades away. Examine a map: Iran sits directly between two of the United States’ great obsessions — Iraq and Afghanistan … directly between two of the world’s greatest oil regions — the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea areas … it’s part of the encirclement of the two leading potential threats to American world domination — Russia and China … Tehran will never be a client state or obedient poodle to Washington. How could any good, self-respecting Washington imperialist resist such a target? Bombs Away!

American exceptionalism — A survey

The leaders of imperial powers have traditionally told themselves and their citizens that their country was exceptional and that their subjugation of a particular foreign land should be seen as a “civilizing mission”, a “liberation”, “God’s will”, and of course bringing “freedom and democracy” to the benighted and downtrodden. It is difficult to kill large numbers of people without a claim to virtue. I wonder if this sense of exceptionalism has been embedded anywhere more deeply than in the United States, where it is drilled into every cell and ganglion of American consciousness from kindergarten on. If we measure the degree of indoctrination (I’ll resist the temptation to use the word “brainwashing”) of a population as the gap between what the people believe their government has done in the world and what the actual (very sordid) facts are, the American people are clearly the most indoctrinated people on the planet. The role of the American media is of course indispensable to this process — Try naming a single American daily newspaper or TV network that was unequivocally against the US attacks on Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam. Or even against any two of them. How about one? Which of the mainstream media expressed real skepticism of The War on Terror in its early years?

Overloaded with a sense of America’s moral superiority, each year the State Department judges the world, issuing reports evaluating the behavior of all other nations, often accompanied by sanctions of one kind or another. There are different reports rating how each lesser nation has performed in the previous year in the areas of religious freedom, human rights, the war on drugs, trafficking in persons, and counterterrorism, as well as maintaining a list of international “terrorist” groups. The criteria used in these reports are mainly political, wherever applicable; Cuba, for example, is always listed as a supporter of terrorism whereas anti-Castro exile groups in Florida, which have committed literally hundreds of terrorist acts, are not listed as terrorist groups.

“The causes of the malady are not entirely clear but its recurrence is one of the uniformities of history: power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God’s favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations — to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image.” — Former US Senator William Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power (1966)

“We Americans are the peculiar, chosen people –– the Israel of our time; we bear the ark of the liberties of the world. … God has predestined, mankind expects, great things from our race; and great things we feel in our souls.” — Herman Melville, White-Jacket (1850)

“God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.” — John le Carré, London Times, January 15, 2003

“Neoconservatism … traded upon the historic American myths of innocence, exceptionalism, triumphalism and Manifest Destiny. It offered a vision of what the United States should do with its unrivaled global power. In its most rhetorically-seductive messianic versions, it conflated the expansion of American power with the dream of universal democracy. In all of this, it proclaimed that the maximal use of American power was good for both America and the world.” — Columbia University Professor Gary Dorrien, The Christian Century magazine, January 22, 2007

“To most of its citizens, America is exceptional, and it’s only natural that it should take exception to certain international standards.” — Michael Ignatieff, Washington Post columnist, Legal Affairs, May-June, 2002

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, US Army War College, 1997: “Our country is a force for good without precedent.”

Thomas Barnett, US Naval War College: “The US military is a force for global good that … has no equal.” — Guardian (London), December 27, 2005

John Bolton, future US ambassador to the United Nations, writing in 2000: Because of its unique status, the United States could not be “legally bound” or constrained in any way by its international treaty obligations. The U.S. needed to “be unashamed, unapologetic, uncompromising American constitutional hegemonists,” so that their “senior decision makers” could be free to use force unilaterally.

Condoleezza Rice, future US Secretary of State, writing in 2000, was equally contemptuous of international law. She claimed that in the pursuit of its national security the United States no longer needed to be guided by “notions of international law and norms” or “institutions like the United Nations” because it was “on the right side of history.” — Z Magazine, July/August 2004

“The president [George W. Bush] said he didn’t want other countries dictating terms or conditions for the war on terrorism. ‘At some point, we may be the only ones left. That’s okay with me. We are America’.” — Washington Post, January 31, 2002

“Reinhold Niebuhr got it right a half-century ago: What persists — and promises no end of grief — is our conviction that Providence has summoned America to tutor all of humankind on its pilgrimage to perfection.” — Andrew Bacevich, professor of international relations, Boston University

In commenting on Woodrow Wilson’s moral lecturing of his European colleagues at the Versailles peace table following the First World War, Winston Churchill remarked that he found it hard to believe that the European emigrants, who brought to America the virtues of the lands from which they sprang, had left behind all their vices. — The World Crisis, Vol. V, The Aftermath, 1929

“Behold a republic, gradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor to the world’s progress and the accepted arbiter of the world’s disputes.” — William Jennings Bryan, US Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, In His Image (1922)

Newsweek editor Michael Hirsch: “U.S. allies must accept that some U.S. unilateralism is inevitable, even desirable. This mainly involves accepting the reality of America’s supreme might — and truthfully, appreciating how historically lucky they are to be protected by such a relatively benign power.” — Foreign Affairs, November, 2002

Colin Powell speaking before the Republican National Convention, August 13, 1996: The United States is “a country that exists by the grace of a divine providence.”

“The US media always has an underlying acceptance of the mythology of American exceptionalism, that the US, in everything it does, is the last best hope of humanity.” — Rahul Mahajan, author of: The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism, and Full Spectrum Dominance

“The fundamental problem is that the Americans do not respect anybody except themselves,” said Col. Mir Jan, a spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry. “They say, ‘We are the God of the world,’ and they don’t consult us.” — Washington Post, August 3, 2002

“If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.” — Madeleine Albright, U.S. Secretary of State, 1998

People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.
To my dear readers in the United States and around the world — In the spirit of the season, I wish each of you your choice of the following:

Merry Christmas
Happy Chanukah
Joyous Eid
Festive Kwanza
Happy New Year
Gleeful Occupy
Erotic Pagan Rite
Internet Virtual Holiday
Heartwarming Satanic Sacrifice
Devout Atheist Season’s Greetings
Possessed Laying-on-of-Hands Ceremony
Really Neat Reincarnation with Auras and Crystals
And may your name never appear on a Homeland Security “No-fly list”.

