Kofi Annan’s peace plan’s weakness inspite of Russia and China’s support

On 20th March, Russia stated that it was ready to support France’s presidential statement to UN, procuring Kofi Annan’s peace plan. Suddenly, both Russia and China who had shielded Syria by vetoing against 2 UN resolutions, have changed their alignment.

On the other hand, Kofi Annan who met Assad last month could not create immediate results. In fact, the terms and conditions of his diplomatic talk with Assad have not been made public. Well, I wonder if they would have anyways received more importance than the sudden email leads of Assad and his cosmopolitan wife. These emails storming the news media, perhaps have become a new face of ‘information propaganda war’.

Without meticulous analysis, a common man watching Syrian news is revealed that Assad has been getting guidance from Iran and his father-in-law in London to squash the rebels. Similar to it was the leaked Barbara Walter’s interview preparation when Assad was shown to learn how to give an interview infront of the American public.

Kofi Annan’s peace plan

Turning back to Kofi Annan’s peace plan, it includes 6 points like, both the sides should end violence, daily pauses for humanitarian assistance, release of political prisoners and access to journalists, freedom of assembly for protest and above all, the Syrian government and opposition should work in good faith. Well, the peace plan is a statement and not a resolution that can be legally binded. It portrays nothing but another feeble attempt from the side of West to conquer the Middle East.

‘Different dance for China and Russia’

What disturbs more is that both China and Russia are changing sides. This swift change was perhaps visible from the very time Moscow stated that it would not be granting asylum to Assad. Well, Russia cares for Tartus, its military and its arms trade. It was surprising that it was Tunisia’s president Moncef Marzouki who stated asylum for Assad, not just once but three times, eventually declining his offer. As far as China is concerned, it is anyways known for its ‘transactional diplomacy‘ which involves globe trotting all over the world with a fat checkbook in hand. Both Russia and China are quasi allies, after all, they both were communist blocs, hungry to export their revolutions, all around the world. Their security dilemma and hatred for the West has bought them closer, but how will this relationship affect Syria?

Lessons from Libya, Egypt and Tunisia

On the other hand, perhaps no one is learning from Libya. The NATO unilateralism in Libya has segmented the country between demands of federalism rising amid Benghazi and Tripoli. The Interim government has yet not pursued the war crimes. The Truth and Reconciliation commission is a farce, nothing else. Though, all TRCs have their own problems.

Like the one in South Africa only heard the grievances of 20,000 victims in the anti-aparthied struggle while others were simply forgotten. At the same time, even UN is not forcing these commissions to investigate human rights abuses.

While Egypt is now marching towards Presidential elections and Muslim Brotherhood has finally stated that they would have their own nominee, also. But the government is still ruled by the military and the parliament is just a ceremonial institution. This has made is very difficult for Egypt to obtain a $3.2 billion loan from the IMF.

Turning to Tunisia, the country seems to follow the Turkish model of democracy and rule of law, as it celebrated its Independence day from France in 1956 on 20th March. Tunisian presidents and foreign ministers are engrossed in talking about Libya, setting firms in Italy, petrol prices and welcoming Turkey’s President.

‘Syria’s revolution spills’

Also, Syria’s turmoil will not be limited to its own geopolitics. Lebanon, right now, who played the role of silent supporter for Syria, is facing the consequences. The shells fired in Syria has already started hitting the Lebanese border village of al-Qaa, where severally Syrian refugees are currently hiding. Similarly, the Libyan revolution did spill to Mali while the Egyptian to Sudan. Therefore, with the kind of geopolitical importance that Syria has, the chess board might utterly change, if its revolution gets exported.

‘Turkey and Syria: Is a military confrontation near?’

Meanwhile, in a very discreet manner, Turkey has started establishing a buffer zone at the Syrian side. 500 soldiers have already arrived to look over the current scenario and the migration of refugees. Well, this entire plan, without the knowledge or prior consent of the Damascus regime can lead to military confrontation if Turkey does not play the right cards. The entire situation puts Turkey in a very unconformable situation because it has to also seal its border from the influx of Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) along with the Syrian refugees. Right from last year August, Turkey has been conducting air strikes against the Kurdish camps in Iraq. Few leaked reports have stated that Syrian regime employs Kurdish militia to maintain control over the northern regions- a reason well enough to anger the Turkish Armed Forces.

Russian Navy and Syria’s future?

Recently, there has also been another rumour that a Russian navy has landed a tanker in Syria on its Tartus port. It involves ‘anti-terrorism’ marines to further squash the rebels.  Well, the Damascus regime has currently negated the rumour. Nevertheless, just like the ‘Friends of Syria’ meeting in Tunisia last month, the Kofi Annan Peace Plan seems to fall flat. With Damascus regime being tight lipped, its even difficult to predict the consequences. The May elections predicted by Bashar al Assad would be the next important issue to look at.

Book Review: Seeking Mandela-Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians

Shimon Peres, after meeting Mandela in 1993 wrote, ‘Two persecuted people, the black South Africans and the Jews, celebrate a new future.’
Starting with this arresting analogy, the book ‘Seeking Mandela- peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians’ tries to test if the ideology of ‘One Man, One Vote‘ can ever operate in Israel/Palestine Conflict.

