In Afghanistan, it is well known that the government’s writ has no authority outside of Kabul, if there. But then, that is the point. The role of the governments imposed on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, like the one they are trying to impose on Syria, is not to govern or provide for the population at all – even that most basic of functions, security. It is simply to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the occupation of the country and to award business contracts to the colonial powers. They literally have no other function, as far as their sponsors are concerned.

THE economic collapse that began in 2008, that was duly declared unpredictable and thoroughly unforeseen across the entire Western media, was, in fact, anything but. Indeed, the capitalist cycle of expansion and collapse has repeated itself so often, over hundreds of years, that its existence is openly accepted across the whole spectrum of economic thought, including in the mainstream – which refers to it, in deliberately understated terms, as the “business cycle”. Only those who profit from our ignorance of this dynamic – the billionaire profiteers and their paid stooges in media and government – try to deny it.

A slump occurs when “capacity outstrips demand” – that is to say, when people can no longer afford to buy all that is being produced. This is inevitable in a capitalist system, where productive capacity is privately owned, because the global working class as a whole are never paid enough to purchase all that they collectively produce. As a result, unsold goods begin to pile up, and production facilities – factories and the like – are closed down. People are thrown out of work as a result, their incomes decline, and the problem gets worse. This is exactly what we are seeing happen today.

In these circumstances, avenues for profitable investment dry up – the holders of capital can find nowhere safe to invest their money. For them, this is the crisis – not the unemployment, the famine, the poverty etc (which, after all, remain an endemic feature of the global capitalist economy even during the ‘boom times’, albeit on a somewhat reduced scale). The governments under their control – through ownership of the media, currency manipulation and control of the economy – must then set to work creating new profitable investment opportunities.

One way they do this is by killing off public services, and thus creating opportunities for investment in the private companies that replace them. In 1980s Britain, Margaret Thatcher privatised steel, coal, gas, electricity, water, and much else besides. In the short term, this plunged millions into unemployment, as factories and mines were closed down, and in the long term it resulted in massive price rises for basic services. But it had its intended effect – it provided valuable investment opportunities (for those with capital to spare) at a time when such opportunities were scarce, and created a long term source of fabulous profits. This summer, for example, saw the formerly publicly owned gas company Centrica hiking its prices by another 18% to bring in a £1.3billion profit. The raised prices will see many thousands more pensioners than usual die from the cold this winter as a result, but gas – like all commodities in capitalist society – is not there to provide heat, but to increase capital.

In the global South, privatisation was harsher still. Bodies like the IMF and the World Bank used the leverage provided by the debt-extortion mechanism (whereby interest rates were hiked on unpayable loans that had rarely benefited the population, often taken out by corrupt rulers imposed by Western governments in the first place) to force governments across Asia, Africa and Latin America to cut public spending on even basics such as health and education, along with agricultural subsidies. This contributed massively to the staggering rates of infant mortality and deaths from preventable disease, as well as to the AIDS epidemic now raging across Africa. But again the desired end for those imposing the policies was achieved, as new markets were created and holders of giant capital reserves could now invest in private companies to provide the services no longer available from the state. The profit system was given a new lease of life, its collapse staved off once again.

The World Bank’s closure of the Indian government’s grain rationing and distribution service, for example, meant that a scheme providing affordable grain to all Indian citizens was closed down, allowing private companies to come in and sell grain at massively increased prices (sometimes up to ten times higher). Whilst this has led to huge numbers of Indians being priced out of the market, and a resulting 200 million people now facing starvation in India, it has also led to record profits for the giant private companies now holding the world’s grain stocks – which is the whole point.

This round of global privatisation from the 1980s onwards, however, was so thorough that when the 2008 crisis hit, there were few state functions left to privatise. Creating investment opportunities now is much trickier than it was thirty years ago, because so much of what is potentially profitable is already being thoroughly exploited as it is.

In Europe, what is left of public services is hastily being dismantled, as right wing political leaders happily privatise what is left of the public sector, and currency speculators use their firepower to pick off any country that attempts to resist. David Cameron, following the path forced on the global South over recent decades, for example, is busy opening up Britain’s National Health Service to private companies, and massively cutting back on public service provision for vulnerable groups such as the elderly and the jobless.