May you not vex a marginally literate high school graduate with a badge, a gun, and a can of pepper spray.

May your abuses at the hands of authority be only cruel, degrading and inhuman, nothing that Mr. Obama or Mr. Cheney would call for torture.

May you or your country never experience a NATO or US humanitarian intervention, liberation, or involuntary suicide.

May neither your labor movement nor your elections be supported by the National Endowment for Democracy.

May the depleted uranium, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, and napalm which fall upon your land be as precisely guided and harmless as the State Department says they are.

May you receive for Christmas a copy of An arsonist’s guide to the homes of Pentagon officials.

May you not fall sick in the United States without health insurance, nor desire to go to an American university while being less than wealthy.

May you re-discover what the poor in 18th century France discovered, that rich people’s heads can be mechanically separated from their shoulders if they refuse to listen to reason.

May you be given the choice of euthanasia instead of having to watch Republican primary debates.

1. CBS Evening News, August 20, 2002. [↩]
2. ABC Nightline, December 4, 2002. [↩]
3. 60 Minutes II, February 26, 2003. [↩]
4. Washington Post, March 1, 2003. [↩]
5. Associated Press, July 28, 2010. [↩]
6. 60 Minutes, January 27, 2008. See also: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR] Action Alert, February 1, 2008. [↩]
7. New York Times, August 21, 2004. [↩]

William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire. He can be reached at: bblum6@aol.com.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said the average income of the richest 10 per cent in OECD nations is now nine times the average income of the poorest 10 per cent.

How rich are the 1%?

The OECD report found that the richest one per cent of Canadians saw their share of total income increase from 8.1 per cent in 1980 to 13.3 per cent in 2007.

Furthermore, the share owned by the richest 0.1 per cent more than doubled, from two per cent to 5.3 per cent.

At the same time, Canada's top marginal tax rate dropped from 43 per cent in 1981 to 29 per cent in 2010, the OECD noted in the report.

That 9-1 ratio is the largest gap in a generation, the agency says. Even in traditionally egalitarian nations such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, the ratio has risen from 5-1 in the 1980s to 6-1 today.

The gap is 10-1 in Italy, Japan, Korea and the United Kingdom, and higher still, at 14-1 in Israel, Turkey and the United States.

The report found the main reason for the growing disparity is that high-skilled workers have seen their wages increase disproportionately because their jobs have benefited more from technological progress than the low-skilled.

"Our report clearly indicates that upskilling of the workforce is by far the most powerful instrument to counter rising income inequality," OECD Secretary General Angel Gurría said. "The investment in people must begin in early childhood and be followed through into formal education and work."

Promoting part-time work and more flexible work hours, for example, has promoted productivity and brought more people into work, especially women and low-paid workers. But the rise in part-time and low-paid work also extended the wage gap.

Wealth gaps

The OECD's wealth co-efficient (income gap from rich to poor):

• Norway, Germany and Denmark: 6-1.
• Italy, Japan, Korea, Canada and the United Kingdom: 10-1.
• Turkey, the U.S. and Israel: 14-1.
• Mexico and Chile: 27-1.

In Canada, the OECD says the average income of the top 10 per cent of Canadians in 2008 was $103,500 — 10 times higher than those by the bottom 10%, who had an average income of $10,260. In the early 1990s, that ratio was at 8-1.

"The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries," Gurría said. "This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that greater inequality fosters greater social mobility."

"Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, inequality will continue to rise."

The group gathers data on 34 developed nations and compares them to guide policy decisions.

AFTER Tunisia where an Islamic Party Al-Nahda won the election, now Egypt is another country conquered by Islamic groups with the power of ballet. In the first round of election in Egypt, 40% Voters casted in favour of the Freedom and Justice Party [a newly formed political party of Ikhwanul Muslimeen (Islamic Brotherhood)] and 20 % in favour of Al-Nour another newly formed party comprised Salafi group. Another Islamic group Al-Wassat, which advocates a strict enforcement of Islamic law, recorded 13%

All the indications and projections showed that the Muslim Brotherhood will have the lead in the country's first parliamentary elections based on proportional representation. It is because they are well organized, sincere, and have a lot of experience.

The initial stage of parliamentary elections were held on November 28-29, nearly ten months after former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak was ousted in a popular revolution in February.

The vote is seen as the first step in pushing the military rulers to transfer power to a civilian government.

Some Egyptians boycotted the elections, casting doubt on the credibility of any ballot held under military rule.

They fear the military council, led by Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, is trying to retain power.

Ikhwan (The Brotherhood) has started the Islamic movement eight decades ago on the call of martyr Hasnul Banna. It has its deep root in the Egyptian society at large. The movement is led not only by religious scholars but by doctors, lawyers and professionals. It has long sought to move Egypt toward a more Islamic society implementing Al-Deen (the system of Islam) in all walks of life. A large number of its workers, scholars and leaders including one of its top mind Syed Qutub (a Mufassir of Al-Quran) were executed in the era of Gamal Abdel Nasser. The extra judicial execution and subjugations of Ikhwan workers were continued in Hosni Mubarak dictatorship.

The Salafis are political newcomers. However 30% votes in the first time and the first round shows its influence in Egypt.

An Ikhwan leader Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat has called to apply only the broad principles of Islamic law allow too much freedom. He indicated the gradual and peoples participated transformation from one stage to another. However, Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, a leader of the Salafi movement, has called for immediate use of Islamic laws. Sheik el-Shahat and his allies are demanding strict prohibitions against interest-bearing loans, alcohol and fornication, with Islamic corporal law of punishment.

An Ikhwan Islamic scholar, Sayed Abdel Karim said “to give your vote for Islamists is a religious issue,” he declared at a campaign rally in Giza, across the Nile from Cairo, calling for “the rule of God, not the rule of the people.”

Ikhwan leaders denied coalition with Salafis in forming the future government.

