|
By Chandra Muzaffar
For the first time in history
the human family as a single entity is faced with multiple global
crises, each of which has far-reaching implications for the future
of our species. These crises are not just the consequences of specific
events or even systemic flaws in say the global economic architecture.
They are related to fundamental values and deeply entrenched worldviews.
The solutions to these crises may require an unprecedented paradigm
shift— a radical shift in the way in which we look at ourselves,
at others, and at the planet that we inhabit. 
There is first the environmental crisis which has many dimensions
to it. Global warming and climate change which is the current focus
could lead to rise in sea levels and flooding and subsequent inundation
of human habitats. There could also be changes in agricultural yields
and droughts. The ranges of disease vectors could also increase as
a result of global warming. Even certain species could go extinct.
Droughts, linked to climate change, have been cited as one of the
reasons for the current food crisis. The conversion of food crops
to bio-fuel on a massive scale in countries like Brazil and the United
States is yet reason for the present food shortage. Neo-liberal capitalist
policies which advocate the opening up of agricultural economies in
the Global South to the importation of subsidised foods often from
the Global North have also led to the decline of food production in
various countries in Africa. The upshot of it all is the spread of
hunger and malnutrition within the poorer segments of their population.
The ordeal of the global poor has become worse partly because of
the energy crisis. As the price of fuel escalates, it is not just
the abysmally poor that suffer but also sections of the middle-class
who struggle to make ends meet. Speculation on fuel prices is undoubtedly
one of the principal causes of the continuous increase in the price
of the commodity, just as speculation on food prices, it is alleged,
has played some role in their hike. The steep decline in the value
of the US dollar is an equally valid explanation for the increase
in the price of fuel. Increasing energy consumption among the expanding
middle and upper classes in China and India would be yet another factor.
The decline of the US dollar is central to the global financial crisis,
our fourth crisis. In fact, the dollar links our third and fourth
crises. As we have hinted, the declining dollar with its adverse impact
upon fuel and food prices has increased the cost of living in many
parts of the world. More than the declining dollar, it is the dominance
of speculative capital in global financial transactions which has
brought misery and suffering to millions of people as economies are
destroyed and livelihoods wrecked. This is borne out by the negative
consequences of the rapid entry and exit of speculative capital into
various markets in Southeast Asia, Latin America and Russia in the
course of the last 15 or 20 years.
Apart from the four crises outlined here— environmental, food,
energy and financial (EFEF)— there are other global crises that
should also be highlighted. The possession and proliferation of nuclear
weapons, and indeed of all weapons of mass destruction, is a blight
upon the human race. Narrow, exclusive identity consciousness has
become stronger and stronger in almost every nook and cranny of the
planet. The family as an institution appears to have lost its inner
cohesion and strength in many different cultures right across the
globe.
The various crises that confront humankind at this stage of our history
are, as we have observed, inter-linked and inter-connected. In some
instances, wrong policies and distorted priorities explain the crises
that challenge us. In other instances, the dominant ideology of the
day is the primary cause. In this regard, neo-liberal capitalism,
the unofficial credo of the planet, with its emphasis upon private
gain as against the public good, has undoubtedly eroded the ethical
foundation of contemporary civilization. It has legitimized greed
and selfishness as no other ideology has in history. The earlier phases
of capitalism were less centered on the self, compared to its present
phase. It is largely because of the worldview, the structures of power
and the notion of the self associated with neo-liberal capitalism
that humankind today is faced with a whole spectrum of crises of global
proportions.
Can the human family get out of this morass? We can of course tinker
with the existing system, make some superficial changes here and there
but the underlying causes of our myriad crises will persist. For instance,
we can limit greenhouse emissions to check global warming in the present
context but if we want to ensure a sustainable, livable environment
for future generations, the upper stratum of society will have to
alter dramatically its consumption pattern and opt for a modest lifestyle,
devoid of extravagance and opulence. Similarly, we can check speculation
through taxation and circuit-breakers but if we do not adopt concrete
measures to curb the accumulation of wealth by a few, greed will continue
to express itself as a destructive social force. We can eliminate
nuclear weapons but if we do not build trust among nations and peoples
and nurture a profound respect for the sacredness of life, our fears
and our insecurities will compel us to invent new and more terrible
weapons of mass annihilation.
To curb greed and selfishness, to cultivate trust and respect, society
needs to develop a strong moral and spiritual foundation. The various
crises that face us today reveal that contemporary civilization is
in no position to achieve that spiritual and moral transformation
that will lift us out of this morass. History has shown us that it
is only when spiritual and moral values are firmly anchored in a transcendent
force —— a force that goes beyond the human being ——
that they will have the power and the potency to transform civilization.
This is why in seeking solutions to the challenges of our time we
should with all humility re-connect with the Transcendent, with the
Divine. As the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, the
late Dag Hammarskjold once put it, “On the bookshelf of life,
God is a useful work of reference, always at hand but seldom consulted.”