This is the fourth co-authored book of the couple Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley. The writing is in-depth, flawless and portrayed in a very appealing manner. The authors give a political, psychological, emotional, physical and above all, spiritual peep into the daily lives of the people involved in the conflict. The book does not limit itself to just Israel, Palestine and South Africa but touches India, Latin America, United States European countries, while detailing its various case studies.

The authors believe that Israel Palestine conflict is further worsening as both sides are involved in moralising, theologising, medicalising and personalising the conflict. They also expose other issues including Palestinians being politically seduced to act as traitors, existence of refuseniks from Israeli military who disobey to follow the mandatory conscription in the occupied territories. The question if Hamas and Fatah adopt ‘civil disobedience’ and ‘non-violence’ as their key mantras like Mahatma Gandhi did in India’s freedom struggle is also raised. But the real narrative and interview pieces of the victims reveals the abysmal reality, since the Israel-Palestine conflict has already passed that point.

As both South Africa and Israel are colonial settler societies, the book states that the South African model of post conflict reconciliation may inspire revision of certain workable policies. The Truth Commission and its flaws are heavily criticised, like the absence of academics or members of anti-ANC party in the 17 member body.

It is also revealed that increased polarisation with Israel/Palestine could spill over into inter-group relations in South Africa, especially between the Muslim Judicial Council And Jewish Board of Deputees. Though, both South Africa and Israel have fostered relationships because of the growing urge in SA politicians to teach peaceful conflict resolution techniques and hosting of international conferences in post-apartheid state.
A brief history of South Africa is also included in the book which allows the reader to develop a relationship with the country, further understanding its foundations. But is just acts as a tool intelligently used by the authors to differentiate South Africa from Israel.

Both these countries are also different in terms of economic power balance. Israeli economy can function without Palestinian labour but the same was not true in South Africa. Black population was necessary, giving rise to migration from the Bantustans.  Over and over, the authors state that Israel/Palestine conflict would never end till a third party intervention takes place. Both Adam and Moodely have done a brilliant job by stating the views of well know historians, journalists, academics, political leaders, army generals and even innocent civilians. Every page is educating though eventually, the entire hypothesis falls flat when they both suggest that there’s no need to seek Palestinian Mandela as his presence would not solve the issue.

Why did the US soldier kill 16 Afghans?

On 12th March, Jon Snow wrote a blog on ‘The remoteness of modern war‘ where he discusses the war in Afghanistan.

He states, ‘It is when a soldier goes berserk and kills 16 Afghans, nine of them children, or a when direct hit steals six British lives from an “impregnable” armoured vehicle, that war lurches back into awareness.’

The rift in US-Afghanistan relationship started mushrooming after the Quran burning incident by NATO. Soviet style rallies and protests carried on for a week, demanding apology and eradication of the soldiers. Unlike his stand in Libya after NATO bombed civilian tanks, President Obama did apologise. It does not matter for the Pathans/ Pasthuns anymore because their radical indifference and nonchalance has been catalysed by stupendous momentum from such enraging acts of the west. Sectarian violence and civil war, and above all, the usage of Afghanistan to devastate Al-Qaeda soon after the country was breaking out from USSR’s clutches, leaves an indelible memory of pain. An opprobrium.

But the recent, almost paroxysm of epilepsy in which a US soldier killed 16 Afghans, nine out of whom where children, speaks another story.

This incident did not happen in response to answering back the ‘barbaric’ Afghans after their showed the mettle to protest against NATO. Rather, it goes back to the very moment the respective US Soldier was forced into mandatory conscription service. An average cosmopolitan American, patriotic and not just loyal to his American identity, took the risk. Life in Afghanistan is difficult, and different from life in a colonised country. This soldier knows nothing of Shia-Sunni strife, Pathans and their Taliban links, Al-qaeda and its locations, customary laws, culture and above all language. For him, Afghanistan is barbaric and he carries the burden of cleansing the blemish. Something similar to what Europeans believed when they captured Cape of Good Hope in South Africa in 1652. Benn Morris defends such attitude, stating ethnic cleansing is better than genocide against yourself.

Now, armed with flawless hi-tech arms and ammunition, this US soldier, ignorant but brave, has been given the order to shoot anyone/anytime, if he feels danger. There is a difference here. He can shoot when he ‘feels’ danger rather than when he ‘faces’ it. Tightly grouped in his units, he shares loyalty to other soldiers, their safety and perceptions. War becomes the pornography of violence for him. Just like teenagers play with fast, animated war games, his deployment gives him the same adrenaline rush. No one questions him. No one orders him. The Afghans are anyways ‘illiterate‘, ‘poor‘ and ‘meaningless‘ creatures for him. Life becomes abstract and so does its values and principles. That US soldier, initially did not know that he would cause deaths of several innocent civilians. He also did not know that one day, he will reach to a point when it wont matter to him. One day, one of his own soldiers would die after being killed by Pathans/Taliban. Second day, perhaps the IED would explode exactly where he stood, saving him in the nick of time. Blood, vomit, alcohol will be all he sees. And slowly life and death, would prove unnecessary to care about.