The Brotherhood’s main speaker and the top candidate on his party’s list, leader Essam el-Erian, declared that the party believed only in non-sectarian citizenship for all, that Christians and Muslims should enjoy equal rights as “sons of the nation” in the eyes of a neutral state and that the next Constitution should protect free expression. And he pledged warm relations with any nation that respected Egypt’s “independence and culture.”

Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak said Saturday that initial results from Egypt's parliamentary elections are "very, very disturbing." However, in a statement on a Hamas website, top Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzouk said that "the Egyptian people have voiced their confidence in the Islamists. ... We do believe that Egyptian support in the future will be more for our cause."

Indications show that any effort to stop and deny the people’s mandate by the Egypt army and America-Israel alliance will trigger the movement in Egypt. It will end up with not less than Iranian revolution where majority of the military generals were executed after people’s revolt and Islamic revolution.

E.Mail: TheMuslim.ca@gmail.com

THE dominance of neoliberal policies has made our world a crony capitalist dystopia. Wall Street connected legislators give multi-trillion dollar bailouts to big banks and corporations as war-profiteers continue to reap benefits of both a “War on Terror” and “War on Drugs” costing trillions more taxpayer dollars. Infrastructure of cities and towns decay while police become increasingly militarized and the largest corporations boast record profits.

According to a 2010 AFL-CIO analysis of 299 U.S. companies in the S&P 500, average gross CEO pay was about 11.4 million dollars, 343 times the median wage (the widest gap in the world). Banksters, big agribusiness and corrupt lawmakers make healthy food inaccessible for growing numbers of people around the world while basic health care continues to become prohibitively expensive thanks to bloated medical, insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile corporate-owned media distracts and disinforms the masses just enough for the top-heavy self-destructively corrupt system to drag on a little longer.

So when a group of activists (organized largely through the internet and social media) took a stand to occupy Wall Street, they also occupied the collective imagination. Occupiers’ critiques of corrupt political and economic systems are nothing new but today they’re so transparently and demonstrably true, occupation sites spread like wildfire across the country and world faster than the establishment’s concerted efforts to extinguish it with propaganda and violent coercion.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) represents another tipping point for international outrage in the context of a global struggle for justice and democracy. From late last year mass anti-austerity protests swept through European and Mediterranean countries while earlier this year Arab Spring revolutionary movements sprang up in the Middle East and North Africa (which I previously wrote about here) and in some cases continue today. Though there’s differences in the nature of the situations and struggles, what’s shared in common is growing awareness and desire to put an end to mass suffering and injustice due to neoliberal policies dictated by powerful institutions.

Such institutions include Wall Street, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the U.S. Government, and all other governments and organizations they’re aligned with and/or have influence over. Their policies include elimination of trade barriers, regressive taxation, private central banks, budget cuts for social services, privatization of public resources and deregulation.

The top 1% would like us to believe these measures are necessary to strengthen the economies of nations and improve government efficiency but in reality it has done the opposite. There’s overwhelming evidence from around the world linking neoliberalism to erosion of democracy and national sovereignty, militarism, increased corruption and wealth disparity, weakened infrastructures, widespread unemployment and poverty, inflation, worker exploitation, and environmental degradation.

Because wealth and power of big banks and corporations drastically increases under this system, the 1% would also like us to think no alternatives are possible. However, following a long tradition of dissident movements, OWS owes its existence to the desire to create alternatives that put people over profits.

Like all evolving social movements, Occupy Wall Street isn’t perfect. They’ve made strategic mistakes and have internal struggles but have also shown remarkable determination and ability to learn and adapt. One of the most common critiques leveled against OWS is “they lack focus and need a specific list of demands.” Such criticism is unavoidable for organizations that are not single-issue but seek to change a complex system responsible for multiple interrelated problems.

The structure of OWS also confuses people because unlike hierarchical models most are familiar with, occupiers tend to be open-source, decentralized and collaborative. Decisions are made through General Assemblies using a process of consensus decision making, a form of participatory democracy. As with most forms of direct democracy it’s often a slow and difficult, but far more open and inclusive to a diversity of voices than republics and non-democratic systems. It also ensures that the decisions made benefit as many people as possible as equally as possible.

What critics forget is that America’s forefathers (all wealthy white men) didn’t get around to drafting a constitution and declaration of independence until after the revolution. OWS might not yet have an official list of demands but it’s not difficult to find statements and documents online to get an idea of their values and goals, such as the NYC General Assembly’s Principles of Solidarity.

Other common charges against the Occupy Movement frequently parroted by corporate news include “protesters are too lazy to get a job”, “they’re just a bunch of dirty hippies” and “they’re looking for a confrontation with police”. These stereotypes can be dispelled simply by visiting an occupation site or talking to people at OWS rallies. Judging from the people I’ve met and heard interviews with, many have part time positions while others include students seeking jobs with which they can pay off student loans. Some unemployed activists were recently laid off and are still searching for jobs. To put their situation in perspective, in the sixties the unemployment rate was just over 4% while today the rate has more than doubled. When counting workers who are “underutilized” and “marginally attached”, the rate jumps to 16.7%. Out of the approximately 14 million unemployed in America, 46%, or over 6 million have been unemployed for 6 months or longer. In some cases unemployed homeowners at risk for foreclosure are trapped by underwater mortgages and couldn’t relocate even if they did find jobs elsewhere.

Though in our current system most of us need jobs and wages to access basic needs like food, shelter and clothing, all could be provided for free with just a fraction of the current number actually working. Approximately 60,000 tons of food is wasted annually to keep prices high while banks faced with a glut of foreclosed homes demolish them to avoid taxes, maintenance costs and devalued markets. Companies such as H & M and Walmart have even been caught destroying unused clothing. More jobs might encourage more complacency but would do nothing to resolve structural problems such as overproduction outstripping demand, wealth disparity, devastating economic bubbles, corporate monopolization, and a culture of greed and hyperconsumerism.

What could be a solution is a better socio-economic system, the creation of which is one of the Occupation’s fundamental principles of solidarity.