18 July 2008
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for
a Just World (JUST) and Professor of Global Studies at Universiti
Sains Malaysia.
back to top
By Chandra
Muzaffar
Three years ago the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) had charged
the British government then under Prime Minster, Tony Blair, and the
United States government of George Bush, with “ planning, preparing,
and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention
of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles”.
The Tribunal also charged the two governments, inter alia, with targeting
the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure; using
disproportionate force and weapons systems with indiscriminate effects,
such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium(du),
and chemical weapons; subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture
and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment ; and failing to protect
humanity’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage by allowing
the looting of museums and established historical sites and positioning
military bases in culturally and archeologically sensitive locations”.
These charges were made after serious deliberations
by the WTI’s 14 member Jury of Conscience of which I was a member.
The Jury met in Istanbul from 24 to 26 June 2005, at the end of a
series of 20 hearings held in different cities of the world, from
Barcelona and Brussels to Seoul and Stockholm. In Istanbul alone,
we heard 54 testimonies from a Panel of Advocates and Witnesses from
across the world, including Iraq, the US and Britain. The Panel was
headed by one of the world’s most distinguished authorities
on international law, Professor Emeritus Richard Falk.
Among the recommendations of the Jury were,
“that there be an exhaustive investigation of those responsible
for the crime of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity
in Iraq, beginning with George W. Bush, President of the United States
of America, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (Britain),
those in key decision-making positions in these countries and in the
Coalition of the Willing, those in the military chain-of-command who
master-minded the strategy for and carried out this criminal war,
starting from the very top and going down; as well as personalities
in Iraq who helped prepare this illegal invasion and supported the
occupiers”.
Though Blair has not been convicted by a court
of law like the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, mainly
because of the prevailing global power structure that privileges the
ruling elites of nations such as Britain and the US, the fact that
a Tribunal “ located in the collective conscience of humanity”
representing the citizenry of the world has charged him with war crimes
and crimes against humanity in Iraq, should make any peace-loving
person sit up and take notice. And yet, the University of Malaya saw
it fit to invite Tony Blair to deliver the 22nd Sultan Azlan Shah
Law Lecture on 1 August 2008 at the Mandarin Oriental Kuala Lumpur.
Has the University— specifically the organizers of the Lecture
series— forgotten that their guest speaker is the initiator
( together with Bush) of a unjust, immoral war that has already killed
more than 1.2 million people, the vast majority of them civilians,
and maimed tens of thousands of others? How could local human rights
lawyers and human rights activists who are quick to react to the slightest
human rights transgression in the country listen to the lecture of
a man who helmed a war borne of monstrous lies and monumental deception
— a war which because of the huge human carnage and the devastating
impact upon an entire nation constitutes the most heinous human rights
violation of the 21st century?
It is sad but true that the act of honouring
Tony Blair has demeaned the Sultan Azlan Shah Law Lecture series and
tarnished the University of Malaya.
Chandra Muzaffar
3 August 2008
back to top
By
Chandra Muzaffar
The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court ( ICC)
has alleged that the President of the Republic of the Sudan, Omar
Al Bashir, has committed the crime of genocide (Article 6 (a) ) of
the Rome Statute ( the statute under which the ICC was established)
; crimes against humanity ( Article 7 (1) ) of the Statute ;
and war crimes ( Article 8 (2) (e) (i) ) under the same law,
in the territory of Darfur.
The allegations are based upon statements from
eyewitnesses and victims of attacks in Darfur, recorded interviews
with Government of Sudan officials, statements from individuals who
possess knowledge of the activities of the government linked militia,
the Janjaweed, in Darfur, and documents from various other sources
including the United Nations.
If there is a central argument that runs through
all the allegations it is that President Al Bashir is determined to
eliminate three socially and politically dominant ethnic groups in
Darfur, namely, Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa. They are viewed as
a threat to his power. It should be emphasized that though in terms
of their ethnic origin, these groups are different from the tribes
aligned to the Al Bashir government who are labeled “Arabs”
, the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa also speak Arabic, are also Muslims
and are hardly distinguishable from the so-called “Arabs”.
The charges against Al Bashir are grave. They
should be investigated in an honest and impartial manner. If
Al Bashir is guilty, he should be punished severely, in accordance
with the law.
However, is a warrant of arrest from the ICC the best way of dealing
with Al Bashir? Will arresting him at this stage serve the larger
interest of the people of Darfur and the Sudan?
Quite apart from the fact that Sudan is not
a signatory to the Rome Statute, indicting Al Bashir will make it
even more difficult to revive the stalled peace process in Darfur.
It is feared that a sizeable segment of the Sudanese population that
supports Al Bashir will become even more antagonistic towards the
targeted ethnic groups in Darfur. The chasm that separates them from
the rest of the population in Darfur and the Sudan will become wider.
