Obama, Corporate “Free Traitors” and You!

Ralph Nader

The pro-big business President Barack Obama and his corporate allies are starting their campaign to manipulate and pressure Congress to ram through the “pull-down-on-America” Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade and foreign investment treaty between twelve nations (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam).

The first skirmish is a fast track bill to have Congress formally strip itself of its constitutional authority to regulate trade and surrender this historic responsibility to the White House and its corporate lobbies.

Lest you think the TPP is too commercially complex to bother about, think again. This mega-treaty is the latest corporate coup-d’état that sacrifices the American consumer, labor and environmental standards – inventively called “non-tariff trade barriers” – and much U.S. sovereignty to the supremacy of corporate commercial trade.

No single column can adequately describe this colossal betrayal – camouflaged by phrases like “free trade” and “win-win agreements.” For comprehensive analysis of the TPP you can go to Global Trade Watch (http://www.citizen.org/trade/).

Trade treaties, like NAFTA and GATT, which created the World Trade Organization (WTO), already have proven records of harming our country through huge job-exporting trade deficits, unemployment, freezing or jeopardizing our consumer and environmental rules, holding down regulations on giant banks and weakening labor protections.

How does the corporate state and its “free traitors” construct a transnational form of autocratic governance that bypasses the powers of our branches of government and accepts decisions that greatly affect American livelihoods issued by secret tribunals run by corporate lawyers-turned-judges? Well, first they establish autocratic procedures, such as fast track legislation that facilitate the creation of an absentee autocratic government, which betrays the American people by going far beyond reducing tariffs and quotas.

Imagine, when the TPP treaty finally gets negotiated with other nations in secret, the White House cynically classifies it as an “agreement” requiring a simple majority vote, not a treaty requiring two-thirds of the Congress for passage. Fast track legislation then limits debate on the TPP to a total of 20 hours in each chamber. Then, Congress lets the White House tie Congress’ hands by prohibiting any amendments and requesting just an up or down vote.

Meanwhile the campaign cash flows into the abdicating law-makers’ coffers from the likes of Boeing, General Electric, Pfizer, Citigroup, Exxon Mobil and other multinational corporations that show a lack loyalty to the United States (no corporate patriotism) due to their ties to communist and fascist regimes abroad who let them get away with horrible abuses and repression in the name of greater profits.

Many of these Pacific Rim countries, for example, have bad labor laws and practices, few, if any, consumer or environmental protections that can be enforced in courts of law and precious little freedom of speech.

A recent treaty with South Korea was pushed through Congress on false predictions of jobs and win-win solutions. In fact, the Korean agreement resulted in a ballooning of the trade deficit that the U.S. has with that country, costing an estimated nearly 60,000 American jobs.

The majority of these corporate-managed trade agreements come from the demands of global corporations. They exploit developing countries that have cheap labor and lax laws, unlike more developed countries, such as the U.S., that have greater protections for consumers, workers and the environment. Under this trade agreement, countries that seek better protections for their workers and consumers can be sued by corporations and other nations. Remarkably, better treatment, such as safer motor vehicles, is seen as an obstructive trade barrier against inferior imports.

For one example of many, under the WTO, the U.S. cannot keep out products made by brutal child labor abroad, even though U.S. law prohibits child labor in this country. This is how our sovereignty is shredded.

Under the WTO, the U.S. has lost 100 percent of the cases brought before the secret tribunals in Geneva, Switzerland against our public interest laws –like consumer and environmental protections. The TPP will produce similar autocratic outcomes.

Cong. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), former Texas Supreme Court Justice, told POLITICO: “I do not believe that Congress should relinquish its trade oversight authority. This really is a fast track — seeking to railroad the Trans-Pacific Partnership through while the United States Trade Representative (USTR) hides from Congress the most important details.”

Proponents of the TPP want to limit debate and prevent any amendments to this treaty that might deal with issues such as currency manipulation, child labor, bad workplace conditions, etc. by such countries as Mexico and Vietnam. What is enforceable, with penalties, are sanctions and lawsuits against our country (and others), which corporate power demands. U.S. taxpayers will ultimately pay that price.

This is why Senator Elizabeth Warren is opposing the TPP. She wrote in the Washington Post that the TPP, “would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court.”

For example, if a company doesn’t like our controls over cancer-causing chemicals, it could skip the U.S. courts and sue the U.S. before a secret tribunal that can hand down decisions, which can’t be challenged in U.S. courts. If it won before this secret kangaroo court, it could be given millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, charged to you, the taxpayer. Again, the big business “free traitors” are shredding our sovereignty under the Constitution.

Scores of such cases already have been brought under the WTO. Senator Warren explained that “recent cases include a French company that sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage, a Swedish company that sued Germany because Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after Japan’s Fukushima disaster, and a Dutch company that sued the Czech Republic because the Czechs didn’t bail out a bank that the company partially owned… Philip Morris is trying to use ISDS to stop Uruguay from implementing new tobacco regulations intended to cut smoking rates.”