Ad hominem attacks against OWS regarding hygiene and appearance initially struck me as oddly childish and superficial. Camping without a shower would have the same effect on anyone and it has nothing to do with the issues. Then I recalled how characterizing groups as “dirty” and subhuman is typical of ruling elites’ tried and true “divide and conquer” strategy. In this case it seems like an attempt to prevent the average corporate news consumer from paying attention to the ideas of OWS and identifying with them as part of a unified 99%.

A leaked memo from a lobbying firm has already confirmed an $850,000 proposal to spread “negative narratives” about the Occupy Movement. Occupiers are also certainly not all hippies. OWS includes people representing a wide spectrum of backgrounds and ideologies. Many tend to be on the progressive side but I’ve also met libertarians at Occupy events holding some beliefs associated with the Tea Party. Not surprisingly, at a recent joint Occupy/Tea Party forum in Memphis, the two groups clashed on certain issues but also found points of agreement such as frustration regarding unresponsiveness of government to average citizens and opposition to bank bailouts and crony capitalism.

With further conversation the groups may find many other common interests such as ending perpetual wars on terror and drugs, eliminating NAFTA and similar unfair trade agreements, abolishing or restructuring the Federal Reserve, prohibiting militarized police state tactics, protecting civil liberties, creating fair election and mass media systems, and keeping pollutants out of our air, food and water. These are shared goals that 99% of the rest of the world could agree with as well.

Most critics who accuse OWS of trying to pick a fight with police usually don’t understand the purpose of non-violent civil disobedience and believe more conventional channels of political expression such as voting or letter writing are enough to fix the system. A central insight of OWS is that our problems go beyond politics to sources of power and wealth gaming the system and are, in fact, part of the same beast. Unfortunately voting and letter writing in themselves can do little to counteract massive amounts of money used to finance campaigns, shape legislation, and influence politicians and public opinion. When there are no longer true avenues of political and judicial redress, civil disobedience is exactly what is needed. It’s a tactic that has been used with great success in the Civil Rights, Anti-Vietnam War and Women’s Suffrage movements as well as the American Revolution. Critics who complain about tax dollars wasted on policing Occupy sites need to remember that city officials decide how to spend that money (and how much violence police use).

There has been incidences and allegations of sexual assault occurring on or near OWS camps reflecting a sad reality of our patriarchal society that even within groups trying to change the society it could still happen. Though a relatively rare occurrence, it’s a serious issue more OWS General Assemblies need to openly address and create preventative measures for as some have already done.

Conservative news channels like FOX focus disproportionately on reported crimes and isolated incidents associated with the Occupy Movement to create a false image of police simply defending themselves and the community. If that seems far-fetched, just google keywords “fox news” “ows” and “violence”. Other corporate news also cover such incidents in addition to police violence but usually within a limited context and far less air time than similar protests in the Middle East.

Independent and alternative media (including citizen journalists using social media, blogs and YouTube) have been by far the source of the most detailed and comprehensive coverage of OWS. Without independent cameras on the street, fewer people would have known about the mass pepper spraying, beating, tasering and rubber bullet shooting (all effectively forms of mass torture) of peaceful protesters across the country.

Numerous videos and accounts can be found online revealing a pattern of coordinated violent crackdowns at all major Occupy sites including New York, Atlanta, Nashville, Austin, Denver, Berkeley, U.C. Davis, Portland, and Seattle (where among the victimized crowd were an 84 year old activist, a Methodist Pastor in clergy robe, and a young pregnant woman who miscarried a week later). Or how in Oakland, Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen suffered a fractured skull from a gas canister shot at close range and 8 days later Afghanistan and Iraq War vet Kayvan Sabeghi was beaten by police while trying to return home. Unnecessary indiscriminate and excessive police brutality is nothing new, but citizens now have a greater ability to document and report it than ever before without censorship and distortion.

Such incidences of violent police provocation could have escalated to wide-scale riots were it not for the self-control of the Occupiers and their determination to remain a peaceful movement. They understand that besides being in a struggle for survival, they’re involved in a philosophical struggle for the hearts and minds of the world. To resort to violence would be to adapt the mentality of the oppressors and be maligned as threats to national security (though that’s often how they’re treated by the State).

Police and military are well armed and trained to deal with violence but they’re not prepared to deal with public shaming and unarguable facts that may someday override orders, threats and conditioning from the 1%. There’s probably nothing ruling elites fear most than an awakened 99% united in solidarity, including people of all political and religious persuasions, occupations, races, and nations. Once that happens, one percenters know it’s “game over” so we should expect them to do everything in their power to divide and conquer, especially if, as recent research has theorized, some of them may be literally psychotic.  To counteract this effort, it’s more important than ever to think critically and stay informed. Be aware that it’s perfectly legal for corporate news media to lie and there’s plenty of sources online to find more accurate and up-to-date information.

Better yet, visit a local Occupy site or event to get firsthand knowledge about who they are and what they believe in. By becoming, in effect, a citizen journalist you’ll be well equipped to challenge common fallacies about OWS when talking to family, friends, coworkers and strangers. Whether they realize it or not, we’re all in it together.

A Global Occupation may not bring utopia (probably nothing ever will), but it’s the best opportunity yet to prevent our world from falling further into dystopia.

Reid is a co-chair for the Seattle-based nonprofit organization Community Alliance for Global Justice.

DISSIDENT VOICE

Excerpts from The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism: Justice Crucified

THE relative mildness of punishment coupled with progressively lengthening procedures in trial before the pronouncement of the final verdict had presumable effects. The rate of murders and other crimes began to show an upward trend. It continues unabated till now in almost all those countries that have followed the western legal system because the criminals have a    remarkably reduced fear of being caught, and virtually, none for their being executed if their crime is established in the court. Furthermore, they have the advantage of using the latest technologies and advanced weapons which make it simpler and easier for them to pounce upon their victim without leaving a trace of evidence. If somehow suspected and charged with murder, they have multiple ways to save themselves from the gallows. They have at their disposal the services of competent lawyers who have mastered the art of subverting evidences and producing astonishing, mostly fallacious, arguments; if required, they would bribe the police officers, medical experts or judges. Many of the criminals are often professionals who kill others not out of personal enmity, but for their money-masters. They have therefore no dearth of money required for successful combat in the court. If ultimately convicted the most likely course of event is that they would go to the prison for a few years; during this period, their families, if any, will be duly looked after by the 'masters'. As soon as they are freed, they would waste no time in rejoining the profession; this time however, they would take greater precautions and money to hit the given target.