When one reads newspapers, one knows about the figures involved in such a mad spree. How many died and who killed whom? But it is never publicly mentioned about the psychological condition of the soldiers. We will be shocked to know how many of them suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. The life they would live after they are sent back to US would not only change them, but also their relation with their country. Many veterans and retired soldiers find it hard to be patriotic after they witness how diplomacy actually functions.

Modern warfare and cold peace are still struggling to find answers to such a phenomenon. Perhaps, one day, we might have one.

Sharia Law and democratisation of Islam by Said Ferjani

In spite of the fact that ‘Sharia Law’ is not known by many of us, it somehow exudes unknown fear and abstract ambiguity. The law in itself is so technical and in-depth that even those who follow political Islamic news would find it quite difficult to decipher.

To erase this ignorance, Said Ferjani, from Ennada Party of Tunisia spoke about ‘Shariah Law and Democratization by Islam’

 Ferjani stated that the concept of democracy had initially evolved in Athens. Though, he did mention that every religion does follow certain principles of democracy, here and there. But it was not strictly practised as an ideology in Islam. Islam needs to make democracy more systematic.

Explaining on how Islam would direct a flawless system of governance, Ferjani mentioned three main pillars of Sharia Law. He narrated these below mentioned verses (translated in English) from Quran which further support his ideology.

1. Children of Adam have been honoured and diginified. They are all human beings. Every human is a value in himself. Its necessary to cherish humanity. So, Sharia law gives every human being the preference and hence, no injustice would be done to him.
2. God has created no particular order that should be followed to worship him. But in order to have the religious worship accepted, men have devised their own ways. Hence, the Sharia law gives importance to knowledge and freedom. These are the most important aspects needed to actually worship God. This is because God does not want people to worship him. He has his own angels. But without knowledge and freedom, nothing matters and even the most served thing would have no value.
3. The most beloved people amongst us are those who benefit other people and work for others. The great must always help the poor. Hence, people who are crooked are the enemies of Sharia itself.

As Sharia Law follows these principles it can never go wrong in governing its own people.

Book Review: ‘Mirror of the Arab world: Lebanon in Conflict’ by Sandra Mackey

‘Mirror of the Arab world: Lebanon in Conflict’ starts on an acquisitive role of cruising into the labyrinth of Arab world by Sandra Mackey. The author has earlier written books on the Saudis, the Iranians and Iraq- the legacy of Saddam Hussein.

Mackey, an award winning veteran journalist believes that ‘It was never religion but language that paved way for the Arab world.‘ She supports her argument with the extinction of Babylonians, Assyrians and Phoenicians who in spite of being resilient, could not master the art of language. The book gives a simple, easy-to-read analysis of the difference between Shia and Sunnis, along with the historical background of Druzes and Maronite Christians. She calls Maronites as the ‘mountain people’ while Muslims inhabited the coastal plains.

The author does not explain fundamental facts that Pope Urban II started the First Crusade and how Jerusalem was captured in 1099. But slowly she manages to establish a faint connection between the last Crusaders and Maronites towards Western Catholicism, without delving into historic details.

The book exposes an animated and behind-the-doors policy that took place at the Paris Conference convened at Versailles on January 18, 1919 to end the First world war. British PM David Lloyd George and French PM Georges Clemenceau are shown to jettison Woodrow Wilson’s ideas in order to pursue their respective interests in Middle East. Slowly the September 1920 launching of Great Lebanon is discussed along with the National Pact of 1943 that took place between Maronite President Bishara Khouri and Sunni PM Riad Solh. The book acknowledged that Lebanon got her independence from France in 1943 while other historical databases claim it to be 1941.

Mackey tries to draw an analogy between ‘Zaims‘, those who stood for public office and ‘Zuamas‘ who had government contracts position in the bureaucracy. With more prominence given to Zuamas, the author somehow overshadows the ‘Zaims’ and hence, the reader is not able to create his/her own understanding. This kind of fallacy can also be noticed at the beginning of every chapter where Mackey tries to connect Lebanon with Palestine, Bahrain, Iraq or Saudi Arabia just to make her narrative look like a entire mirror of the Arab world. This attempt fails as it obstructs the reader when he/she is trying to grasp Lebanon’s politics in a flow.

In the chapter ‘Palestinians- Victims and Villains‘, Mackey explains how ‘Al Baqaa’ in Hebron, West Bank, is the largest Jordanian concentration of Palestinians. She believes ‘Arabs have also oppressed Palestinians in their own government’s. Then follows an entire history of Romans possessing Palestine in 63 BC with Jews rising against Romans in 70 AD and then how the Jews were scattered in the diaspora by 135 AD. Eventually, the book targets the ‘Black September’ of 1970 and states that No Arab ruler helped the Palestinians. Though, other historical databases mention that Hafez Assad helped for a month but had to retreat due to Jordanian Army.

In the chapter ‘Woe be to the State‘, Mackey describes Lebanon as the ‘Jewel of the levant’. She narrates how in 1970, New president Suleiman Franjieh was considered the direct descendant of the Crusader. The emergence of Phalange (militia of Maronite warlords) and Zghortan military men is discussed in great detail. The Lebanese National Movement that includes Kamal Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party (Druze), Syrian National Party (Greek Orthodox and Sunnis), Amal (Shia) and Secular Ba’ath Socialist Party (Iraq and Syria) is explained in an interesting manner.