Charging Al Bashir could also affect the recently
concluded peace agreement between the government in Khartoum and the
South which brought to an end a 50 year civil war. If Al Bashir
feels that he is under siege, he or his followers could scuttle the
agreement. On the other hand, if the agreement holds and leads to
a more permanent peace, both the government and the ethnic groups
that are under attack in Darfur, may be persuaded to absorb some of
its features such as power sharing between different communities,
and decentralized administrative arrangements, into a future deal
between them.
Indeed, all those who cherish peace in Darfur
and would like to see justice and democracy prevail in the Sudan should
help the country move in the direction of greater autonomy for tribes
and provinces within the framework of a decentralized federation.
Sudan’s fellow members in the Arab League, the African Union
and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in particular
should encourage Al Bashir to take the necessary steps towards devolution
of power. China which reportedly buys almost two-thirds of Sudan’s
oil should also be asked to coax Sudan to transform its political
and administrative structure.
Of course, it is not going to be easy. Dictators
don’t relish sharing power. But what is the alternative?
Isn’t it significant that the very threat of arresting Al Bashir
has already strengthened his hold upon his people? This is why
one should try to overcome the Darfur tragedy through a different
route. Reviving the peace process should take precedence over everything
else. Together with the Khartoum-South peace accord, it could—
as we have suggested— lead to other fundamental political and
administrative changes. At the same time, one of the other major causes
of the Darfur tragedy— the conflict between subsistence farmers
( mainly non-Arab ethnic groups) and nomadic herders ( mainly Arab
groups) over water and land brought about to a great extent by the
encroaching Sahara Desert —— should be addressed urgently.
Irrigation of the land, rather than indictment of the President, is
what Darfur needs.
Unfortunately, the centres of power in the
West have a different view of the situation. They have given the impression
to the world that their conscience has been savaged by the alleged
genocide in Darfur. Can we believe them? If genocide is what
distresses Washington and its allies, how does one explain their lack
of concern over what is happening in another African state, the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) where “ as many as five million have
died since 1994 in overlapping convulsions of ethnic and state-sponsored
massacre?” As Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report
asks, “Why is mass death the cause of indignation and confrontation
in Sudan, but exponentially more massive carnage in Congo unworthy
of mention? The answer is simple: in Sudan, the US has a geopolitical
nemesis to confront: Arabs, and their Chinese business partners. In
the Congo, it is US allies and European and American corporate interests
that benefit from the slaughter. Therefore, despite five million skeletons
lying in the ground, there is no call to arms from the American government.”
It is not just the Congo. What has been the
response of Washington and European capitals to the ethnic cleansing
that has been going on in Palestine since 1948? The ethnic cleansing
that has appalled and angered Israeli intellectuals like Illan Pappe.
And if there are heads of state or heads of government who should
be indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, what about
the US’s George Bush or Britain’s Tony Blair in connection
with the unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, borne
of deceit and duplicity, and the subsequent carnage that has already
claimed a million lives?
So it is not genocide or war crimes that move
the centres of power in the West. Sudan has huge reserves of oil and
gas. It also possesses one of the largest deposits of high purity
uranium and copper in the world. Besides, it is strategically located
on the Red Sea and borders eight other African states. Since the late
eighties, Sudan has sought to assert its political independence and
refuses to yield to Washington’s hegemony.
What makes Sudan more of an adversary in Washington’s
eyes, is its close relationship to China and China’s dominant
role in its oil industry. China also sells arms to Sudan. For some
hawkish policy analysts, the Sudan-China tie fits in neatly with Huntington’s
discredited thesis of a Muslim-Confucian collusion to confront Western
civilization! In this regard, is the targeting of China in relation
to Darfur in the mainstream Western media part of a larger agenda
that is aimed at tarnishing China on the eve of the Beijing Olympics?
The Darfur conflict has provided the centres
of power in the West with yet another opening. Since there is —
though grossly exaggerated and distorted —- an Arab-non-Arab
dimension to the conflict, the media and a lot of Western NGOs present
Darfur as an example of Arabs slaughtering non-Arabs, specifically,
Africans. The conflict serves the interests of those who are set on
whipping up anti-Arab and even anti-Muslim sentiment in the West.
Darfur thus feeds into Islamophobia. It has become a magnet for right-wing
Zionists and the Christian Right who play a pivotal role in the Darfur
campaign in the US.
This is yet another reason why we have to approach
the Darfur conflict with circumspection. It is so inextricably intertwined
with the complexities of global culture, economics and politics, at
the kernel of which is the relationship between the centres of power
in the West and the rest of the world. However, in taking cognizance
of the global scenario, one should not, as the respected Sudanese
intellectual, Muddathir Abdel Rahim reminds us, minimize the culpability
of Al Bashir and the Khartoum government. The failure to put one’s
own house in order has contributed in no small measure to the tragedy
that is Darfur.
Chandra Muzaffar
22 July 2008
back to top
For more than six decades, the
Kashmiris have been confused about their identity. As a result, they
often try to compensate for the confusion by supporting cricket teams
of neighbouring countries, or by seeking solace from their own failures
through celebrating victories of others albeit without any real connections.