The more the organised business gained ground, the more criminals were produced. The procedures of trial have continued to become technically superior; but, the effectiveness of judicial system in lowering the rate of crime has drastically diminished. With the overwhelming involvement of money, the legal profession has become increasingly popular. The advocates have become pettifoggers eager to serve their clients who offer them huge sums as fees, rather than assist the cause of justice. The ethical code of the profession has unequivocally laid down the principle that the lawyer’s obligation is to look after the interest of his client, and it is the duty of the presiding officer to arrive at the truth. The advocates have therefore in effect become white-collared, legally recognised agents of offenders of law and use all possible means including their golden tongue to subvert justice. The judges have been left with no direct method to come to a reasonable and just conclusion; they have no option but to rely on the evidence and arguments presented by the contending lawyers. The advocacy has been reduced to a foul play of words and logic. And, yet, it is presumed that the net effect of the falsehood of the two contending parties of lawyers would unfold truth. What a travesty of judicial reasoning! The net effect, in reality, is that the malefactors are having their hey-day; the lawyers grow in riches; the weak, the poor and the oppressed are the sufferers.

Prisons or Hotels?

The magnanimity of the law for the criminals did not stop here. The modernised legal system had almost guaranteed that they would not be guillotined, whatever the nature and severity of their crime. The procedural wrangles and the brilliance of lawyers, assisted by the free flow of cash and kind, had considerably brightened the prospects of their protection against conviction. But these were not enough for their satisfaction. The fear of imprisonment still loomed large before them. The hardships of jails were not acceptable to killers, rapists and dacoits. Their masters then exhorted “humanists” to campaign for improvement in the conditions of prisons. It was argued that the prisons should not merely be places of punishment; the prisoners had the right to live a decent life, and endeavours ought to be made to 'reform' them. As a result, the prisoners, today, in many countries, enjoy a life better than that of a large segment of people; they are supplied with much better food, from the point of view of their nutritional value as well as taste, and have more facilities of entertainment than the ordinary, impoverished masses. Moreover, they engage themselves in prisons in all such activities including sexual pleasures, as they like. Homosexuality in prisons is extremely common.

Crime natural by-products?

What has been the impact of these modernist reforms in the legal system? People all over the world with the only exception of some hard-core Islamic and communist countries live under a constant danger of being murdered, beaten, looted, raped and kidnapped. The people, in fact, are no more shocked to hear the news of ghastly murders and rapes; these have become the order of the day and the minds have become conditioned to ignore them. The “experts” and “analysts” work hard to investigate and point out myriads of causes for the decline in law and order, and revel in presenting numerous complex and often incomprehensible solutions; they would deliberately avoid pinpointing the real culprit: the inefficient law. They would explain that the crimes were natural by-products of technical and industrial development, and would take great pains in establishing that the crime and corrup­tion were 'global phenomena;' these are 'necessary evils' that the modern and developing world must learn to live with. The remedies suggested would include advising the people to take precautionary measures and advising the administration to have sophisticated weapons, and detective and monitoring systems. They conveniently forget that the criminals are equally competent and vigilant competitors; they possess equally sophisticated weapons and sys­tems, and do also know ways to win over the ministers, adminis­trative officials and police officers. Whatever marks could have been left behind them during the course of crime are promptly destroyed by the ever-obliging policemen.

The paralysis of legal system led, not only, to the transforma­tion of individuals, in an increasing number, into criminals of different sorts; soon, crime itself became a business, and saw the emergence of 'organised crime.' A spirit of opposition to the law was witnessed in society, favouring private rather than legal justice. A secret society of criminals estab­lished its roots in Sicily and spread terror far and wide. This organisation, called Mafia, controlled several illegal activities including gambling and narcotics, and became especially active in US. A Great number of similar mafias are presently operating all over the world. Some of them have grown in such strength that even the governments, even if they desire, have no guts to destroy them. Mafia are now engaged in wide range of commercial activi­ties, from the smuggling of gold, diamond and narcotics to the sex-market, the sales and purchases of land, hostelling, gambling and the sales of deadly weapons. Their liaisons with the politicians and the police are well known. 'Mafiocracy' can, therefore, be regarded as the ugliest and deadliest product of economic fundamentalism.

Apart from a victorious assault on capital punishment and maiming of the criminal laws, numerous other modifications have been made in the letter and spirit of the constitutions. These include over-emphasis on fundamental rights vis-a-vis fundamental duties and absolute denial of place to fundamental prohibitions, imparting a highly partisan definition to Human Rights, popularisation of several crimes including malversation as necessary evils, giving undue privileges in the name of industrialisation and economic development to the magnates and stress on certain rights of dubi­ous nature in the name of personal freedom and equality. These will be analysed in the latter parts of the book.

To continue.

Let’s Back to Islam’s Interest-Free Economic System

Let's Bank the Muslim Way, A protestor at Wall Street shows placard

THERE was a time when the world was divided into two blocks: on the one hand there was the Soviet Union, which claimed the tall achievements of the Communist system for reducing the gap and creating equality among the humans, and on the other hand America was vying for promoting its capitalist ideology focusing on human rights and civil liberties. In 1990, when the Soviet’s Communist system collapsed, victory of the Capitalist system over Communism was celebrated in the American block, along with the expressions of extreme pride and boast.