The author talks about the Green Line that divided Muslim west Beirut with the Christian East. She also exposes how Syria played the devil’s advocate by first defending Maronites so that an attack by Israel can be dodged but later switched towards Muslims. Though the book fails to give in-depth information about the Taif Accords that terminated the civil war in Lebanon and why Lebanon citizens did not respect it.

In the end, either Mackey looses the enthusiasm to narrate Lebanon’s history or got confused in the labyrinth herself. The last two chapters ‘A tale of four countries’ and ‘Islam as Politics’ are monotonous and repetitive. Even though this book was written in 2008, Mackey fails to give well established narrative of Hezbollah and especially, Hassan Nasrallah.Not much is discussed about Rafik Hariri and how Israel launched military campaign in 2006 against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Overall, the book oscillates from being superficial to in-depth. In 266 pages, it tends to be a substantive analysis of Lebanon, especially for those who had less or no idea about the country from before.

Israel’s Nuclear Power: A graver issue than Iran’s nuclear potential

As Israeli ‘Agent 83’ hogs for a million dollar applause after predicting the intricate details of Iranian nuclear bomb, it seems quite reasonable to smirk at the imbalance in Middle Eastern politics. While Iran is being criticized by IAEA Chief Yukiya Amano for not being transparent enough about its nuclear programme, no one is questioning Israel for its ‘Policy of Nuclear ambiguity’. Right from 1948, this nuclear opacity, that has been intelligently social engineered by Israel. It provides political investments, existential deterrence benefits, immunity and monetary advantages to Israel to secure more modernised nuclear arsenals.

‘If Arabs have oil, we have the matches.’

When Mordechai Vanunu, a technician who worked at the Dimona Nuclear Facility disclosed the details of Israel’s nuclear capacity on 5th October 1986 to London Sunday Times, he mentioned that at that particular time, Israel already had 200 bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, Jericho warheads, neutron bombs and boosted devices. Over the past years, Israel has developed low yield Neutron bombs which would destroy troops with minimal destruction caused to nearby property. They also have ‘tiny-nukes’ and ‘micro-nukes’ for attacking point targets. Their sea launch capability is secured through submarine launched nuclear missiles which operate in 350 km range. Oman, with its past record of unofficial relationship with Israel is the perfect option for carrying out second strikes of ‘Nuclear missile capable submarines‘ against Iran. Also, the 1994 Accord with Jordan grants limited Israeli military presence in the country. Taking into consideration Ariel Sharon, perhaps rightly said ‘If Arabs have oil, we have the matches.’

‘Nuclear power: Crusade Against Holocaust’

Israel’s struggle for nuclear capability started right from 1948. Ben Guiron believed that ‘Science would compensate Israel for what nature had denied‘, referring to the Holocaust and massive manslaughter of Jews by the Nazi regime. He was helped by his two close associates, namely, Professor Ernst Bergmann and Simon Peres. Professor Bergman founded the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission and as a scientific advisor, had close relations with Francis Perrin, who himself was a member of French Atomic Energy Commission. Israel would gather French support in terms of nuclear reactors and repossessing plant. Simon Peres played an integral role in strengthening the French-Israeli Nuclear deal as the young director General of Ministry of Defense. This deal had initiated even before the 1956 Suez Canal campaign started. In fact, it was secretly signed on 3rd October 1957.

‘Strengthening of the French Connection’

Well both, Israel and France had their own selfish reasons for developing their embryonic relationship. The nuclear research capability to France had been limited after Second World War. It found itself behind US, USSR, UK and even Canada. When President Nasser of Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, Ben Gurion got worried and ordered the development of nuclear and chemical weapons. Gurion had started growing skeptical of Czech-Egyptian arms agreement of 1955.  So, Israel needed a political/economic saviour and France readily became one. After all, France wanted to use Israel as its asset against its fight in Algeria. Though, in 1958, when French President de Gaulle came to power, he terminated the French participation in Israel’s nuclear empowerment.

After the sudden stoppage of French supply, Israel had to import Uranium oxide from Belgium. It utilised the West German Front Company for this purpose under the ‘Operation Plumbat‘. This covert operation undertaken by Mossad violated the Euratom control of nuclear materials. Norway, later, sold 20 tons of heavy water to Israel in 1959.

‘Assasination of Kennedy: End of Questioning Israel’

It was on 23rd December 1960, under US pressure, when Ben Gurion was forced to reveal to the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) that 24 megawatt research reactor that it used was meant for peaceful purpose. It was perhaps the last time an official statement regarding Israel’s nuclear capability was made.

May 1961, President Kennedy had started threatening Israel for not being more transparent and that he would be sending US Scientists to Israel.  But his assassination proved to be the last honest attempt of US against Israel. President Johnson was pro-Zionist, had suffered bitter memories of the holocaust himself during the second world war and did not really care about Israel’s nuclear power. It was later in 1968 when the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty was formed with the co-sponsorship of US.