Senator Warren upset President Obama who, before a business audience (he wouldn’t talk TPP before a labor or consumer gathering), called Warren “wrong on the facts.” Really? Well why doesn’t he debate her, as Al Gore debated Ross Perot on NAFTA? She has read the fine print; I doubt whether he has read more than the corporate power tea leaves. He seems to have forgotten his severe criticism of NAFTA from when he ran for president in 2008.

Right now, President Obama probably has the Republican votes in the Senate, but not yet a majority of votes in the House. The vast majority of the Democrats are opposed to the TPP. Tea Party Republicans are reducing Speaker Boehner’s vote count among Republicans. Using history as an example, President Bill Clinton easily peeled off votes during his push for NAFTA. What we need now are a couple of million voters around America to put serious heat on their faltering members of the House and Senate – not that arduous of an effort – over the next few months. That is fewer Americans than watch big league games on television.

In addition, these civic-minded and active Americans would be backed by 75 percent of Americans who think that the TPP should be rejected or delayed, according to a bipartisan poll from the Wall Street Journal.People know what these “pull–down” trade agreements have done to them in their own communities.

Overcoming Armenia’s Psychological Scars

Cesar Chelala

In 1915, as the Ottoman Empire was in its death throes, almost 1,000,000 Armenians were massacred, and many others were forced into exile from their land. The circumstances that led to this ordeal are still under spirited discussions.

The result of these events is Armenians hatred for the Turks, a century after the devastating events of 1915 which Armenians consider genocide. During a trip to Armenia I was once again reminded of man’s inhumanity to man. I also found myself face-to-face once again with the power of memory and of hate.

Can this hatred be overcome so that a productive relationship between the two countries can be brought about? It is obviously too late to bring those responsible to justice. However, it should be possible to reach a level of understanding and cooperation between the two societies.

I spoke with Professor Mira Antonyan, director of the Fund for Armenian Relief, about the effects of those events on Armenians today. “The only thing that unites us now is our resentment against the Turks for the events of the past” she told me. That feeling was shared by her husband and a friend of both, who regularly trade with Turkish businessmen. “Being Armenian means having sad memories,” she added.

I told them that I felt Armenians were in a quagmire, unable to move forward because of the tremendous weight of past events. “Perhaps you are right,” Mira’s husband answered, “but genocide is a very heavy burden on our shoulders. We cannot just forget what happened. We cannot erase our memory.”

I believe that there is a generational divide on the question. The older generation—those over 50—insist on the need for an apology from the Turkish government for the assassination of Armenians. The younger generations, without rejecting the facts of history, feel the need to overcome the negative effects of those memories. They believe that such visceral attachment to the past is self-defeating.

Kamilla Petrosyan, an Armenian psychiatrist in her late 30s, told me how her 4-year-old son arrived home from kindergarten frightened to death on learning that day about the 1915 massacres. “We have to stop this culture of victimization,” she said, “otherwise we will never be able to move forward.”

Something similar happens in Turkey. Arman Artuc, editor of the HyeTert news portal in Istanbul, told me recently, “Almost everybody living in Turkey grew up with stories (beginning with primary school textbooks, newspapers and other media) of how cruel Armenians have been to Turks during and after WWI using a language of hatred and insults. Only recently commissions were established to change the textbooks and remove such language”

These and other events demonstrate that the Turks too are beginning to show signs of the need to move forward. A number of Turkish intellectuals, including last year’s winner of the Noble Prize for literature, Orhan Pamuk, have made public statements to that effect.

The creation of a commission of both Turkish and Armenian historians under the auspices of the United Nations and with representatives from the International Court of Justice at The Hague is an important and necessary step. The task of such commission would be to analyze historical documents that will shed definitive light on the events of the past.

A change of paradigm that will allow us to move away from a culture of violence is desperately needed. We should take advantage of the present situation to create an irreversible motion towards mutual understanding through the implementation of a wide range of peace building measures that will create a strong foundation for cooperation.

Richard Giragosian, Director of the Armenian Centre for National and International Studies (ACNIS) in Yerevan wrote that a changing relationship can result in a “win-win” situation for both countries. For Armenia, it offers new economic opportunities and a much-needed foreign policy success. For Turkey, it will result in improved status vis-à-vis the European Union and the U.S.

The importance of an agreement for peace and cooperation between Turkey and Armenia goes beyond their borders. In a world wired for war, it can show that peace and understanding between peoples burdened by the past is still possible, and create a psychological momentum for peace that would allow reaching similar agreements in other parts of the world.

It is only by constructing bridges of understanding—particularly working with young people, still untainted by the weight of the past—that we will be able to change the present paradigm of violence and war for one of collaboration and peace.

Seeking Justice for Egyptian Massacres

Marjorie Cohn 

On July 3, 2013, the Egyptian military staged a coup’etat and deposed the democratically elected government of President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. Thousands of Egyptians staged demonstrations throughout Egypt to show support for Morsi.