Coterminous with the fall of the Soviet, books like End of History and Clash of Civilizations came to the surface, carrying the crux that no system can be better than the Capitalist and the Democratic system and no civilization or ideology or system can stand against our system (Capitalist system). The west started claiming that they have reached the zenith, whose substitute or alternative is impossible to present; however, like Communism, Capitalism too was based on the principles which defy human nature, and hence Capitalism also started yielding its horrendous results which caused restlessness among the masses. Capitalists started to paint Islam and Communism alike as their enemies so as to maintain solidarity among their ranks and created an emotional and irrational ambience so much so that the masses did not get the time to think about their own problems and plight. But the teachings of Islam persuade the believers to strive and struggle for justice and truth and Islamic movements in their respective countries are struggling for it.

In the pursuit of Capitalism, environment for terrorism was created; wars were declared against many countries to plunder and destroy them and immense greed for arms race began. In many countries MNCs were used to take control of the economy. In short all measures were used so as to create the hegemony of the US. They wanted to take control over the world economy to fulfil their colonial ambitions.

During this process their internal, ethical, economic and societal problems started piling and the masses began to develop anger and hatred towards the leaders and became restless. For the past few years, in the western countries and in particular America, people have started showing signs of hatred and dissent. Various protests have taken place during the international conferences in Durban, Madrid, Doha, etc. against the policies of the western countries.

Meanwhile, protests in favour of freedom and liberation started in Arab countries against despot rulers; some of them are still continuing. Protests in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have already achieved the first level of success. Amidst all this, a huge protest with the name of “Occupy Wall Street” was organised in New York, on September 17, which swiftly got popular and spread all across the globe. On October 15, this protest, apart from America, took place in England, Canada, Japan, Australia, Italy, Hong Kong, etc. It engulfed 950 cities of 82 nations. In most of the countries the protests were held against their respective governments and in other nations like Philippines, Bosnia, etc. they were against the indirect colonialism of America.

It is because the adverse effects of the policies of the capitalist system are not only evident on the economies of America and European countries but have engulfed the whole globe; even India is no exception to it as the Finance Minister acknowledged the crunch when he said that Indian economy will also face the shockwaves of the present prevailing crisis. The rating of Reserve Bank of India has also fallen. Various reasons for the protests come to surface:

1. The supporters of Capitalist nations claimed that the nations build on the principles of Capitalism would develop and become welfare states where everyone would have liberty and freedom and everyone’s basic needs would be guaranteed. However the Capitalist nations, instead of working for the welfare of all, focused only on the capitalists/industrialists and gave them such freedom that they even forgot their social and human responsibilities. They took up all the measures of earning profit, no matter right or wrong. The government was backing them and the correct concept of God was also eluding; hence no power could restrain them and they exploited the absolute freedom. The poor became poorer and poorer reaching utter destitution and abject poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor widened massively. The society started to develop anger and hatred for the Capitalists.
2. Unemployment and poverty are big issues in America and other western nations. The economies of these countries are facing the crunch and hence governments are opting for austerity measures and pressing the masses to live simply sans extravagance. The age of retirement has been increased so as to avoid new recruitments, development schemes are being stalled to put government expenditure under control, subsidies on basic and important commodities have been revoked leading to inflation. Hence no poor man can either do business to eke out his living or could get jobs in the government sector. Now the masses are asking the governments as to why they should bear the brunt of the wrong policies  that the government took up and why they should pay for the luxuries they enjoy. People are demanding employment and basic amenities from the government.
3. Another problem is that on one hand people are facing the heat of the meltdown while on the other hand big companies, corporate sectors and governments are not willing to cut down their expenses. Banks and brokers are declaring bankruptcy now and then, whereas the big corporates are enjoying their previous luxurious ways of life using the government’s aid. The Government came for the rescue and bailed those unethical companies out which went bankrupt. When people demand the basic amenities and goods, they teach them the financial crunch, however the salaries of the Wall Street officers are increasing continuously. Public representatives have also started joining the corporate and people’s hard-earned money is being used to upgrade the facilities of the rich. This attitude of the government is also adding onto the anxiety of the masses. Some western intellectuals have said some Communists are behind the present meltdown – a claim that is nothing but ludicrous. Even President Obama said that both Leftists and Rightists, who are unhappy with the government, are responsible for the present perilous situation.
4. The constant support of Israel by the western nations, particularly by America, by fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over which enormous resources were spent, is another cause of the financial crunch. In America people have been raising their voices against the so-called “war on terror”, but the administration is deliberately turning a blind eye to the issue. Besides the destruction of other nations, the war on terror has cost America dearly by making it earn a bad name in the world and causing the financial crunch. People are asking why love for Israel and hatred for others have become so intense that even America’s economic and ethical destruction has been put at stake.
5. Protesters are claiming that this is democratic awakening and the protest will be like that in Tunisia and Egypt. They said we want to overthrow the government as at this moment corporates are ruling us and the present system cannot be termed as democratic. This is not a welfare state but an exploitative state. They said policies are being devised to suit the interests of the corporate and the public representatives do not care about the state of the people as they become totally different once elected. Hence a new system should be adopted in America where even after elections, people can have their say in their affairs, where corporate and capitalists are bound to do their duty, where public representatives have connections with the people, where basic needs get guaranteed, where wealth does not get concentrated in few hands and where everyone gets justice. Hence the protests not only are about the deteriorating financial conditions there, but also about the failure of the Capitalist system.

All the above mentioned problems have risen because of not understanding completely man and the capital and the relation between them. If we have a fair understanding of the need of the capital/ investment, ethics and distribution system, then it would become very easy for us to understand why there is no difference between the system of America and China and why both of them bring out the same horrific results on the lives of human beings. In the capitalist system, money, instead of becoming means for man, becomes the ultimate goal and the human beings who are vicegerents of Allah, become merely things to be used. Man used to earn capital through his labour or ability, but now capital is earning more and more capital, without any labour or ability. Allah put the share of the other needy people in the wealth of the rich; however the rich instead of giving the poor their due started exploiting their portion for more benefit. Man was taught that his wealth is bestowed to him from Allah, and it is a test for him as he will be accountable for it, hence he should analyse whether he is faring well or not in his test. But the capitalist system threw away all the values from his life and once he became forgetful of Allah, all his ethical and human spirits became dead. When money reaches selfish men, it gets concentrated, and as these men do not possess any values and hence wealth becomes evil. This can be experienced in other western countries where wealth instead of being source of good, has turned into something evil.