Initially, Israel was pressurized to sign up for NPT and only then it would receive Phantom aircraft from America. Later, this mandatory demand was wiped out. In return, on 11th March 1965, a cable was sent from the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Washington stating that PM Levi Eshkol has declared that ‘Israel would not the the first to introduce nuclear power in the Middle East’. This declaration has become like a mantra, repeated on and on by Israeli Prime Ministers, the latest being PM Netanyahu.

The secret meeting of Israeli PM Golda Meir with US president Nixon in 1969 further made sure that world politics obliterated the evidence of Israel’s nuclear power. In Middle East, it was Egypt that first initiated this process. When the David Camp Accords were signed on 17th September 1978, President Sadat never questioned Israel’s nuclear capability in those 13 days of negotiation.

Conclusion

The entire fallacy becomes evident when Israel can develop its nuclear power under ‘activist defense policy‘ but Iran can not. This political tendency supports the realists and their ravenousness for power rather than security or trade. Over the years, AIPAC has grown as strong as the loopholes in Israel’s nuclear ambiguity, hence, dodging Israel away from sanctions, isolation or political containment.

Also, it is unfair that spy satellites are being used to keep an eye on Iranian military facility and they are being suspected of cleaning up radioactive evidence. But the world forgot about 22nd September 1979 when Israel carried out a testing of neutron bomb in the South Indian Ocean.

In the end, there is no guarantee that Israel, that has threatened for a war against Iran, will not use its nuclear power. Already during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had put Jericho Missiles on high alert, so that they could be used as a last resort against Egypt and Syria. Then, Golda Meir declined its usage. But would Benjamin Netanyahu do the same? Well, the answer remains abstract and uncontrolled.

Netanyahu and Obama’s stand on Iran; release of an Israeli spy still ignored.

For the past 27 years, Israel has been trying to free Jonathan Pollard, a civilian American Naval intelligence Analyst.  Both US and Israel have kept him under a plea agreement. Years back, Jonathan found out about an undeclared intelligence embargo continuing in US under which Israel was not provided information regarding vital details about Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear weapons/ capabilities. Under his ideological sense, Jonathan felt it was his prime duty to deliver these vital informations to Israel that granted him citizenship later in 1995. But he had to pay a huge price for it. He still suffers life sentence as has become another abstract and unheard demand for Israeli PM Netanyahu.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who still awaits a response from Obama administration, however understands that US can not be considered ‘ignorant’ or pressurized by Israel. For the past several months, both these political leaders have been going through a bind. The tension between them became clearer when US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta disclosed the nascent plans of Israel regarding an attack on Iran in April. In a quite intelligent manner, Netanyahu has shifted the entire focus of Israel’s concern from Palestine to Iran. He wants US to start the war as America leads in terms of weapons, ballistic missiles, grenades and of course, nuclear power. That is exactly why Netanyahu is more concerned of destroying Iran’s nuclear ‘capability’ rather than its ‘intentions‘. Israeli leaders want to operate a unilateral military action against Iran, which perhaps would not include alarming US before they do attack.

“Iran and IAEA’

Currently, Iran, like other countries, eg- Brazil, Japan, Argentina does have a right to enrich uranium as the NPT signatory. Under the IAEA scrutiny, Tehran needs to be transparent about its experiments and once it satisfies IAEA, it can enrich uranium and follow the peaceful fuel cycle nuclear energy programme. In spite of knowing all of this, Israel is threatened that Iran aims to wipe it out from the world’s map, as Iranian President had once confessed. President Ahmedanijad does not even accept that Holocaust under Hitler ever happened in world’s history and literally loathes the entire ‘Zionist identity’. Though, Ayatollah Khameini, the Supreme Leader continues to state that having nuclear power is a sin and non-Islamic, at the end of the day, he has the power to operate them.

‘Parliamentary elections in Iran’

In the meanwhile, 9th Majlis (Parliamentary elections) took place last Friday in Iran. US and Israel had believed that the ‘crippling sanctions’ would frustrate the Iranian citizens against thire government and the elections would not be able to preserve its sanctity. Interestingly, 65% of the 48 million people came to cast their vote. Hence, it definitely comes as a slap for the Zionist controlled governments (ZGOs) who are suspected to cause  protests against the President in 2009 Green Revolution. Iran also suffers from fractured political presentation. Firstly, it does not have political parties and secondly, the distance between President Ahmedanijad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini is increasing day by day, as they both see each other with mutual distrust and suspicion. But that does not pose a lot of threat because the values of kinship in Middle East are different. The famous saying , ‘ Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my brother and my cousin against the outsider.’

‘Obama’s dilemma’

In any case, when President Obama addressed the AIPAC annual convention yesterday, he said exactly what any diplomatic leader would utter. He talked about ‘loose talk of war’,  did not define the ‘red lines‘ and declared that US would not follow the policy of ‘containment.’ Before the entire political drama was unfolding, it was definitely expected that whatever Obama would say, might make a point, a difference. Unfortunately, it did not. Everything from praising Israeli President Simon Peres and his Jewish identity to claiming that ‘Israel’s security is sacrosanct and non-negotiable’, felt like a well mugged speech. In fact, President Obama called President Peres for receiving the ‘Presidential Medal of Freedom’ which is the highest Civilian honour by the White House.