One month later, the Egyptian army and police carried out several massacres in Cairo, killing hundreds of unarmed protesters. Authorities mounted a military response to largely peaceful protests by supporters of the Brotherhood against the illegitimate Egyptian government. Although aimed primarily at the Brotherhood, the crackdown included other political opposition groups and individuals.

Four Dutch citizens of Egyptian origin, who were present during three of the most brutal massacres in summer 2013, filed a petition in the Netherlands that charged Egyptian Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim with crimes against humanity. In September 2014, the Dutch law firm of Seebregts & Saey submitted a formal request to the Dutch prosecutor to prosecute Ibrahim. Dutch criminal courts have jurisdiction under the International Crimes Act when a Dutch national has been the victim of a crime. Due to head of state immunity, the lawsuit did not name Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who ordered the Rab’a massacre when he was Defense Minister.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) undertook a one-year investigation into the conduct of security forces responding to the demonstrations. In its report titled “All According to Plan: The Rab’a Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt,” HRW concluded, “police and army forces systematically and intentionally used excessive lethal force in their policing, resulting in killings of protesters on a scale unprecedented in Egypt.” HRW also determined “the killings not only constituted serious violations of international human rights law, but likely amounted to crimes against humanity, given both their widespread and systematic nature and the evidence suggesting the killings were part of a policy to attack unarmed persons on political grounds.” Although HRW was able to confirm that some protesters used firearms in a few instances, they did not justify “the grossly disproportionate and premeditated lethal attacks on overwhelmingly peaceful protesters.”

The Rab’a Massacre

There were over 20,000 protesters in Rab’a Square. In what HRW called “the gravest incident of mass protester killings,” Egyptian police, snipers and military personnel opened fire on unarmed demonstrators on August 14, 2013, “killing at least 817 and likely more than 1,000.” Security forces used live ammunition “with hundreds killed by bullets to their heads, necks, and chests.” Snipers fired from helicopters overRab’a Square.

“Much of the shooting by police appears to have been indiscriminate,” HRW found, “openly firing in the general direction of crowds of demonstrators instead of targeting armed protester gunmen who may have posed a serious threat.”

The Rab’a mosque, which served as a refuge, particularly for women and children, “held so many corpses that it felt like it ‘had turned into a cemetery,’” one protester told HRW. An 18-year-old boy came into the hospital and said his stomach hurt. A doctor noted, “I looked down and his intestines were all out. He had taken several bullets and [later] died.” The doctor also reported that another person “took a bullet in the face, causing his face to open and tongue to fall out . . . He spent 40 minutes looking at me and gesturing for help, but I couldn’t do anything. Surgery was not possible.”

The deaths “amounted to collective punishment of the overwhelming majority of peaceful protesters,” HRW concluded.

One of the petitioners, who was present at the demonstration, was not wounded but people on his left and right were being shot. He was also present when the authorities set fire to the hospital on Rab’a Square, killing about 300 patients who were not able to leave.

Republican Guard Square

On July 7, 2013, about 2,000 Brotherhood supporters began a peaceful sit-in. Shortly before dawn on July 8, police and army units opened fire, targeting those in the protest and others emerging from prayers at the mosque. Authorities killed 61 protesters with live ammunition and injured 435. Most suffered gunshots to the head, neck and chest.

One of the petitioners was hit by a bullet, but survived.

Manassa Memorial

At least 95 protesters were killed on July 27, 2013. A field hospital doctor reported, “From 2 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. it was a steady stream; the bodies kept coming. Most had gunshot wounds in the head, neck or chest. The hospital was overflowing; we were completely over capacity.” Another field house doctor told HRW: “All of the dead were either dead on arrival or died immediately after they arrived, because of where they were hit; if you’re hit in the head or chest, you won’t last very long. The entire hospital floor was covered with injured people. It was beyond imagination.”

The two petitioners who were present at this demonstration were not wounded but were in danger of being hit. Others a short distance away were hit by bullets.

Crimes Against Humanity

Dutch law provides for sentences up to life in prison for convictions of crimes against humanity. The crime is defined as intentional killing or other inhumane acts of a comparable nature which intentionally cause severe suffering or severe physical or psychological damage, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to State policy.

HRW found that “security forces systematically and deliberately killed largely unarmed protesters on political grounds . . . in a widespread manner, resulting in the deaths of over 1,150 protesters, in July and August of 2013.”

HRW further concluded, “[t]he manner in which security forces used force to disperse protests appears to reflect policies set by the Egyptian government.” In fact, “the government anticipated and planned for the deaths of several thousand protesters.”

The Rab’a massacre was “executed pursuant to a plan formulated by the Interior Ministry and approved by the Cabinet and National Defense Council after three weeks of preparation,” HRW determined, citing statements of Ibrahim that he anticipated the dispersal would kill large numbers of demonstrators.

Ibrahim made public statements revealing he knew beforehand that many people would die during the police and military actions to end the demonstrations. The day after the Rab’a massacre, Ibrahim said “the dispersal plan succeeded 100 percent,” indicating that it adhered to a plan that had been put in place.