In this situation Islam’s interest-free economic system can save the world from further destruction, and Muslims should come forward to present it to the world. The world has seen the Communist and Capitalist systems, which have failed rather miserably. And anything alien to the Commandments of Allah would always be unsuccessful. Maulana Maududi, an intellectual and keen observer of the surroundings and situations, said long time ago that anything done against the nature of human beings would sooner or later bring its bitter fruit. Communism and Capitalism both have failed, the only difference is that Communism declared its defeat 20 years back whereas Capitalism is now realising its failure.

[The writer is Secretary-General of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind ( India)]

Radiance Viewsweekly

WHAT began in Tunisia and was dubbed an Arab Spring has spread to the rest of the world, seemingly for different reasons in different places but slowly becoming one vast movement toward democracy and the political economic transformation necessary for humanity’s survival. But while this hopeful sign of people on the move increases, the threats to it become more numerous and deadly. As electronic communication tools help the tendency toward unity and democracy among the 99%, they also increase the destructive power of the 1% . The imperial minority’s ability to kill more people, destroy more governments, enslave more populations and increase damage to the environmental basis of all life while rushing to further exploit it in pursuit of profit has brought dangers of a newer and more deadly kind. The dawning consciousness among people across the globe needs to overtake and end the destructive process of private profit accumulation at the loss of all publics on the planet, wherever they may reside and whatever belief system they practice or preach.

The American phase of this movement began with the Wall Street occupation in New York and has spread to many American cities since, with success in highlighting a radical democratic governance technique and message of unity that surpasses its flaws and overcomes attacks by agents of the 1%. This is all happening at a time when American belief in  supposedly democratic government has sunk to deservedly new lows. Established power is at an extremely bipolar phase in response as  it simultaneously attempts to crush, subvert or incorporate the growing demands of a public frustrated into becoming what minority power fears most: a majority democratic movement for substantial and not merely cosmetic change in the system.

Minority dominators practice obsessive concern for their economic private parts and this masturbatory focus brings the system closer to moral and financial bankruptcy. As the perverse lust for private profit reduces well paid employment in the center by increasing low paid labor in peripheral parts of the shrinking empire, it attacks meager social safety nets in that center which were created to save capitalism during its last global crisis in the 1930s. Public sector work forces are savagely slashed and pensions are cut as less and less people are employed in a political economy that has further reduced humanity from commodities in a market to electronic symbols on a computer screen.

Positive changes in communications offer an opportunity for a massive democratic leap forward but private profiteers still control staggering wealth and their blind lust to amass even more billions has eclipsed – until now – the need to transform and not simply reform material reality.

The American movement has corporate media parroting the political line in the same bi-polar fashion that often lauds the democratic aspect of what’s going on while questioning its purpose.  Meanwhile, military slaughters continue unabated, sometimes with long distance murderers who kill innocents with electronic devises that enable them to do their dirty work in rooms thousands of miles away from their victims with no more human contact than someone playing a video game while seated on a commode. The isolated assassins are an ironic contrast in a world that sees millions in contact they have never before been able to achieve. While some agents of the 1% operate in solitude totally removed from the bloody murders they commit, Bradley Manning sits in prison for acting on his conscience and informing his fellow citizens of the crimes of modern warfare. His action, representative of the high moral ground most people at least wish to occupy, contrasts with the murderous idiocy of what passes for “normal” material reality, and what the new global movement stands against .

Electronic media have finally become truly social but they are not simply the domain of those organizing demonstrations that represent the 99%. Agents of the 1% operate networks of murder and spying that can’t succeed in the long term but add to producing confusion and more violence in the short term. Attacks on the 99% in order to maintain criminal profit margins for the 1% and their agents are taking on increasingly insane character, with even some ruling class members worrying that this could destroy everything and not just their personal wealth.

As an example, continued and ever more feverish claims that Iran is threatening to annihilate Jews with nuclear weapons which do not exist, while the hundreds of nuclear weapons which do exist in Israel are unmentioned by the fanatics there and alleged American government representatives who work for them here. More deadly war is threatened, with death and destruction that would make the present crisis even greater, and it is already slipping beyond the control of the ruling 1% and its agents. Truly, it has never been more essential that the great majority of the 99% move towards the radical economic restructuring and totally transformed political process that is the only thing that will save humanity. And political democracy means the end of private profit accumulation in control of the social and natural environment of planet earth, and the beginning of a system that acknowledges the rights of all people to share the benefits of their world.

We should thank the demonstrators in Tunisia, Egypt and of the Occupy Wall Street Movement for calling our attention to the fact that another world is not only possible but necessary. And then we should join them in bringing it about. Quickly.

Frank Scott writes political commentary which appears in print in the Coastal Post and The Independent Monitor and online at the blog Legalienate

Excepts from The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism by Dr. Javed Jamil

The cephalopod - terrestrial devil fish - a monster of centralization

IN terms of purely literal connotations, “fundamentalism” denotes nothing more than strict adherence to and endeavours to propagate, often by undesirable means, a spe­cific set of ideas; those that follow the ideology are called “fundamen­talists”. It follows that it would be uniquely unfair to limit this term to the ‘fundamentalism’ in the field of religion. Fundamentalism can be found without any difficulty in several other fields, especially politics and economics. The politicians who pursue their political aims through fair or unfair and moral or immoral means, and tend to misuse every single opportunity for their own elevation, irrespective of the adverse effects of their actions on others, may be called political fundamentalists. Needless to say that political fundamentalism pervades the current world. Similarly, those persons or organisations whose solitary aim is to garner economic benefits by adopting all fair and unfair means may be called ‘economic fundamentalists’ and their ideology ‘Economic fundamentalism’.