Undoubtedly, President Obama is acting as a ‘duck President‘ right now. The reason is, he wants to secure his second term. In 2008, he won by 78% of Jewish votes. Thus, this year, he is trying his level best to secure votes from Jewish populations in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Nevada. Though, as the US president and Commander in Chief of the army, he is the strongest man, in fact, a dictator in his own merit. But he cannot take a nasty stand with AIPAC, the pro Israel lobby in America. Well, not only would his presidency be threatened, he can even be assassinated.

Thus, as President Obama still states that any war on Iran would be a mere distraction and exploit the peace, Israel definitely has other plans. But it needs to remember that its not Syria or Iraq that are developing nuclear power and hence, it can easily destroy it. Its Iran and definitely, whatever might be the pattern of bombardment used, a huge price would have to be paid by both these three countries.

Thomas Friedman reveals the Detestable self through ‘There be Dragons’

When Samuel Huntington wrote the ‘Clash of Civilisations’ after the disintegration of USSR, he funneled the odious orientalism of Middle East, Africa and Asia. For him, it was just US and Japan that deserved to dominate. Ten years later, after the September 2001 attacks, Edward Said answered him back with his ‘Clash of Ignorance.’. The title promises the satire at Huntington who was now being judged by an occidentalist.

In 2012, Thomas Friedman, the world renowned Pulitzer award winning New York Times columnist wrote ‘There be Dragons‘. Perhaps his zionist side has added to his complacency when he describes Middle East being the area of ‘dangerous and uncharted locations.’ He states that ‘ In medieval times, areas known to be dangerous or uncharted were often labeled on maps with the warning: “Beware, here be dragons.” That is surely how mapmakers would be labeling the whole Middle East today.’

Without wasting ten more years in this process, I want to answer him immediately for the delusions he carries in his tirade against North Africa, Middle East and West Asia.

1. He states ‘We also tend to believe that inside every autocracy is a democracy dying to get out, but that might not be true in the Middle East.‘

We cannot criticise Lenin, Stalin or Mao for what communism eventually became during their regime because they always lacked the intellectual honesty of Karl Marx. Communism failed. Disastrously. But worse that that is the transformation of democracy into ‘dictatorship of the government.’ Friedman does not mention that when countries like Iran gained their democracy in the early 1950s, it was CIA and America that executed the coup and snatched it away. He does not understand the significance when Ayatollah Khameini stated ‘We believe in democracy and we also believe in freedom, but we do not believe in liberal democracy.’ Perhaps, he considers Saudi Arabia that functions without even a constitution, more competent than other Middle Eastern countries. Also, if democracy is so important, why is Turkey, that has revamped itself for getting a membership in the EU for the past one decade, not respected and used as a snitch? Perhaps, George Bush thought he would make ‘democracy halaal’ in Iraq by invading it. But we all know, it added to the civil war. So, Friedman does not mention the incompetency of western powers to even establish what they believe in. And we do not even need to go to Palestine and how Israel created the Second Holocaust, worse than what Hitler did, to throw Muslims and Christians out of their own homeland. If Friedman craves to see Middle East democratic, he should understand that US had played the role of a ‘devil’s advocate’ in using this entire region as a chess board where his opponents just lost.

2. He states ‘When the iron lid of autocracy comes off, Middle east falls back, not on liberalism, but Islamism, sectarianism, tribalism or military rule.‘

Hardly before 1989 when Salman Rushdie’s book ‘Satanic Verses’ was released, no one knew or talked about Islamism. Later, the 9/11 attacks added to the Islamophobia. Today, the western powers think that ‘Shariah Law’ and ‘Islam’ is connected with ‘terrorism’ or ‘jihad’. In reality, this is not the case. Its not justice to blame Islam when Christianity also has its own loopholes. No one criticizes the Church in Greece or even orders an investigation into the millions of euros that are stored. If they did, Greece, I promise, would not have been in debt. To the outside ignorant public, it is stated that countries like Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc are facing recession because they were ‘welfare states’. If one investigates their economy, what they are facing right now is the result of ‘fiscal irresponsibility’. Anyways, coming back to the point, the ‘Church’ is not questioned. So, if that kind of pattern is followed for Western countries, why can’t the government by mosque or even its sovereignty be such a problem? Friedman does not mention that Muslim Brotherhood, for the past several decades have been carrying out grassroots changes in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and to a certain extent in Syria.  As far as Salafists are concerned, even the people of Egypt know that they do not want them to rule.

As far as sectarianism is concerned, Friedman forgets that western powers, themselves, have been using this major issue to cause further chaos. He does not talk about Lebanon where the Maronite Christians have been used as an instrument by Roman and French powers to hate Sunnis, Shias, Druze and Kurds. I can not debate about tribalism because Friedman perhaps might find everyone a ‘tribal’ if he is not from US or Israel. And as far as military rule is concerned, he perhaps once again forgot that its US which has been actually strengthening the military of countries like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan by giving them aids and arms.

3.  He states ‘Almost four years ago, we elected a black man, whose name was Barack, whose grandfather was a Muslim, to lead us out of our worst economic crisis in a century.’