In a televised interview on August 31, 2013, Ibrahim confirmed that the Interior Ministry expected losses of “10 percent of the people,” adding, “you will find thousands lost from their side.”

“Abject politicization of justice’

HRW learned that “[s]ecurity forces detained over 800 protesters on August 14, 2013, some of whom they beat, tortured and in some cases summarily executed.”

On April 11, 2015, 51 Brotherhood supporters were convicted in a mass trial, based on the testimony of a single police officer. HRW said the evidence presented at the trial demonstrated that the men were disseminating news about and organizing peaceful protests in opposition to the military coup and removal of Morsi. Fourteen of the defendants were sentenced to death and the other 37 were given life sentences. According to Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director of HRW, “The fact that people who covered and publicized the mass killings in 2013 could go to prison for life or be executed while the killers walk free captures the abject politicization of justice in Egypt.”

Morsi was convicted of charges including incitement to violence and torture from 2012 demonstrations that resulted in the deaths of 10 people outside the presidential palace. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The Dutch lawsuit

The case against Ibrahim is under consideration by the Dutch prosecutor’s office. Should the prosecutor refuse to prosecute Ibrahim, the petitioners can request that the superior court in The Hague order the prosecutor to prosecute.

There has been no legal accountability for the massacres conducted by the Egyptian military government against the largely peaceful protesters. If high government officials in Egypt are permitted to commit crimes against humanity with impunity, it will encourage similar actions in the future – both in Egypt and elsewhere. Since there is little prospect for justice in Egypt itself, the Dutch lawsuit may be the only vehicle for accountability for these most serious crimes.

Canadian high schoolers paid $2,000 to take military training course

Ashley Tseng

With the enthusiastic support of the Saskatchewan government, the Canadian military is partnering with Regina’s Public and Catholic school boards to provide basic military training to high school students.

Students who complete the new Canadian Army Primary Reserve Co-op Program will receive $2,000 and two high school credits. According to a Saskatchewan government press release, upon completion of the program students will be eligible to be enrolled in the regular Canadian Army Reserve, which the Canadian military describes “as a part-time, fully integrated component of the Canadian Army.”

Currently the “Reserve Co-op Program” is only offered in Regina. But there are plans to extend it to other cities and towns in Saskatchewan.

The introduction of what is for all intents and purposes a military recruitment campaign as part of Saskatchewan’s school curriculum exemplifies the Canadian elite’s embrace of militarism. Until recently, the Canadian Armed Forces was popularly presented as “peacekeepers.” Now Prime Minister Harper describes Canada as a “warrior nation” and routinely advances the reactionary and patently false claim that Canadians owe their “liberty” to the military.

Since the end of the last century, Canada, under Liberal and Conservative governments has joined one US-led war after another, including against Yugoslavia in 1998, Afghanistan and Libya. Currently, Canadian warplanes are bombing Iraq and Syria. And last week, the Conservative government, which has already deployed planes to Eastern Europe and ships to the Black Sea to join in the NATO build-up against Russia, announced it would be sending 200 Canadian military trainers to Afghanistan.

The $2,000 incentive for participating in Coop the program is primarily targeted at low-income, working-class youth who would otherwise have no interest in joining the military, but find it increasingly difficult to find a career path or a way out of low-paying part-time jobs. While Saskatchewan’s right-wing government, a close ally of the Conservative government in Ottawa, is lavishing resources on military training, parents in Regina complain that they are forced to pay hundreds of dollars extra so that their children can take instruction in enriched classes like “Media and Communications” or “Environmental Studies.”

Colonel Ross Ermel, a commander of the 38th Canadian Brigade Group, which comprises reserve units from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, told reporters, “We’re always looking for innovative ways to expand our ability to connect with Canadians, to find new recruits and make sure we remain sustainable in the long term.”

He touted a career in the Reserves as an “excellent opportunity” to gain skills and “experience service to Canada.” As the Canadian military’s website notes, “Since the year 2000, more than 4,000 Primary Reservists have been deployed in Canadian Armed Forces operations in Afghanistan, Haiti, and other international expeditionary operations.”

Colonel Ermel went on to provide his own chilling perspective of never-ending war. “We live in a world where conflict is perennial,” he said. “Operations that the military conducts run the gamut from full, high intensity conflicts, to humanitarian operations and domestic operations.” The last reference is especially ominous. While this is little discussed publicly, one of the core functions of the military is to “provide aid to civil power,” i.e. suppress civil unrest.

The Co-op Reserve program, which took in its first cohort in February, gives its high school student participants the opportunity to earn two credits: a core credit in Canadian history and an elective credit for the military training part of the program.

While the core credit is listed as a Canadian history course, the curriculum will be integrated with the Reserve agenda so that it buttresses militarist thinking by glorifying Canada’s military interventions over the past century, including its role as a major belligerent in the two imperialist world wars. The military training course will involve 23 full days of basic training, including how to handle a firearm, physical fitness, military drills, and first aid.