This has led Kashmiri identity [if at all there is one] into a state
of flux and mutation. The politics of Kashmir is no different; it
is built on reactions, press statements, few very limited demos, ‘all
hot air with no substance’.
From 1990 onwards, a myriad of groups, organisations, people and religious
and militant leaders and ‘intellectuals’ have claimed
to represent Kashmiris in various shapes, forms and denominations
with competing and often confusing claims. The sum up of the last
two decades of efforts on the Kashmir front can be best described
as naught. As the dead are buried on an almost daily basis, the haze
and fog around the ‘Kashmir Issue’ gets thicker by the
day and our leaders issuing statements of zero substance add further
confusion. Under such circumstances, any talk of solution to the Kashmir
problem is tad too ambitious.
During the last six decades, the Kashmiri leaders missed umpteen opportunities
including several during the last two decades. Sadly, it doesn’t
seem that there would be many such opportunities in near future and
hence one is left with this grim prognosis that the solution to the
Kashmir problem may never be found and while waiting for a solution,
Kashmir may ultimately be forgotten by all.
In the current geo-political order, the Kashmir issue has been forgotten
by the world community. After India and Pakistan embarked on a ‘peace
process’, Kashmir was no longer considered a ‘nuclear
flash point’. The international focus that was there in the
initial phase of the militant struggle has long waned.
The rude shock came when early in May this year Javier Solana, one
of the top most European politicians and the Secretary-General/High
Representative (SG/HR) for common foreign and security policy of the
European Union, brushed aside Kashmir saying that it was a bilateral
matter between India and Pakistan. This was the latest in the withdrawal
of any international support for the Kashmiris. After Pakistan was
forced by the US to retreat from its traditional support for the ‘right
to self-determination’ of Kashmiris, most of the world powers
and institutions have been supporting the idea that the Kashmir issue
should be solved bilaterally between India and Pakistan.
After decades of inaction by the United Nations due to its complicated
bureaucratic structure, some Kashmiris based in the West have been
harping upon the European Union and claiming that EU was interested
in solving the Kashmir problem. Millions of US dollars were spent
on Kashmir conferences around the world including in the EU to substantiate
the claim. However, hundreds of press releases notwithstanding, this
claim was destroyed by the clear statement of Javier Solana that EU
considers Kashmir a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. This
he stated recently in Pakistan indicating that such thinking may also
reflect the Pakistani government’s attitude.
The bilateral character of Kashmir is not a new phenomenon or position.
Both India and Pakistan have always maintained their ‘trusteeship’
of the respective portions of Jammu and Kashmir with the Pakistani
government claiming to represent the aspirations of Kashmiris on the
Indian side as well. However, during most of the last two decades,
Pakistan slightly shifted its position by maintaining that Kashmiris
should be allowed to decide their future. However, Pakistan has now
once again reverted to its earlier position claiming ownership of
the Kashmiri public under the rubric of the ‘peace process’.
The Pakistani rulers are on record to have openly opposed any move
that would see any change to its cartography that may lead to an independent
Kashmir. Therefore, there is parity between the Indian and Pakistani
positions on Kashmir that only needs to be formalised and accepted
by both the countries.
There is a general anger in Kashmir about this and many Kashmiri political
activists have expressed their frustrations amid the usual rantings
about Kashmiris being the sole ‘masters of their destiny’,
a statement that is rhetorical in every sense and misleading in every
syllable. Whether Kashmiri leaders realise this or not, any support
for the Kashmir case is dwindling by the day and they are left with
almost no bargaining power to deal with either India or Pakistan.
Under such circumstances, it is fair to say that if the Kashmir imbroglio
is left unattended it will die a natural but painful death over next
few decades.
Kashmiri ‘leaders’ — both the ones who have accumulated
huge wealth and those who are really concerned about Kashmir —
need to think about a possible strategy that will enable them to work
with both India and Pakistan to find some sort of respectable exit
from the morass that Kashmir has become. The continuous bloodshed
and uncertainty has been contained by both the powers within the confines
of the Line of Control and may not pose any danger to the two countries,
but it is certainly dangerous to the Kashmiri population on the Indian
side leaving the Kashmiri population vulnerable and open to further
dangers. Hence, it is necessary for some sort of accommodation with
both the powers for the necessary survival of Kashmir and its spirit.
31 July 2008
S.F. Ahmad is a Kashmir based Journalist working
with a London based Journal and website ‘Kashmir Affairs’
and a Srinagar based English daily newspaper ‘Kashmir Images’
as a correspondent and can be contacted at sajusfa_321@yahoo.co.in.
back to top
By
Abukar Arman
Naturally, the Somali people are anxiously trying to
find some sort of inspiration and are galvanized by the optimistic
appeal of this latest one. However, this is hardly unique.
Like a person lost in a desert for a long period finds hope and motivation
to survive upon seeing a desert mirage, Somalis found temporary comfort
to ease their desperate psyche in every one of the peace conferences
of the past.
That said, objective assessment of what was signed in Djibouti by
the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the Alliance for the
Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS) would require focus on the most critical
issues of contention.