In the global South, however, there is little left for the West to privatise, as successive IMF policies have long ago forced those countries in their grip to strip their public services to the bone (and beyond) already.

But there is one state function which, if fully privatised across the world, would make the profits made even from essentials such as health care and education look like peanuts. That is the most basic and essential state function of all, indeed the whole raison d’etre for the state: security.

Private security companies are one of the few growth areas during times of global recession, as growing unemployment and poverty leads to increased social unrest and chaos, and those with wealth become more nervous about protecting both themselves, and their assets. Furthermore, as the Chinese economy advances at a rate of knots, military superiority is fast becoming the West’s only “competitive advantage” – the one area in which it’s expertise remains significantly ahead of its rivals. Turning this advantage, therefore, into an opportunity for investment and profit on a large-scale is now one of the chief tasks facing the rulers of Western economies.

A recent article in the Guardian noted that British private security firm Group 4 is now “Europe’s largest private sector employer”, employing 600,000 people – 50% more than make up the total armed forces of Britain and France combined. With growth last year of 9% in their “new markets” division, the company have “already benefited from the unrest in north Africa and the Middle East.” Group 4 are set to make a killing in Libya, following the total breakdown of security, likely to last for decades, resulting from NATO’s incineration of the country’s armed forces and wholesale destruction of its state apparatus. With the rule of law replaced by warfare between rival gangs of rebels, and no realistic prospect of a functioning police force for the foreseeable future, those Libyans able to manoeuvre themselves into positions of wealth and power will likely have to rely on private security for many years to come.

When Philip Hammond, Britain’s new Defence Secretary and a multi-millionaire businessman himself, suggested that British companies “pack their suitcases and head to Libya”, it was not only oil and construction companies he had in mind, but private security companies.

Private military companies are also becoming huge business – most famously, the US company Blackwater, renamed Xe Services after its original name became synonymous with the massacres committed by its forces in Iraq. In the USA, Blackwater has already taken over many of the security functions of the state – charging the Department of Homeland Security $1000 per day per head in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, for example. “When you ship overnight, do you use the postal service or do you use FedEx?” asked Erik Prince, founder and chairman of Blackwater. “Our corporate goal is to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did to the postal service”. Another Blackwater official commented that “None of us loves the idea that devastation became a business opportunity. It’s a distasteful fact. But that’s what it is. Doctors, lawyers, funeral directors, even newspapers – they all make a living off of bad things happening. So do we, because somebody’s got to handle it.”

The danger comes when the economic climate is such that the world’s most powerful governments feel they must do all they can to create such business opportunities. During the Cold War, the US military acted (as indeed it still does) to keep the global South in a state of poverty by attacking any government that seriously sought to challenge this poverty, and imposing governments that would crush trade unions and keep the population cowed. This created investment opportunities because it kept the majority of the world’s labour force in conditions so desperate they were willing to work for peanuts. But now this is not enough. In slump conditions, it doesn’t matter how cheap your workforce is if nobody is buying your products. To create the requisite business opportunities today – a large global market for its military expertise – Western governments must impose not only poverty, but also devastation. Devastation is the quickest route to converting the West’s military prowess into a genuine business opportunity that can create a huge new avenue for investment when all others are drying up. And this is precisely what is happening.  David Cameron is, for once, telling the truth, when he says “Whatever it takes to help our businesses take on the world – we’ll do it.”

As The Times put it recently, “In Iraq, the postwar business boom is not oil. It is security.” In both Iraq and Afghanistan, a situation of chronic and enduring instability and civil war has been created by a very precise method. Firstly, the existing state power is totally destroyed. Next, the possibility of utilising the country’s domestic expertise to rebuild state capacity is undermined against by barring former officials from working for the new government (a process known in Iraq as “de-Ba’athification”). Linked to this, the former ruling party is banned from playing any part in the political process, effectively ensuring that the largest and most organised political formation in each country has no option but to resort to armed struggle to gain influence, and thereby condemning the country to civil war. Next, vicious sectarianism is encouraged along whatever religious, ethnic and tribal divisions are available, often goaded by the covert actions of Western intelligence services. Finally, the wholesale privatisation of resources ensures chronically destabilising levels of unemployment and inequality.  The whole process is self-perpetuating, as the skilled and professional sections of the workforce – those with the means and connections – emigrate, leaving behind a dire skills shortage and even less chance of a functioning society emerging from the chaos.