Military officials are justifying the program by framing it as a leadership-training program and by emphasizing the Reserves’ role in responding to natural disasters. However, what is termed as a leadership-training opportunity for youths can more accurately be described as a crass tool used to condition them to submit to Canada’s role in waging imperialist war and to uncritically obey their authorities.

Further exposing themselves as proponents of Canada’s growing militarism, Saskatchewan’s social-democratic NDP backed the program when it was presented to the legislature. “Certainly the NDP is supportive and proud and eternally grateful for the Canadian Armed Forces. The program presents an opportunity for students to learn about the Canadian Armed Forces first hand,” gushed NDP MLA (Member of the Legislature) Trent Wotherspoon.

Despite the program having gone forward, various pacifist organizations have expressed their opposition. PeaceQuest Regina and the Regina Peace Council started a petition in favour of withdrawing the program from the public high school system. Peace activists criticised the program’s role in endorsing violence as an appropriate method for conflict resolution, arguing that respect and discipline can be taught in ways that don’t involve endorsing militarism. Many remember the days, prior to the growth of the anti-Vietnam War movement in the United States and Canada, when it was common in Canadian high schools for students to be required to participate in military “cadet” training.

Resistance to the program has also come from parents and teachers of the Catholic school board. In mid-February, the Regina Catholic School Division annual elector’s meeting passed a motion informing Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall that it does not want a military training program in its high schools. Those who were against the program argued that peace studies should replace the current military curriculum, stating that a program that teaches students how to handle firearms, and submit unquestionably to authority has the opposite effect of teaching students how to become leaders. However, despite resounding opposition from the school community, the board is not legally obliged to enforce the expressed will of its constituents.

In a statement that points to the strong backing for the military training program at the highest levels of the Saskatchewan government, Catholic School Board Chair Rob Bresciani told the Regina Leader- Post that the motion had put the board in an “awkward” position, because it needs a good working relationship with the provincial government.

The Wall government’s inviting of the military into schools is part of a broader initiative in which school boards are being instructed to partner with industry and other employers.

At the same time, citing the fall in oil prices and government oil royalties and tax revenues, the provincial government has slashed education funding and social spending geared towards youths and families. In the budget tabled last month, the government reduced eligibility to a program that supplements the incomes of low-income families and cut the “active families benefit” which provided subsidies for parents to enrol their children in sport and art programs. Support for postsecondary students has also been slashed.

Poland builds up military against Russia

Markus Salzmann

Poland’s conservative government led by Ewa Kopacz (Civic Platform) is significantly building up the country’s military for a confrontation with Russia. At the same time, major cuts in social spending are being prepared to finance the war drive. However, the cuts are only to be implemented fully after the presidential elections on May 10 and parliamentary elections in October.

On the border with Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea, Poland intends to build six 50-metre watchtowers, a spokeswoman for the Polish border police told the PAP news agency. Three quarters of the cost of 14 million zloty (€3.7 million) will be financed by a European Union (EU) fund for the securing of external borders.

The 200-kilometre border connecting Poland with Kaliningrad has a number of popular crossings. Last year, 3.2 million Poles and 3.3 million Russians used them. To justify their belligerence, Polish officials said the new watchtowers were to maintain surveillance around the clock so as to detect potential Russian aggression.

Lithuania’s right-wing president, Dalia Grybauskaitė, whose nation also shares a border with Kaliningrad, declared in March that Russia had stationed nuclear-capable, short-range ballistic Iskander missiles in the enclave. These missiles could “even reach Berlin,” Grybauskaitė claimed.

In March, the head of Poland’s security council, General Stanisław Koziej, warned that his nation had to adjust to the alleged threat of Russian attacks. He called upon other European states to follow Poland’s example and increase their defence budgets. The most important thing in the current crisis, the general asserted, was that Poland maintain the “unity” of the Western countries and strengthen the EU in the area of security.

The Polish government has announced plans to send military units to the borders with Ukraine, Belarus and Kaliningrad. Around 12,000 reservists were recently called up for exercises. Neo-fascist paramilitary associations have officially been integrated into the Polish military.

Between 2005 and 2014, Poland increased military spending by 38 percent, by 13 percent last year alone. For this year, the government plans a 19 percent increase.

The military build-up in Poland and throughout eastern Europe is directed ever more openly at Russia, and increases the risk of a nuclear conflict between Moscow and the NATO powers. Lithuania has increased military spending by 50 percent and plans to reintroduce military service. Latvia, Estonia and Romania have also increased their defence budgets.

The fifth anniversary of the Smolensk plane crash, in which Polish president Lech Kaczynski and some 100 other high-ranking officials died, has also become part of growing tensions with Russia. The Polish government only sent a small delegation, led by the minister for culture, to the official commemoration in Russia. Prime Minister Kopacz took part in a separate commemoration in Poland. “A visit by the Polish Prime Minister to Russian territory would not be advisable at present,” her spokesman said.