Well, when it comes to Barack Obama, his first identity is not the “president’ but a ‘black man’. Friedman thinks that after 200 years and a civil crisis, America could ‘Make it happen.’ But he doesnot mention that ‘Right now, we are forcing the same black man to go on war with Iran’, or he does not mention that ‘ we are trying to make this man whose grandfather was a Muslim force for military intervention in Syria’. You know, what the funny part here is? If Obama does it, he would be called nothing but a stooge like George Bush. If he doesnot, his competitors like Mitt Romney and Ron Paul would call him a coward. Friedman thinks that the civil war in America is over because people are not dying anymore. But what about Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, where they are being killed?

4. He states ‘You see in Syria how quickly the regime turned the democracy push there into a sectarian war.’

Western powers should not touch the subject of Syria which has become a case of international conspiracy than that of civil war. The western media’s propaganda does not talk about how Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel are funding the Free Syrian army by giving them arms. One does not need to think twice for knowing how is behind these proxies. Bashar al Assad has been easily caused the ‘Tyrant’, ‘ The replica of Hafez who caused the massacre in Hamas 30 years back.’. No one knows the reality but everyone judges them. Al Jazeera has been as zionist as ever, in its broadcast, often manufacturing news rather than reporting it. And also, what happened in Libya? There was ‘No Fly Zone’ and the cunning twist of UN’s resolution to causie regime change. Colonel Gadaffi was killed. What happened next? The Libyan Transitional Council is still not able to contain the militancy. But who cares? If Libya could not succeed, its Libya’s problem. No one should question the impeccability of US, Britain and France.

5. He states ‘U.S. troops accidentally burned some Korans, and President Obama apologized. Afghans nevertheless went on a weeklong rampage, killing innocent Americans in response — and no Afghan leader, even our allies, dared to stand up and say: “Wait, this is wrong. Every week in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslim suicide bombers kill other Muslims — holy people created in the image of God — and there’s barely a peep. Yet the accidental burning of holy books by Americans sparks outbursts and killings. What does our reaction say about us?

Firstly, there is a propaganda by media to just state news that contains suicide bombers killing people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. They want to create this public opinion that these countries are unsafe, froth with turmoil and terrorists- and eventually, should be dominated. Its all psychological how this grooming is done. I must ask Friedman how he would react if Afghanis burnt his ‘Old Testament’ or the ‘Bible of Jews’? Jews still consider themselves as victims to what happened decades back. So, why should the natives of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq forget so soon? They too have faced deaths.

And what difference does it make if Obama did apologize? Friedman criticises Taliban and Al-Qaeda without actually naming them. But then, who created Taliban? Who created Al-Qaeda? He forgets that drone attacks still continue in Pakistan (recently, have started in Syria). He does not go into the depth of why Muslims kill other Muslims. He does not frame them into Pathans or the tribals in Waziristan or the Muhajirs in Karachi.For him, they are one and the same. Muslims killing each other would have been an issue in 1979 when USSR had conquered Afghanistan, now it does not matter. US is in a uni-polar world, an excellent example of social darwinism.

Morals and ethics have no place in real politik. But justice has. Friedman should know that when he points one finger at others, three fingers are pointing at him. Its ignorance and unfortunate use of racism by Friedman to write this article, creating further perceptions for a common American who does not actually know what is happening.

If dragons have to be there, they aren’t in locations but inside of people.

Arming of revolutionaries: A shrewd tactics in international diplomacy

Active promotion of revolutions has been very prominent right from 1790s when the French revolutionaries jumped on the bandwagon for internationalist diplomacy. Over the years, this process of ‘exporting the revolutions‘ has been used by super-powers to thrash the flawed government of developing countries and impose imperialism. They mostly express their impeccability when questioned about the clandestine manner in which they train outside revolutionaries, militants and rebels. But there are few who pay the price. For example, ‘By challenging the legitimacy of all foreign interventions, Bolsheviks invited all foreign governments to challenge their own.’ Interestingly, the Syrian uprising has provided an opportunistic platform to western powers to use their alliances and hegemony to overthrow Assad regime.

In a meeting of  Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Saudi Arabia has backed the arming of Syrian guerrilla groups. Riyadh has been transporting arms to Syria through the Sunni tribal ally groups in Iraq and Lebanon. As Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, Qatar’s prime minister has also backed the arming of Syrian rebels. FSA is being funneled with Russian Anti-tank missiles and sophisticated weapons system from various sympathizers from Assad’s military. Even Libyan interim leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil has supported Syrian rebels as around 600 Libyans have transported on Syrian soil to fight as volunteers.

The Free Syrian Army which is disorganized, cluttered into groups of rebels, has definitely become a fiction mailbox, pretending to reach out to innocent civilians. Marc Lynch has intelligently questioned if the process of arming FSA would lead to any immediate results. He predicts three outcomes out of this phenomenon. First, the rebels use the arms for their defence or secondly, they overpower the Syrian military and force them to surrender.  Finally, the rebels and the military can even out each other’s power and eventually negotiate. What most powers do not think about is that since FSA contains several groups, often splitting due to their lack of agreement. The entire rat race to get arms would cause severe competition in these armed gangs, leading to further chaos and militancy.