This instability is not confined to the borders of the state which has been destroyed. In a masterfully cynical domino effect, for example, the aggression against Iraq has also helped to destabilise Syria. Three quarters of the 2 million Iraqi refugees fleeing the war in their own country have ended up in Syria, thus contributing to the pressure on the Syrian economy which is a major factor in the current unrest there.

The destruction of Libya will also have far reaching destabilising consequences across the region. As the recent United Nations Support Mission in Libya stated, “Libya had accumulated the largest known stockpile of Manpads [surface-to-air missiles] of any non-Manpad-producing country. Although thousands were destroyed during the seven-month Nato operations, there are increasing concerns over the looting and likely proliferation of these portable defence systems, as well as munitions and mines, highlighting the potential risk to local and regional stability.” Furthermore, a large number of volatile African countries are currently experiencing a fragile peace secured by peacekeeping forces in which Libyan troops had been playing a vital role. The withdrawal of these troops may well be damaging to the maintenance of the peace. Similarly, Libya, under Gaddafi’s rule, had contributed generously to African development projects; a policy which will certainly be ended under the NTC – again, with potentially destabilising consequences.

Clearly, a policy of devastation and destabilisation fuels not only the market for private security, but also for arms sales – where, again, the US, Britain and France remain market leaders. And a policy of devastation through blitzkrieg fits in clearly with the big three current long term strategic objectives of Western policy planners:

1. To corner as large a share as possible of the world’s diminishing resources, most importantly oil, gas and water. A government of a devastated country is at the mercy of the occupying country when it comes to contracts. Gaddafi’s Libya, for example, drove a notoriously hard bargain with the Western powers over oil contracts – acting as a key force in the 1973 oil price spike, and still in 2009 being accused by the Financial Times of “resource nationalism”. But the new NTC government in Libya have been hand picked for their subservience to foreign interests – and know that their continued positions depend on their willingness to continue in this role.
2. To prevent the rise of the global South, primarily through the destruction of any independent regional powers (such as Iran, Libya, Syria etc) and the destabilisation, isolation and encirclement of the rising global powers (in particular China and Russia).
3. To overcome or limit the impact of economic collapse by using superior military force to create and conquer new markets through the destruction and rebuilding of infrastructure and the elimination of competition.

This policy of total devastation represents a departure from the Cold War policies of the Western powers. During the Cold War, whilst the major strategic aims remained the same, the methods were different. Independent regional powers in the global South were still destabilised and invaded – and regularly – but generally with the aim of installing ‘compliant dictatorships’. Thus, Lumumba was overthrown and replaced with Mobutu; Sukarno with Suharto; Allende with Pinochet; etc, etc. But the danger with this ‘imposed strongmen’ policy was that strongmen can become defiant. Saddam Hussein illustrated this perfectly. After having been backed for over a decade by the West, he turned on their stooge monarchy in Kuwait. Governments that are in control can easily get out of control. However, for as long as these strongmen were needed for the services provided by their armies (protecting investments, repressing workers struggles, etc), they were supported. The crisis now underway in the economies of the West, however, calls for more drastic measures. And the development of private security and private mercenary companies mean that the armies provided by these strongmen are starting to be deemed no longer necessary.

Congo is a case in point. For three decades, the Western powers had supported Mobutu Sese-Seko’s iron rule of the Congo. But then, in the mid-90s, they allowed him to be overthrown. However, rather than allowing the Congolese resistance forces to take power and establish an effective government, they then sponsored an invasion of the country by Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. Although these countries have now largely withdrawn their militias, they continue to sponsor proxy militias which have prevented the country seeing a moment’s peace for nearly fifteen years, resulting in the biggest slaughter since the end of the Second World War, with over 5 million killed. One result of this total breakdown of functioning government has been that the Western companies that loot Congo’s resources have been able to do so virtually for free. Despite being the world’s largest supplier of both coltan and copper, amongst many other precious minerals, the total tax revenue on these products in 2006-7 amounted to a puny £32 million. This is surely far less than what even the most useless neo-colonial puppet would have demanded.