Because, ultimately what renders any peace accord or a political
settlement as success or a failure is not the ensuing cheers and the
celebrations but whether or not the critical issues of contention
were legitimately and substantively addressed and indeed implemented.
More than any other factors these ensure what promises are kept and
what deadlines are met.
Of course for the TFG, the most critical issue was the cessation
of violence against the Ethiopian troops in Mogadishu and gaining
recognition from the ARS.
On the other hand, for the ARS, the most critical issue, as their
name indicates, was the “re-liberation” of Somalia from
neocolonialism, ending the daily oppression of the Ethiopian troops
and playing a role in the political future of Somalia. That being
the case, the logical question that begs an answer is: If the occupation
was (and remains to be) the very source of the insurgency, how would
then the `cessation of violence’ as a precondition be possible?
The ARS is now fragmented to at least four different groups. They
are the Jago Doon (position- seekers) whose primary goal is to be
appointed to a position of power by any means. The Jeeb Doon (money-seekers)
whose primary goal is to fill their proverbial pockets with whatever
monies they can get their hands on. The Jihaad Doon (Jihad-seekers)
whose primary goal is to drive Ethiopia out of Somalia, or die while
engaging the enemy head on, and the Jawaab Doon (answer-seekers,)
whose primary goal is to cultivate lasting peace through dialogue
and pragmatic negotiation.
There is no question that in politics it pays to be a pragmatist
who makes compromises and concessions when and where necessary. But
the pragmatist is as effective as his or her prudence and ability
to distinguish the fraud from the authentic.
It is implausible for the Ethiopian troops to pack and leave Somalia
in the specified period of time, especially when the language of the
agreement legitimizes their occupation. And, more importantly, affords
them a wiggling room to define or influence the definition of what
constitutes a “sufficient number of UN forces” (as they
are to leave Somalia only after such a vaguely infinite goal is attained).
Meles Zenawi did not decide to occupy Somalia for altruistic reasons
or out of neighborly dutifulness. So, it is virtually naïve to
assume that he no longer has plans to micromanage the rest of the
commenced peace process, and keep on violating the arms embargo. And
that he is not interested to buy more time (at least another 5 months,)
till the US elections are finalized and the fate of a lucrative enterprise
known as ‘ the global war on terror’ becomes clear.
The reality that the international community and many idealistic
Somalis would rather ignore is that the cessation of violence is highly
unlikely while the Ethiopian troops still remain in Somalia, and the
man known as Colonel Gabre continues to rule Somalia, as Professor
Hassan Mahadallah said, “...like a ruthless colonial governor
asserting his authority with great deal of impunity over the Somali
people and ironically the TFG itself.” The British Channel 4
has done a documentary expose (Warlords Next Door) in which Colonel
Gabre’s absolute power is featured.
The ARS negotiators were not oblivious to these facts and that their
most critical item was buried in the seventh article of an eleven
article agreement. There is a widely accepted view that they were
cornered to make some counterintuitive concessions.
The meeting was adjourned the day before the agreement was announced
with an ultimatum from the chairman that the parties will either agree
to a deal the next day or the conference will be aborted. This caused
the wire services to buzz with waves of ominous news that the conference
was about to fail. The next day there was a ceremony of frantic handshakes
and nervous smiles that gave birth to the current peace accord express.
Having said that, bringing lasting peace to Somali will require a
holistic approach. An approach that not only addresses all critical
issues of contention, but ensures the inclusion of all influential
actors and stakeholders and, in due course, brings the external influencers
such as Ethiopia and Eritrea to frame a multilateral comprehensive
peace plan.
Make no mistake; while the Somali problem is an internal conflict,
and most of the atrocious killings and human rights violations of
almost two decades were committed by Somalis against other Somalis,
it is the external element that pushed every peace process off track.
And while a thorough scrutinization of the peace accord is indeed
imperative in order to fix its detrimental holes, it is equally imperative
to prudently avert the development of any ill-advised campaign to
stir the old negative impulses of cynicism. It is incumbent upon all
Somalis from all sides of the political divide to find a way to patch
together this accord and its subsequent phases.
20 June 2008
Abukar Arman is a freelance writer who lives in Ohio,United States.
back to top
by Sanen Marshall
Why were Rizwaan Sabir and
Hicham Yezza arrested? The UK’s Terrorism Act 2006 makes a person
liable to criminal prosecution if the person ‘distributes or
circulates a terrorist publication,’ which might indicate that
the person is involved in plotting terror attacks. Rizwaan, a student
at the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham, had downloaded
an ‘Al-Qaeda training manual’ from the Internet and sent
it to his friend, Hicham, a university clerk at the School of Modern
Languages, for printing. The discovery of the document by other staff
at the School caused alarm. The university authorities responded by
calling in the police and this led to the arrests. The curious thing
about the above scenario was that the so-called manual was downloaded
from the US Department of Justice website. Rizwaan was in fact researching
terrorism for his postgraduate dissertation on radical Islam. The
manual can also be purchased on Amazon.com.