Unfortunately, Syria is not like China or Iran where the foreign interventionists and their real agendas can be filtered or understood. For example, the British Embassy in Peking was burnt by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in 1967. The US Embassy seizure in Tehran in 1979 during the  Iranian revolution has permanently soured US-Iran relations. At the same time, history is replete with examples where the ‘Syria chapter’ has been repeated, on and on.

• Soviet provisions used to supply arms, training and advisers through Comintern to underground military units in communist countries.
• Chinese supported the Vietnam for opposition to France from 1950-1954.
• Cuba provided aid to Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua after 1977.
• People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen provided bases and trainings to arm guerrillas to Oman and North Yemen. After its establishment in 1967, it also deployed guerrillas for sporadic clashes with Saudi Arabia.
• Bolsheviks attempted to assist revolutionaries in Mongolia, Iran and Poland in the 1920s.
• Iran supported militants in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, just like Russia is supporting arms supplies to Syria, USSR was also involved in arming China and Vietnam during 1950s, Cuba and Vietnam during 1960s and Angola and Mozambique during 1970s. Well, it was Cuba and Vietnam which caused US and USSR to drift apart, eventually dodging the nuclear war in 1962.

Therefore, this entire trend of arming the revolutionaries by powerful nations is not new. One can find the residue of  Marxist internationalist agenda of creating continuous and inevitable world wide revolutionary upheaval in such attempts. Very often, the thin defining line differentiating revolution from nationalism is erased.

In Syria, the uprisings are being used as an ‘instrument’ where the internationalism of western and Arab powers is being adopted for their own selfish interests rather than social justice and social order. There is an evident gap in the overlapping of revolutionary aspiration and capability because most of the Syrian rebels are fighting on abstract and anonymous grounds. It makes them vulnerable and eventuate into mortals fighting on lost cause.

‘Friends of Syria’: Dictatorship of Futile International Diplomacy

The much hyped ‘Friends of Syria’ Conference taking place today in Tunisia is nothing but an embarrassment that US, EU and Arab League would remember.

More than 80 countries are participating in this international conference. Its only Lebanon, China and Russia who chose to ‘disassociate’ themselves from the event. Interestingly, the event is being funded by Qatar (hotel arrangements, travel tickets, bookings) while Tunisia maintains the administrative formality of executing it.

Moncef Marzouki, the President of Tunisia stated in an interview with Al Jazeera that he does not want military intervention in Syria. Syria would not be another Libya because events in this country have gone far more complex and intertwined. He once again urged the need to convince Russia to be supportive.

‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’

FOS itself is divided. Though the draft declaration is still being circulated, the communique states that they would not be supplying arms to Free Syrian Army and Syrian National Council.

While, members of the SNC who are currently in Tunisia have stated that it does not matter what is officially stated, they would eventually be armed.

This is one of the first and very apparent rift that exists in FOS. Well, its obvious to happen this way because such a high number of diplomatic representation at an international issue would have their own polemics, agendas and black propagandas.

‘Just to Impress Russia’

Few countries like Tunisia want to lower down the tone of the communique so that Russia can also be involved in their process, at a later stage. This idea, seems ‘Utopian’ and boorish enough for other Arabian countries who demand a military intervention at any cost (like Qatar).

So one can ponder the impact any declaration that FOS would eventually have if everything done is being customised for Russia or China? Just like the Thursday conference on Somalia in London, this entire FOS facade would be nothing but a posh and unnecessary expenditure for the diplomats, serving no purpose, what so ever.

‘Do not lecture Syria’

Ammar Waqqaf of the Syrian Social Club has stated that ‘If FOS wants humanitarian aid, one must talk directly to the Syrian government rather than lecturing it. Syria is self sufficient in terms of food and medical supply. It can take care of itself.’

He also states that it is assumed that the rebellions are concerned with the lives of the normal civilians, but in reality, they are not. In fact, the rebellions try to show that they have a control over the situation in respective district, but in reality, they are not even musketeers.

‘Differences with SNC’

As if the rifts in FOS were not enough, SNC too is facing opposition from the opposition. The National Coordination for Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC) boycotted its presence in the FOS. They believe that FOS would be biased in praising SNC and there is not point in having any other Syrian Opposition group in the conference if such partiality continues.

NCCDC believes that it has more contacts in Syria and capability to use its soft power than SNC. In fact, it is based in Damascus itself. Also, NCCDC, chaired by Hassen Abdel Azim, is largely based inside Syria unlike SNC that is based in Istanbul.

Conclusion

If Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin and Guevera were still alive, they would have found nothing abysmal with the Syrian uprising. In fact, it includes every normative demand for being called a ‘revolution’ that has crossed the discursive, generative and paradigmatic process to eventuate into one.

Also, everything from international support, foreign intervention, ambitious yet abstract demands are present. Thomas Paine, perhaps would have credited American revolution of 1763 to be their godfather while Edmund Burke would have written another ‘Reflections’ to rebuke it.

But there’s one subtle point which they all thought but never wrote about. The point is, ‘Sometimes, revolutionaries themselves become part of international conspiracies.’