Lech’s brother, Jaroslaw, head of the conservative Law and Justice Party (PiS), is portraying his twin as a martyr in the cause of Poland’s freedom and independence. Several PiS politicians and Polish media outlets have blamed Russian intelligence for the April 2010 plane crash.

Poland’s chief military state prosecutor even opened investigations recently into the activity of two Russian air traffic controllers for possibly causing the crash because they neglected their duties. It is generally accepted that the accident was the result of pilot error.

At the same time as it builds up the military against Russia, the Polish government is preparing sweeping cuts at the expense of the population. Three high-ranking government representatives who did not want to be named told Reuters news agency that major economic and social “reforms” would be postponed until after the presidential and parliamentary elections. Kopacz would not take on the reform of the coal industry and the crisis-ridden health sector prior to the elections. In the face of major strikes by miners in February, the government temporarily withdrew plans for mass layoffs.

Parliamentary elections are expected to take place in October. Polls suggest the Civic Platform will lose votes and will be compelled to reach a coalition agreement with several other parties. In the approaching presidential election in May, the government party’s candidate, incumbent president Bronisław Komorowski, is also under pressure. This is preventing the government from “taking more decisive steps,” noted analyst Alexander Smolar.

Although Poland achieved slow economic growth in recent years, the outlook for eastern Europe’s largest economy is now quite bleak. According to Reuters, many economists fear that “the factors which have driven growth, including EU assistance and low wages,” will not continue to offer any benefits in the coming years. Poland will have to make spending cuts and privatise unproductive industries. A further increase in the budget deficit, currently standing at 3.2 percent of GDP, would be irresponsible, according to these anti-working class experts.

One of the main factors having a negative impact on Poland is the drastic breakdown in economic relations with Russia due to the EU-imposed sanctions. Trade between the EU and Russia dropped by 34.3 percent in the space of a year, and trade between Poland and Russia by 48.9 percent.

While no date has been set for Poland to join the euro zone, it is a major issue in the presidential election. Komorowski promised that if he were confirmed in office, he would proceed rapidly to introduce the euro. Last year, he spoke out in favour of only beginning the debate on the euro after the elections.

According to an opinion poll carried out by TNS Polska, only 15 percent of respondents believe the euro will have a positive impact on Poland, while 52 percent believe it will not. Some 67 percent expect the buying power of Polish households to decline if the euro is introduced.

Scottish National Party’s overtures to Labour prompt Conservative backlash

Julie Hyland

The Scottish National Party (SNP) has released its manifesto for the General Election on May 7.

Short on details, it is framed entirely from the standpoint of positioning itself as a potential coalition partner with a minority Labour government.

The manifesto’s release comes as opinion polls predict a wipe-out for Labour in its traditional strongholds in Scotland. Widely derided as “Red Tories” for their right-wing big business policies, Labour looks set to replicate the fate of the Conservative Party that has just one MP in Scotland out of 59. With some forecasting Labour could be reduced from its current 41 MPs to a mere handful, the result could leave the SNP as “kingmaker” in the likely outcome of a hung parliament.

The SNP has made great play of its stated opposition to austerity, condemning Labour for joining the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in committing to a further £30 billion in spending cuts. But such attacks are belied by its stated aim of putting Labour in power at Westminster.

Publicly Labour and the SNP have ruled out a formal coalition, but both have left open the possibility of a “confidence and supply” alliance. SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has repeatedly stressed that a strong showing for her party would be used to make Labour leader Ed Miliband the next prime minister.

The SNP manifesto underscores this commitment, largely replicating Labour’s own with its pledges to a hike in the minimum wage, “modest” spending increases, a “mansion” tax, and so on. The SNP would “make a Labour government bolder and better” rather than just a “carbon copy of the Tories”, Sturgeon said.

Such promises, whether coming from the SNP or Labour, are worthless, given that they are predicated on a non-existent growth in the world economy and agreement on reducing Britain’s national deficit each year. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out, all the party’s plans “imply further austerity over the next parliament,” noting a “considerable disconnect” between the SNP’s policies and their “anti-austerity rhetoric.”

In fact, the SNP has cut the total value of its pledge to raise spending by 0.5 percent three times in three months—from £180 billion, to £165 billion and now £140 billion in the manifesto. Even so, it appears alongside its pledge “to enshrine in law key principles of financial management … to ensure prudent levels of debt are achieved.”

This is all part of the SNP’s pitch to establish itself as a responsible party of government. “The SNP is not going to Westminster to seek to block budgets and bring down governments,” Sturgeon said, but to “bring positive change.”

While the SNP will “Speak up for Scotland”, she added, it would use its “position of influence … in the interests of people not just in Scotland but across the whole of the UK. …. To everyone who, like me, wants this election to herald the real and positive change that will make life better for ordinary people across these islands, I hold out a hand of friendship.”