An article by three Nottingham academics in the Times Higher Education
Supplement thus questioned ‘whether UK universities will stand
up and defend academic freedom in the face of the potentially draconian
ramifications of anti-terror legislation.’ The University authorities
responded by reminding the public that above all “the incident
was triggered by the discovery of an ‘al Qaeda Training Manual’
on the computer of an individual [Hicham] who was neither an academic
member of staff, nor a student and in a School where one would not
expect to find such material being used for research purposes.”
The university authorities also emphasised that “there is no
‘right’ to access and research terrorist materials. Those
who do so run the risk of being investigated and prosecuted on terrorism
charges. Equally, there is no ‘prohibition’ on accessing
terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are
likely to be able to offer a defence to charges (although they may
be held in custody for some time while the matter is investigated).
This is the law and applies to all universities.”
Rizwaan was released without being charged after six days. His friend
Hicham, who is an Algerian national, was likewise released but swiftly
rearrested under an immigration charge. Hicham was incidently a former
student of the University of Nottingham before eventually becoming
a member of staff. Staff and students of Nottingham’s university
community who were indignant at the treatment of the two men, rallied
to their cause. Labour MP for Nottingham Alan Simpson remonstrated
that the incident at the university had its roots in the fiercely
opposed legislation against terrorism which was a ‘gift to al-Qaeda.
Because we would turn a pluralist, multiracial, inclusive society
into a society where your neighbour became the terrorist you no longer
knew.’ Hicham told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that ‘someone
could be forgiven, in this current climate, for panicking at this
type of document. But I would have appreciated had I been given five
minutes simply to answer the questions relevant to the document. Once
the procedure was launched it was quickly out of the university’s
hands.’
The ‘current climate’ is one of heightened fear and suspicion.
In the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, the UK’s Independent
newspaper reported chairman of the UK Bar Council human rights committee
Peter Clarke’s evaluation that even possessing the ‘A-Z
of London’ travel guide could now be considered as ‘possessing
items that were of potential use to a terrorist.’ Barely a year
ago, the UK’s security services were at the highest level of
terrorism alert after two car bombs were discovered in London and
a flaming vehicle was driven into a Glasgow airport terminal. Earlier
this year, MI5 indicated that it wanted full access to the Oyster
(swipe) card database that contain the travel habits of millions of
passengers on London’s rail and bus services. The average Londoner
must already be one of the most heavily watched persons in the world,
getting caught on cctv 300 times a day.
But at the university level, it is the prospect of profiling in the
surveillance that has raised the most controversy. A leaked document
obtained by the Guardian reported in late 2006 that under guidelines
drawn up by the Department of Education and Skills ‘ministers
are to ask staff to spy on “Asian looking” or Muslim students,
informing special branch of anyone they suspect of being involved
in Islamic extremism.’ The Guardian at the time reported joint
general secretary of the University and College Union Paul Mackney’s
‘concern that we were being sucked into a kind of Islamic McCarthyism
which has major implications for academic freedom, civil liberties,
and blurring of the boundaries between the illegal and the possibly
undesirable.” The Independent likewise noted recently that some
academics are ‘now talking of the pressure they face to become
“police informers” on their students.’
This police-university interface has persisted through the changeover
from the Blair administration to the Brown administration. Soon after
coming to power, Prime Minister Gordon Brown convened a meeting involving
key Government officials and university representatives. The result
was the guidelines on ‘promoting good campus relations, fostering
shared values and preventing violent extremism.’ While the guidelines
aspire to some noble ideals of ‘maintaining academic freedom
whilst ensuring that extremists can never stifle debate or impose
their views,’ it also asks UK universities to ‘think about
the implications for staff and other students, how they should be
supported and how best to work with the Police.’
In a wider social context, Brown had also risked a major revolt from
members of the Labour Party when he tried and narrowly succeeded in
extending the maximum period of preliminary detention of those arrested
under the Terrorism Act from 28 days to 42 days. Interestingly, the
support from the Democratic Unionist Party played a crucial role in
voting in the amendment. Many unionists will surely remember the days
when ‘internment’ was used in Northern Ireland, mainly
against their republican rivals. But even at the height of the Irish
Republican Army’s (IRA) bombings in London and other cities
in England, this practice of internment without trial was never applied
to the UK as a whole. Rizwaan, speaking to the Guardian shortly before
the passing of the amended bill, claimed that ‘42 days is a
sentence in itself.’
Recalling his experience, Rizwaan declared that ‘a minute goes
like an hour and an hour like a day inside a cell … You lose
all concept of day or night. There are no emotions: you can’t
cry, you can’t laugh…Six days felt like six years. I dread
to think what 42 days would feel like….’
26 July 2008
Sanen Marshall is a long-time member of JUST
back to top
by Brian Bogart
Chronicling
the Rise of US Government Dependence on Conflict
In analyzing President Dwight “Ike”
Eisenhower’s keep-an-eye-on-the-defense-industry speech of January
1961 alongside bipartisan excuses for war in Iraq, only Eisenhower’s
warnings stand up to current United States Department of Defense statistics.