Wealth has a central position in economics. But economic fundamentalism tends to regard it as the most, not just one of the most, essential requirements of life. The business community has, throughout the world and for ages, always cared little for anything but its own economic interests. But the businessmen of the past made only individual efforts in that direction and they had little influence over the happenings in their surroundings. They were the cranes that would use their cunning eyes to capture the prey when it came close to them and not leopards that would roar their way through the forest in search of their preys.  They did not have any say in political and administrative affairs; the law of the land safeguarded the interests of the common people, or the interests of rulers. During the last few centuries, especial­ly in the wake of Industrial Revolution, businessmen have organised themselves into an aggressive, domineering, dextrous, ingenious and inexorable class. It has, wrongfully or rightfully but successfully, mastered all the new information, techniques and opportunities available to it for the protection and expansion of its interests. This is where economic fundamentalism begins to emerge. Now, businessmen, unlike in the past, are no more weak and submissive. They are not cranes any more but leopards that want to rule and roar. They have not only learned to assert themselves but have perfected the skill to push their plans defying all obstacles that may come in their way. Not any longer are they bootlickers of the rulers that they used to be; they have now mastered the art of manoeuvring them into submission. From the sycophants that they used to be they have now positioned themselves in a way that the rulers and administrators even often become their sycophants. Not any more are they silent followers of the rule of law; they have become articulate votaries of such modification in the law and the legal system as better suit their interests. They have ceased to be introverts seeking comfort in solitude; they now socialise in a way that gives them a plateau of eminence in society, and of course the economic monopoly. Still, they sacrifice moles for gaining mountains in return. It is this assertive, ag­gressive, cunning, provident and ruthlessly selfish approach towards economics that breeds what I have termed Economic Fundamentalism.

Economics is surely one of the essential constituents of human life. Without money, one cannot survive; we need coins for food, drinks, clothes, house, treatment, entertainment, marriage, bringing up of children, their education; even for funeral. But the problems arise when money is assumed to be the only essential of life. Economics is the stomach that supplies food for the body. It cannot and must not become the heart and brain. For a wholesome living, good relations among members of family, and of society, proper spiritual and moral development and proper environment are also needed. Love for money is nice as far as it does not disturb mental, family and social peace. But as soon as it transforms into lust encroaching upon others’ spheres, it becomes a curse. When the lust for making money becomes organised, its effects on society are bound to be devastating. And when this organisation turns global and uses highly advanced information and technology available to it, mankind faces imminent ruin.

It can be seen that economic fundamentalism is becoming increasingly aggressive with every passing day. What has facilitated its stupendous growth is the outstanding ability of its generals to deal with the hurdles coming in their way. The truth is that they have been marching towards their ultimate destination without facing any appreciable resistance. They studied and recognised all the possible sources of obstruction well in advance, and prepared a meticulous plan to thwart them. All possible weapons were and are being employed for this purpose: persuasion, advertising, misinformation, defama­tion, bribing, manoeuvring and use of power. The ballistic missiles of their money-power have proved to be too destructive for the resistant elements to with­stand. Through persuasion or threats, they are either overpowered or purchased. The opposing forces have failed owing not only to the lack of resources but also to the glaring deficiency of will and spirit. What further paralysed them is innumerable divisions in their ranks, based on religion, region, race, ideology and language. The economic fundamentalists have used this lassitude to gain on them; they are now, virtually, the rulers of the world. Their trumpet blows everywhere — from the north to the south and from the west to the east.  There is little evidence in sight to foretell that their dominion will shrink to any remarkable extent in the foreseeable future. Whatever few areas or fields have till now remained beyond their reach will soon be ransacked by their visible or invisible forces. How long they will be able to retain their hold, only time will tell. But presently, no signs of the emergence of a messiah or mahdi are visible.

Thus, the rise and growth of economic fundamentalism has been, from historical standards, rather rapid taking hardly a few centuries. The think-tank of the world of economic fundamentalism has taken innumerable steps to strengthen their hold. They have sacrificed the goddess of justice before the eyes of the Statue of Liberty. They have transformed through political manoeuvres the state into their estate. They have incessantly and relentlessly been trying to organise a grand farewell for religion. They have captivated the people’s imagination through the media. They have got the attire of society redesigned so that it looks gorgeous and inviting to their eyes. They have industrialised sex, in which they have discovered the hen that always lays golden eggs. They have relocated the entire educational set-up on the Wall Street.  They have monopolised the tree of economy whose fruits and shadows are only theirs; others can only admire its beauty from a safe distance. They have taken science and technology as their mistresses who are always keen to offer their glorious best to them. They have nipped all the challenges in the buds by masterminding popular movements. They have lynched the ‘civilisation’, which has been given a new incarnation; and now Bohemians are called civilised. Last but not the least, they have been busy colonising the good earth in the name of globalisation.

This does not mean however that whatever the economic fundamentalists sought to do or undo was all misplaced. Nor does it mean that the economic fundamentalists are solely responsible for all the wrongs perpetrated on mankind. What is true nevertheless is that they have always striven to support those ideas and movements that would become uranium for the their commercial nukes. Some­times, they would themselves spearhead a particular campaign. More often, they would financially back such activities as suited their strategies. At other times, they would make overt or covert efforts to contain, dilute or minimise the damages to their interests consequent on the popularisation of certain ideas or customs. Many a time they might have pursued or backed a good cause; but they have invariably been selective in their support, calculating its positive or negative impact on their business prospects. It is this preferential and partisan attitude that has to be denounced and re­nounced, if the world has to be saved from the impending doom.

Dr Javed Jamil is Executive Chairman, International Centre for Applied Islamics, Chief Editor, “Islam, Muslims & the World” and Director PEACE. He is also author of more than a dozen books including “Islam means Peace”, “The Essence of the Divine Verses”, “The Killer Sex”, “Rediscovering the Universe”, “The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism” and “Islamic Model for Control of AIDS”. Also has more than 200 articles and papers to his credit. His soon-to-be-published works include “Scientific & Social Principles based on Qur’an” and “Westernism: the Ideology of Hegemony”. He can be reached at doctorforu123@yahoo.com. Phones: +91- 8130340339

--