This completely changes the meaning of the word ‘government’. In the Congo, the government’s best efforts to stabilise and develop the country have so far proved no match for the destabilisation strategies of the West and its stooges. In Afghanistan, it is well known that the government’s writ has no authority outside of Kabul, if there. But then, that is the point. The role of the governments imposed on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, like the one they are trying to impose on Syria, is not to govern or provide for the population at all – even that most basic of functions, security. It is simply to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the occupation of the country and to award business contracts to the colonial powers. They literally have no other function, as far as their sponsors are concerned.

It goes without saying that this policy of devastation is turning the victimised countries into a living hell. After now more than thirty years of Western destabilisation, and ten years of outright occupation, Afghanistan is at or very hear the bottom of nearly every human development indicator available, with life expectancy at 44 years and an under-five mortality rate of over one in four. Mathew White, a history professor who has recently completed a detailed survey of the humanity’s worst atrocities throughout history, concluded that, without doubt, “chaos is far deadlier than tyranny”. It is a truth to which many Iraqis can testify.

Dan Glazebrook writes for the Morning Star newspaper and is a member of the editorial board of OURAIM publications.

DISSIDENT VOICE

WITH heavy heart, I came to know the sad demise of our Great Islamic Leader of Muslim Ummah, Dr Najmuddeen Erbakan of Turkey who died on Sunday in Ankara. He changed the fate of the "sick" Turkey into the awaken lion and the hope of the Muslim world.

He had an indomitable soul of a Mujahid, the conviction of a Mumin, the insurmountable character of a Da'ee Ilallah, ever ready to struggle hard for the resurrection of the outlook of Turkey to emerge with its Muslim identity in the midst of prejudiced Euro-Asian nations. He was destined to play the dominant role of Khilafah that Kamalism extinguished in 1923 by his hasty action under the garb of European liberalism.

The secular military leadership of Turkey did not like his about-turn face and thrown him out of power twice and then put him in jail. That sentence was pardon by his disciple President Gul subsequently. PM Erdogan rightly declared to remember him always as a "teacher and a guide" of modern Turkey. Both PM Erdogan, the President Br Gul and their Justice  and Development Party are the true reminiscent of late Br. Najmuddeen Erbakan to transform Turkey again into a modern homeland of Islam  to serve as  the Renaissance of Muslim Ummah .

May Allah bless him, pardon his sins,  if any, multiply the AJR of his good deeds, place his soul in Jannatul Firdaus and give solace to all of you and our Turkish Community at home and abroad. I am sure the J & D Party will pilot the fate of Muslim Ummah to new horizon to lead the destiny of mankind to attain the glories of Islam afresh.

The prayers of 20 million Muslims that attended his  funeral will not go in waste, Insha Allah.

The editor adds.

Anatolia Islamic Centre, Toronto has organized a condolence meeting on Saturday, March 5 to commemorate the legacy of Najim Al-Deen Erbakan and to pay tributes to that leader.

Turkey’s Sunday Zaman Reports

Former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, whose coalition government was forced to step down by the military on Feb. 28, 1997, died at the age of 85 from cardiac and respiratory failure on Sunday at an Ankara hospital, where he had been a patient since early January.

The legendary leader of the National View (Milli Görüş) political movement, Erbakan was re-elected as the head of the Felicity Party (SP) after some troubles within the party last year. After the 1997 coup d'état, his ruling Welfare Party (RP) was banned by the courts and Erbakan was barred from active politics for a temporary period of time.

The Feb. 28, 1997 event was the fourth military intervention in politics in Turkey, preceded by the coups of 1960, 1971 and 1980. Not only were fatal blows dealt many fundamental rights and freedoms after Feb. 28 but democracy and the rule of law were suspended. The coup introduced a series of harsh restrictions on religious freedoms, with an unofficial but widely practiced ban on the wearing of the Islamic headscarf. The military was purged of personnel with suspected ties to religious groups, a tradition that is still widely observed today. In addition, a number of newspapers were closed.

Despite being under a political ban, Erbakan acted as a mentor and informal advisor to former RP members who founded the Virtue Party (FP) in 1997. However, the FP was ruled to be unconstitutional in 2001 and banned. By that time Erbakan's ban on political activities had ended and he went on to establish the SP, of which he was the leader in 2003-2004 and again from late 2010.

A mechanical engineer by profession, Erbakan entered politics in 1969. Since then, he was an important political figure who influenced Turkish politics. He was often referred to as the “number-one victim” of the Feb. 28 coup, but was also harshly criticized for not defending democracy and the rule of law during the coup period. For years, he was accused of leaving his post too easily when the military forced him to resign.