Sturgeon indicated that her party’s opposition to the renewal of Britain’s Trident nuclear submarine programme would not be a barrier to an alliance with Labour. There is no reason why it should be, as the SNP has overturned its former opposition to membership of NATO—the largest nuclear block in the world—and supported the NATO intervention into Libya.

The SNP also blocks with Labour in opposing Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU). Against Prime Minister David Cameron’s pledge to hold an in/out referendum on British membership by 2017 should he win re-election, Miliband has said there will be no such ballot under a Labour government.

With a view to a potential referendum on the issue, however, the SNP pledges that it would seek to “ensure that no constituent part of the UK can be taken out of the EU against its will. We will propose a ‘double majority’ rule—meaning that unless England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each vote to leave the EU, the UK would remain a member state.”

This threat is balanced by the manifesto’s omission of any reference to a further referendum on Scottish independence—something that is openly demanded by many SNP members and by the pseudo-left groups in particular. The “SNP will always support independence—but that is not what this election is about,” the manifesto states, while the call for Scotland to gain full fiscal autonomy is relegated to the penultimate page, along with the acknowledgement that this “would take a number of years.”

The watering down of its previous demands has not stopped Cameron from presenting the possibility of a Labour-SNP coalition as a “calamitous outcome” for the UK.

He has been joined by former Conservative Prime Minister John Major, who this week said that “the SNP is a clear and present danger to our future. They will pit Scotland against England. That could be disastrous to the people of Scotland—and fatal to the UK as a whole.”

Such warnings conceal the fact that the Conservative Party is attempting to whip up English nationalism in a desperate bid to retain power. With Labour and the Tories polling neck and neck, Cameron’s fortunes are dependent on convincing supporters of the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) to return to the Tory fold.

On Thursday, Cameron launched a Conservative “mini-manifesto” for England. In keeping with Tory plans to introduce “English votes on English laws” after the election, it proposes that England be able to set its own level of income tax. Only English MPs in Westminster would be allowed to vote, it proposes, along with matters pertaining to health and housing in England.

The prime minister claimed that this was necessary to redress the fact that, under plans for greater devolution being considered by the Smith Commission, the Scottish parliament would soon have powers to set income tax levels in Scotland.

Cameron’s appeal to English nationalism has led to criticism from within the Tory party, with Conservative peer Lord Forsyth condemning it as “short-term and dangerous” and a threat to “the integrity of the country”.

The deliberate inflaming of nationalist tensions is indicative of the deep-going crisis within the British bourgeoisie. Faced with a mounting social and economic crisis, the traditional mechanisms of rule are collapsing.

Just how advanced this is, is made clear by the comments of former Tory chairman, Lord Tebbit. Cameron’s electoral pitch “is perhaps not altogether wise … we are compounding the problem. The Scottish Nats [SNP] are writ large UKIP—they come from the same creation, the irritation with the Westminster establishment,” he said.

Reinforcing the “Red Tory” charge against Miliband, the arch-Thatcherite said Conservative voters should consider voting Labour in Scotland.

“From the Tories’ point of view we are not going to come home with a vast number of seats from Scotland. … So the choice is would we rather have a Scot Nat or Labour? I think, on balance, probably a Labour MP would be a more reasonable thing to have,” he said.

He went even further, suggesting that the Conservative Party should fold up in Scotland and help create a pro-UK party:

“What is needed in Scotland from the Tories’ point of view is to wrap up the Conservative party and put down a little bit of fertiliser on the ground to encourage the growth of a Scottish unionist party.”

Majority of US public aid recipients are from working families

Zaida Green

A recent report by the University of California, Berkeley, shows that 73 percent of people enrolled in welfare programs are from working families, surviving on poverty-level wages. An earlier study by the UC Berkeley reported that 25 percent of all workers in the United States relied on some form of public aid.

Titled The High Public Cost of Low Wages, the study reports that of the 29 million families that depended on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) for food assistance in the period 2009- 2011, 10.3 million had working family members, but still needed assistance. Some 34.1 million workers and their family members were dependent on Medicaid for health care and did not receive health insurance from their employers. Overall, some 56 percent of combined state and federal assistance goes to working families.

The authors point out that data in the study does not include the impact of the Medicaid expansion contained in the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act. Both state governments and the federal government will share these costs.

The report noted that despite the official claims of an economic recovery, the wages and benefits for most American workers have continued a “decades-long stagnation.” In fact, inflation-adjusted wages for the bottom decile of wage earners were 5 percent lower in 2013 than they were in 1979. During the same period, real median hourly wages of American workers overall were just 5 percent higher.

Between 2003 and 2013, the real wages of the bottom 70 percent of households, i.e., those with an annual income at or under $83,000, either stagnated or declined. According to the US Census Bureau, the real median household income in 2013 was 8 percent lower than in 2007.

The overwhelming majority of jobs that have been created in the wake of the 2008 financial crash are low-wage or part-time and offer few if any benefits. Compared to the start of the recession, the number of full-time jobs in the US has decreased, while the number of part-time jobs has increased by 2 million.