Outsourcing trends, hugely accelerated in the 1990s, have made the
Department of Defense the largest corporate entity in history. Few
big corporations in the world don’t have a handy cash-cow D
contract, and small businesses and schools are
especially welcome to apply. ($900 per toilet seat? Let’s sell
those!)
DoD contracts are dished out everyday for everything from children’s
books, cosmetics, organic dinners, and movie theater tickets to good
old-fashioned nano weaponry.
Hundreds of thousands of companies in 198 nations and territories
hold prime contracts with DoD, including companies in China, Cuba,
Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Syria. (“Prime” doesn’t
count contracted individuals and subcontracted companies.)
There were none in Iraq until 2003.
Defense is the world’s top user of fossil fuels, contributor
to climate change, and most financially alluring industry, with the
strongest lobby power in Washington and everywhere else. Defense is
also the world’s foremost motivator of advanced science and
technology, a global network capable of an entirely new direction
in economics—dependent, of course, on whether it’s a good
D policy or a bad D policy.
That’s where We the People come in, at least according to President
Eisenhower, who particularly worried about our universities.
Said Ike: “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel
the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of
defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and
liberty may prosper together. In the same fashion, the free university,
historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery,
has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly
because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes
virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of
domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project
allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely
to be regarded.”
Judging by DoD’s own stats, we’re way past that point.
More than 1,100 colleges and universities have had prime contracts
with the Department of Defense in the last six years. Around 950 of
those are in the United States, with the rest spread across 33 countries.
Although the number of DoD general assistance contracts to schools
remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2006, the 900% increase
in defense-applied research contracts and total dollar amounts awarded
to schools during that period would’ve made Ike toss his lunch
on TV. The total number of defense-applied research contracts to schools
rose from 5,887 in 2000 to 52,667 in 2006. Total dollars to schools
rose from $4.4 billion in 2000 to $46.7 billion in 2006.
DoD contract trends are at all-time highs, with more than 300,000
prime contractors in the United States alone; a 6,000 companies-per-state
average. (Additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of subcontracted
companies and individuals.) Between 2001 and 2006, the total amount
of defense dollars for prime contractors in most states doubled. For
fiscal year 2001, companies in Texas received $9.5 billion. For fiscal
year 2006, the total was $27 billion.
Between the end of World War II and December 2006, US armed forces
served abroad in 159 instances. These military operations increased
each decade, with 6 in the 1950s, 8 in the 60s, 11 in the 70s, 22
in the 80s, 66 in the 90s, and 44 so far this decade.
Campaigns run on strong defense for a reason: Defense is by far the
largest job creator and money spender, and the dispersal of contracts
to an ever-growing variety of companies in the 50 states and beyond
continuously motivates representatives to approve defense-spending
increases.
A bad defense policy takes the people’s taxes then leaves them
out of the loop, gives businesses the taxes to invest in their financial
growth and spreads weaponry and tensions worldwide. We pay defense,
defense showers that money on schools and companies, and top executives
buy yachts and build stadiums. State and local leaders then raise
taxes to cover what taxes should cover: the people’s health
and prosperity.
A bad defense policy also means presidential candidates who don’t
promise increased defense spending
have little or no chance of equal coverage in any party, thanks to
Big Media’s industrial role and Big Money’s role in politics.
Good folks put their faith, families, careers, and lives on the line
for what they’re told by government. They don’t have time
to investigate what drives it. Every September 11 America’s
leadership bows its collective head before reminding people to keep
shopping in “the wealthiest nation” while its infrastructure
crumbles. This year the most-evil enemy told us to think about that.
With a graduate program untangling defense statistics, it did make
me wonder: which “side” in this supposedly black and white
world has the most evil to hide?
Also this September 11, MSNBC aired a commercial-filled two-hour
replay of NBC’s broadcast of the 2001 event, in which a news
anchor said, “(Bin Laden) is in Afghanistan.” Disturbingly,
the replay broke for a live news update, in which a news anchor said,
“President Bush will address the nation on the war in Iraq this
week.”
So much for Afghanistan.
It would better serve the people to hear Eisenhower’s speech
every year instead of hollow tales about a bad guy leaders tell us
to fear yet, convenient for their personal-wealth club, apparently
don’t see fit to chase down. Exploiting September 11 for profit
has (among other things) legitimized the largest-ever expansion of
the military industry using a nation that had nothing to do with it.
That perpetuation indeed smells like bipartisan imperialism.
Whether you’re a student or selling ice cream, teddy bears,
tennis balls, shovels, or oil rigs, chances are you’re connected
to the defense industry. We join the club with our taxes. Worse, overall
trends show that in this age of confrontation with Earth’s definition
of diversity, truly hard-working diverse Americans—workers,
students, parents, soldiers—are harnessed with a national brand
of business-friendly diversity that makes them equal low-income slaves
to an old-fashioned, wealthy white man’s profit scheme. Ike
called it unwarranted influence. Our founders called it tyranny.