The timing of Erbakan’s death has added another to the painful memories of the Feb. 28 period, which Turkey is set to observe the 14th anniversary today. On the 14th anniversary, there are growing calls on pro-coup factions to end their anti-democratic endeavors targeting the civilian authority and the rule of law.

In early 1997, the General Staff sought ways to get rid of the conservative government led by Erbakan. The National Security Council (MGK) made several decisions during a meeting on Feb. 28 and presented them to Erbakan for approval. Erbakan was forced to sign the decisions, and he subsequently resigned.

None of the military figures who had a hand in overthrowing the RP government has, however, stood trial.

Erbakan was referred to as the “teacher” of several of Turkey’s leading political figures, including President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç, Turkey Party (TP) leader Abdüllatif Şener and former SP leader Recai Kutan.

Erbakan was sentenced to two years, four months behind bars in a lawsuit known as the “lost trillion” case, but was able to defer serving his sentence by submitting medical reports to the court. The lost trillion case concerns the disappearance of more than TL 1 trillion the Treasury granted to the RP. In 2008, President Gül pardoned Erbakan.

Erbakan will be laid to rest on March 1 after funeral prayers at İstanbul’s Fatih Mosque. A statement from the SP read that the party is not planning a big ceremony for its leader. “Our leader did not want an official ceremony after his death,” the statement read.

Messages of condolences from politicians

Erbakan’s death was met with sorrow by leading figures in Turkish politics, who released messages offering their condolences to the Erbakan family as well the entire Turkish nation.

President Gül reportedly phoned Erbakan’s son, Fatih Erbakan, to extend his condolences. The president reportedly told Fatih Erbakan that he was very sad to learn that Turkey had lost one of its greatest politicians and man of science.

Prime Minister Erdoğan expressed sadness over the death of Erbakan, and said God will reward the experienced politician for his service to Turkey. “Erbakan was a politician and man of science who gave much to Turkey and he had an esteemed place in the Turkish politics. He spent his entire life to learning and teaching. May God welcome him in heaven. May God rest his soul,” he noted. The prime minister has reportedly decided to cancel his plans to travel to Brussels so that he can attend Erbakan’s funeral.

Justice and Development Party (AK Party) parliamentary group deputy chairman Suat Kılıç said his party was saddened to learn about the Erbakan’s death. “The people of Anatolia will remember Erbakan in their prayers. May his soul rest in peace. I offer my condolences to his family as well as the National View community,” he stated.

State Minister Faruk Nafiz Özak said Turkey will remember Erbakan as a gentleman who gave much to Turkish politics. Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek also released a message, in which he extended his condolences to Erbakan’s family and followers.

The Voice of the People Party (HAS Party) leader Numan Kurtulmuş, who led the SP before being replaced by Erbakan in 2010, extended his condolences in a Twitter message on Sunday. “We ask God to treat Erbakan, who left his mark on the last half-century of the Turkish politics, with mercy. I extend my condolences to the entire Turkish nation. Our country will remember Erbakan with gratitude.” In his message, main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu defined Erbakan as an “esteemed politician” in Turkey and extended his condolences to Erbakan’s family and relatives.

Pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) leader Selahattin Demirtaş also released a message in which he said: “May he rest in peace. I offer my condolences to his family and relatives.”

According to Ankara Mayor Melih Gökçek, who expressed sorrow over Erbakan’s death, the experienced politician had spent much energy mentoring him. Gökçek worked for many years with Erbakan. Gökçek was initially elected as the Ankara mayor 1994 when he was with Erbakan’s RP.

Speaking to reporters, Religious Affairs Directorate President Mehmet Görmez said: “I am saddened to learn the death of SP leader and former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan. I pray God to treats Erbakan with mercy, and extend my condolences to his family and followers.”

IN the midst of the Arab uprisings throughout the Middle East, at a time when even the European (EU) has publically condemned Israel’s blockade of Gaza and its illegal land seizures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou promised a visiting delegation of American Jewish leaders, that he would do everything possible to undermine EU opposition and promote Israeli economic, diplomatic and political interests in Europe. US Zionists, recently returned from a visit to Athens described Papandreou as by far the most amenable (‘servile’) European leader they have met in recent memory. Papandreou’s slavish submission to Israeli interests includes his promise, to a delegation of U.S. zionist notables, to use his influence to pressure the new Egyptian military junta to continue to uphold the Mubarak agreements with Israel.¹ These include the continued blockade of Gaza and support of Israel’s military assaults on Lebanon, Syria and Palestinians. In other words Papandreou is openly supportive of Egypt’s past collaboration with Israeli clandestine assassinations and kidnapping of Arab militants.

Papandreou demonstrates a greater interest in promoting Israel’s exports to the European market, than the country he ostensibly represents. He promised a delegation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations “to integrate Israel into the European market”¹ while he shrinks the Greeks economy by 10% between 2009-11 and doubles unemployment from 8% to 16%. Papandreou’s gross servility to Israel and the American Zionist power structure is manifested in his cordial reception and recent agreements with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and his foreign minister, the notorious Zionist-fascist Avigdor Lieberman – the same Lieberman who advocates wholesale expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank. No Greek Prime Minister, since the Zionist state was founded, has exhibited such a bizarre display of active collaboration with Israel’s colonial claims in the Middle East. No European leader has so eagerly anticipated and implemented the demands of American Zionist organizations with such zeal.

What is most striking about Papandreou’s servility to Israeli and American Zionist interests, is that it takes place when most of the rest of the world, from Europe, Turkey, Lebanon, Latin America, to North Africa (Egypt, Tunisia) and the vast majority of Arabs are moving toward isolating Israel. In other words, Papandreou is embracing a pro-Israel policy which is alienating Europe, isolating Greece from over a hundred million Arabs and undermining Greek agricultural (citrus) exports to the EU market.

Papandreou’s perverse and highly prejudicial foreign policy is matched by his extraordinary adherence and enforcement of the debt payment policies dictated by the IMF and the bankers of the EU and the US. His behavior is particularly shameless at a time when the next Irish government is threatening to declare a debt default if payments are not reduced. In his eagerness to ingratiate himself with the overseas bankers, Papandreou has systematically extracted billions of euros via a 20% reduction in wages, salaries and pensions and transferred it to the coffers of the banks. In the process Papandreou’s policies have doubled the unemployment rate, shrank the economy and undermined any future growth for the next decade. Papandreou rejected the Argentine formula, which in the face of a similar crises in 2001-02 , defaulted rather than deepen poverty. Under President Kirchner, Argentina renegotiated its debt, shaving bond payments by 75% and imposing a moratorium. As a result, Argentina recovered from the crises and maintained a growth rate of 7% for over a decade while reducing unemployment from 22% to less than 6%.

If Papandreou acts as a submissive messenger boy for Israel and its Zionist fifth column in America, he features prominently as the eager and aggressive “bill collector” for the overseas banks. He will go down in historical infamy as a willing accomplice of Israeli war crimes, an upholder of its unequal treaties with Egypt in his foreign policy and the enforcer of financial predators who impoverish millions of Greeks at home.

Having decimated the Greek economy via transfers of billions abroad and undermined economic relations with the Arab countries, Papandreou offers to sell Greece’s most lucrative transport, ports energy and communication companies to Chinese, Israeli. and Wall Street investors and speculators. It is ironic that George Papandreou the son of former Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou should reverse each and every one of his father’s policies, especially with regard to the Middle East.

In 1981 after Andreas Papandreou was elected, he invited me to Athens to discuss policies and programs of his future government. The first thing he told me was the importance of supporting the Palestinian struggle and how he had a successful meeting with Yasser Arafat, who regaled him with a prized pistol, which he displayed to me. A year later when I returned to Greece to direct and develop a research center, he invited me for a swim. We were accompanied by a dozen underwater security guards, patrolling offshore, against a potential assassination plot by Mossad, according to the prime minister, in reprisal for his solidarity with the Palestinians in Lebanon.

A few days later over 50,000 Greeks led by Culture Minister Melina Mercuri marched in solidarity with the Palestinians and in repudiation of Israel’s role in the bloody massacre of 2000 women and children in Sabra and Shatila. The contrast of the two generations of Papandreou’s could not be more stark; while Andreas saw Greece as a bridge between Europe and the Arab East, George sees Greece acting as a pimp for Israeli business interests in Europe and as a lobbyist for its dominance in the Middle East. The Zionists have lost an old client in Mubarek and gained a new one in Papendreou.