Diversity is an awareness of the human family returning to unity
after a long and tortuous journey, celebrating its products of division
while embracing its single origin and destiny. The next logical step
for humanity is a leap beyond
human-centric diversity to perceiving and promoting the human family
as a fully responsible component of biodiversity.
As Ike feared, economic dependence on defense growth by the perpetuation
of tensions since World War II helps explain the existence of nearly
every problem we face today. Undoubtedly, he would agree that economic
dependence on defending Earth’s essential diversity is a far
more healthy, lucrative, and lasting prospect.
Our taxes pay for a defense that doesn’t defend our future.
Our taxes go to companies that make profits we will never see. The
real threat President Eisenhower spoke of is a drug that poisons society,
spreads like a virus, and numbs the roots of consciousness. The American
dream has become a nightmare wherein justice is irrelevant and dishonest
leaders both shun and cite hard, courageous work.
The defense industry juggernaut is not a widespread corporate conspiracy;
it’s a bad-policy business trend running on inertia. Instead
of calling for contractors to give up their profits—an unlikely
scenario—the people have the power to demand a good defense
policy that invests the vast network in a healthy planet.
Peace will not make money until it becomes the policy for defense,
and that won’t happen without a tax rebellion, general strike,
or similar surge in popular demand.(1,100 schools sounds like a student
movement network) Until the day we have a good D, the bad D pays our
leaders. The people’s business is making that day arrive, because
lazy government won’t surrender without a confrontation with
the governed.
Meanwhile, “we must stop the terrorists in Iraq!” Terrorists,
communists, whatever. Business-wise, Vietnam never ends.
That’s where we are.
At a 1992 University of Oregon event discussing the American people
and their government, author Ken Kesey declared, “There are
times when you gotta stand up in church and shout ‘bullshit!’”
That time is now.
17 September 2008
(Sources: Statistical Information Analysis Division, Department of
Defense; FY2000 through FY2006 CASE Multi-year Educational Nonprofits
Prime Contracts, ST25 Multi-year States and Territories Prime Contracts,
ST26 Multi-year Foreign Country Prime Contracts; and “Instances
of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2006,” updated
January 8, 2007 by Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist
in National Defense, US Congressional Research Service.)
Brian Bogart is a peace studies graduate student,
diversity scholar, and defense statistics analyst at University of
Oregon. His thesis project follows the 60-year trend of acquiring
what President Dwight Eisenhower termed the “unwarranted influence”
of the defense industry by government.
Sources at IntelligentFuture.org
back to top.
ETERNAL TRUTHS
Devote yourself to justice — Uphold the rights
of the orphan; defend the cause of the widow
— Isaiah, Jewish Prophet. (740 —
682 BCE)
“In this world hatred is never appeased by hatred;
hatred is only appeased by love.
This is an eternal law.”
— Dhammapada, 1-5
(Buddhist scripture containing the verse spoken by Gautama Buddha)
(563 -483 BCE)
Do not do to others,
what you do not want others to do to you.
— Kong Fuzi [Confucius] (551 -479 BCE)
Those who would take over the earth
and shape it to their will
Never, I notice succeed.
The earth is like a vessel so sacred
That at the mere approach of the profane
It is marred
— Lao Tze, Taoist philosopher (4th Century
BCE)
O Master, grant that I may not seek so much to be
consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we
Are born to eternal life.
— Francis of Assisi, Christian saint
(1182-1226)
“The human race is a single being
Created from one jewel
If one member is struck
All must feel the blow
Only someone who cares for the
pain of others
Can truly be called human”
— Shaykh Sa’adi, Muslim poet and
philosopher (1184 -1283)
“The lamps are different, but the Light is the
same: it comes from Beyond”.
— Jalaluddin Rumi, universal mystic
and philosopher (1207 -1273)
As Fragrance abides
In the flower
As reflection is within the mirror,
So does your Lord abide
Within you
Why search for
Him without?
— Guru Nanak ( 1469-1539) founder of
the Sikh religion.
How can we buy or sell the sky or the warmth of the
land? S
uch thoughts to us are inconceivable. We are not in possession of
the freshness of the air, or the water’s bubbles.
Every corner of this land is holy to my people.
They remain holy in the memory of my people — from the sparkling
pine leaves, the sandy beaches and the mist of dark brooding forests,
to the songs of insects.
— Indigenous American Chief, Seattle
(1786 -1866).
The day is approaching when all the peoples of the world will have
adopted one universal language and one common script. When this is
achieved, to whatsoever city a man may journey, it shall be as if
he were entering his own home.
— Baha’u’llah ( 1817-1892)
founder of the Bahai Faith.
“There is enough in the world for everyone’s
need, but not enough for everyone’s greed”
— Mahatma Gandhi, Hindu political leader
(1869 – 1948)
|