Like Mubarak, George Papandreou combines servility to his imperial mentors with arrogance and brutality to his Greek subjects. As the Egyptians demonstrated it will take the Greek people more than marches and occasional strikes to bring down an entrenched client of the empire. But it can be done as was exemplified in Cairo!

1. European Jewish Press 2/11/11 [↩] [↩]

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). Petras’ most recent book is Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Clarity Press, 2008). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu. visit James's website.

This article was posted on Saturday, February 26th, 2011 at 8:01am and is filed under Greece, Israel/Palestine, Neoliberalism, Zionism.

A senior analyst compares the recent Middle East uprisings with Turkey, an Islamic democratic state which has recently foiled a military coup.
Joshua Landis of the University of Oklahoma talks with Press TV about the extent of the nature of the uprisings being Islamic or democratic and compares this with the more mature situation facing Turkey.

Press TV: There are differing opinions with one analyst saying it is an Islamic awakening while another analyst says it would be misleading to equate Islam in terms of the revolutions being an awakening arguing that it is an Arab uprising for democracy and freedom. But there is a phobia (internationally), isn't there of an Islamic nation? Why would that be?

Landis: Well there certainly has been and I think that the West in general, particularly the US, has been very anxious about democracy in the Middle East because they worry that it will bring Islamic elements and Islamic parties to the fore. On the other hand, most of these uprisings that have called for democracy have not been led by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or other places; in fact, the Muslim Brotherhood came in a little bit late.

It doesn't mean that the Muslim brotherhood will not have an important role to play and clearly they will. It seems to me though that they have been very careful not to put themselves forward. The reasons behind that might be, for instance, that they don't want the West to move against the democratic movement.

I think there is a change that's taken place throughout the Middle East of the past 30 years, which is the Muslim Brotherhood realizes it cannot come to power on its own; it has had to accommodate other forces that don't always agree with it. The Muslim Brotherhood parties of Egypt and Syria and other places have said that “we want democracy” and “we are a part of the nation and we're willing to work with other groups that are secular”. So they haven't ruled out the notion that they can work together with secular groups and this is a big change.

Press TV: The US is keeping an intense eye on the developments, but their involvement, some say, has thrown the situation into a loop in terms of the people power that has surfaced.

Landis: Your previous speaker holds the opinion that democracy can't really work as long as western interests are at work in the Middle East. But if we take Turkey for example; Turkey, as it has become more democratic, has become more anti-American, or maybe anti-American is the wrong word to use, but it is looking after its own interests and we saw just over a week ago that Turkey has arrested more than 100 military generals and high level officers that it's accused of plotting a coup d'etat against it (from several years ago).

This is a big blow to the influence of the US, and it's a step forward for democracy. At the same time, Turkey announced that it was going to move ahead with a USD 30 billion trade deal with Iran. Now, you can look at this as Turkey in a sense being liberated from a very tight alliance with the US. And it's beginning to see that its economic interests lie elsewhere - and the US cannot stop it.

We haven't seen the US reaction to this yet, but obviously the US is on its heels; it's been thrown for a loop as you say; it's completely absorbed by these breaking events in Egypt and now in Libya and Bahrain. It hasn't had a chance to respond; it wouldn't know how to respond to Turkey right now because it can't muscle Turkey at the same time as it's losing its footing in places like Bahrain and Egypt.

One of the things we are seeing is that the US is not in control of events. Democracy is going to work against the US in the short term and millions of Arab people are not happy with US relations over its policy toward Israel and its attempt to bring Iran to its knees economically and its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

PRESSTV

In the latest protest by the right-wing English Defence League, which was formed last year to campaign against Islam, police clashed with demonstrators as they sought to separate them from a rival anti-fascist march.

Many of the EDL demonstrators had been drinking before the march in the central town of Stoke, during which members waved placards proclaiming "Patriotism is not racism" and "Terrorists off our streets".

Police said 15 people had been arrested for public order offences and four officers had been injured, including one officer who was hospitalised with an arm injury and a second who underwent medical checks after being assaulted.

Police Superintendent Dave Mellor said the actions and behaviour of a small minority of protestors have been totally unacceptable and deplorable."

Haaretz.com reported that officials in the Israel’s prime minister's bureau said that the decision to summon the Turkish ambassador for a reprimand was jointly made by Netanyahu and Lieberman.

Netanyahu aides added that the premier was not aware of the choreographed nature of the meeting between Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Turkish ambassador Ahmet Oguz Celikkol.

"From the moment the incident occurred, the prime minister is fully backing the foreign minister," a source close to Netanyahu said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that Turkey's closer ties with Iran and Syria were a cause for “concern” in Jerusalem and that he fully backs Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman for the controversial reprimand delivered by his deputy in a meeting with Ankara's ambassador.

"Turkey is consistently gravitating eastward to Syria and Iran rather than westward [over the last two years]," Netanyahu told aides. "This is a trend that certainly has to worry Israel."

Turkish officials made the demand during a meeting Tuesday to which they summoned Israel's ambassador to Ankara, Gabi Levy.

"We're waiting for an apology from the Israeli side very soon," a Turkish official told Levy. "If there won't be an apology, we will respond with diplomatic steps of our own."

A Turkish official denounced Ayalon and Lieberman on Tuesday as "adolescent youths" for the incident.

Israeli officials were angered by statements made Monday by Turkish Prime Minister Reccep Tayip Erdogan, who accused Jerusalem of using "disproportionate power ... while refusing to abide by UN resolutions" relating to its policy toward the Palestinians.

In addition, Israeli officials were furious over a recently aired Turkish television program, "Valley of the Wolves," which portrays Shin Bet security service agents as child kidnappers.

In response, Ayalon summoned the Turkish ambassador to Israel, Ahmet Oguz Celikkol, for consultations.

Haaretz.com reported that during the meeting, Celikkol was seated in a low sofa, and facing him, in higher chairs, were Ayalon and two other officials - an arrangement carried out on the orders of Ayalon's superior, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

A photo-op was held at the start of the meeting, during which Ayalon told the photographers in Hebrew: "Pay attention that he is sitting in a lower chair and we are in the higher ones, that there is only an Israeli flag on the table and that we are not smiling."

Celikkol's associates told Army Radio on Tuesday, that the meeting with Ayalon was the most shameful display he had seen in 35 years as a diplomat.

According to the associates, Celikkol had no idea what the topic of conversation was to be when first seated. When the cameras left the room, the sources said, the meeting was normal and professional.

"Had the ambassador understood Ayalon's intentions, which were only expressed in Hebrew, he would have responded in kind," the source told Army Radio.

Celikkol told Army Radio that the episode was the most shameful experience of his 35-year career.

Israel's Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that Ayalon did not intend to humiliate Celikkol by seating him in a lower chair without flag representation during their meeting.

Celikkol was called in regarding a recent Turkish television drama depicting actors dressed as Shin Bet officers who kidnap babies.

In response to the incident, the Turkish Foreign Ministry on Tuesday summoned Israeli Ambassador Gaby Levy for clarification.

"It would be worthwhile for Israel to know its boundaries and to not dare cross them," a Turkish official said.

He added that Ankara knows to differentiate between the various constituent elements of the Israeli government, and that it would prefer to deal only with ministers and leaders who assume a more moderate line.

Ankara on Tuesday rejected Israel's criticism of Turkey's past while accusing Lieberman and Ayalon of staging the incident to enhance their domestic political standing.

"Turkey has always been a friend to Jews," the Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"Deep-rooted relations between Turks and Jews that precede the establishment of the Israeli state and the general structure of our relations give us the responsibility to make such warnings and criticism," the statement read.

"We expect an explanation and apologies from Israeli authorities for the attitude against our Tel Aviv ambassador Oguz Celikkol, and the way this attitude was reflected," the Turkish foreign ministry said in a statement.

"We call on the Israeli Foreign Ministry, whose behavior and attitude towards our Tel Aviv ambassador did not comply with diplomacy, to obey courtesy rules," it said.

Meanwhile, Turkey's Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoğlu spoke on Tuesday during a press conference in London following his meeting U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband regarding his country's ties with Israel.

"Relations between Turkey and Israel will go back to normal once Israel returns to a pro-peace policy," he said, adding that "the Turkish government made great efforts to advance the peace process between Israel and Syria, but Israel's attack on Gaza harmed our efforts and has become an obstacle in our country's relations," he added.