Many of these jobs are in the service industries, particularly retail stores and restaurants. According to the UC Berkeley report, nearly half of all fast-food workers, child-carers, and home health aides, and a quarter of part-time college faculty, are enrolled in at least one public assistance program.

The wages of these jobs often sink below $10.30 per hour. Federal law permits employers to pay tipped workers, such as those working in restaurants, a sub-minimum wage of $2.13 per hour. The federal minimum wage is $7.25, well below the official poverty line for a family of two. Many of these workers are forced to work multiple jobs just to stay afloat.

Workers employed part-time at colleges and universities often must search for other sources of income during the summer months between academic terms. Some states ban adjunct professors and other teachers from claiming unemployment benefits during this time.

The majority of fast-food workers are employed part-time, working 30 hours per week. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics puts the average wage of a fast-food worker at $9.03 per hour, amounting to an average annual income of just $14,000. However, even full-time employment is not enough to supplement the meager wages in the industry. The families of more than half of fast-food workers rely on welfare programs. One in five lives in poverty.

Though tens of millions of families depend on welfare benefits to survive, the ruling class is carrying out ruthless attacks on these vital social programs.

SNAP’s budget will be slashed by $8.7 billion over the next decade. The TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) program itself is a product of reactionary “welfare reform,” imposing arbitrary time limits on child care benefits and requiring adults to find employment in order to continue receiving aid past a certain time period.

While mass layoffs, austerity, and savage attacks on the standard of living have defined the “economic recovery” for the working class, a tiny financial elite has seen their coffers balloon. Between 2003 and 2013, the net worth of the world’s billionaires more than tripled from $1.4 trillion to $5.4 trillion. The wealth of the world’s billionaires set a new record this year, at $7.05 trillion.

US, South Korea sign new nuclear pact

Ben McGrath

The United States and South Korea reached an agreement on the latter’s nuclear program this week after nearly five years of negotiations. The deal will allow South Korea to expand its nuclear activities, softening previous provisions designed to prevent Seoul’s development of nuclear weapons.

The pact was signed Wednesday between US Ambassador to South Korea Mark Lippert and Park No-byeok, South Korea’s lead negotiator on nuclear cooperation issues. The 21-point agreement calls for the establishment of a high-level panel to oversee its implementation. It will expire in 20 years, with the door left open for future amendments.

The treaty still requires the approval of President Obama and the US Congress, as well as South Korean President Park Geun-hye.

Negotiator Park No-byeok told a news conference following the signing ceremony: “As the existing accord sealed 40 years ago had various components that needed to be improved, the new one contains various progress focusing on three main areas—spent fuel management, a steady fuel supply, and reactor export promotion.”

The US embassy in Seoul released a statement saying: “This agreement marks a major milestone for the US-ROK [Republic of Korea] alliance and reinforces the alliance as a linchpin of peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region.”

Negotiations over South Korea’s nuclear program had been ongoing since 2010. A 1974 agreement was set to expire last year. However, with the two sides at an impasse, it was extended for two years to give negotiators more time.

South Korea’s primary concern was to establish its right to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel rods, both of which will technically continue to be banned under the new treaty. These processes could provide South Korea with an avenue to produce weapons-grade nuclear material.

New provisions, however, will allow South Korea to take steps toward uranium enrichment. Seoul, using material obtained only from the US, will be able to enrich uranium up to 20 percent under the oversight panel’s supervision. The agreement further states that future consultations could be held on this issue. “It is meaningful that we have opened the pathway for uranium enrichment,” a foreign ministry official stated on condition of anonymity.

South Korea will also be allowed to conduct research into a type of fuel reprocessing known as pyroprocessing—a method of recycling spent fuel that makes it more difficult to weaponize.

South Korea argued during the negotiations that the ability to enrich fuel would allow it to pursue energy deals with other countries. As one example, Seoul reached an agreement with Saudi Arabia in March to research the possibility of constructing two nuclear reactors over the next two decades, a deal valued at $2 billion.

South Korea, the world’s fifth largest nuclear energy producer, is also concerned that it is running out of space to store its used fuel rods. Currently 24 nuclear plants supply nearly 40 percent of the country’s energy needs and it is estimated that storage facilities will be filled to capacity within a decade. The new deal allows this spent fuel to be reprocessed in a third country approved by the US.

The United States is concerned that if given the opportunity, South Korea could develop its own nuclear weapons, thereby eroding Washington’s influence and stoking a regional nuclear arms race. In 2013, the US expressed similar concerns in relation to Japan when the latter opened the Rokkasho reprocessing plant, capable of producing enough weapons-grade plutonium to build 2,000 bombs annually.

The nuclear deal underscores South Korea’s dependent role within the US alliance. While making a few relatively minor concessions, the US continues to dictate what Seoul can and cannot do. The US is hostile to any alteration to the current relationship because South Korea is integral to any future war against China.

Washington’s concerns are not unfounded. Numerous figures within the South Korean ruling class have voiced their support for obtaining nuclear weapons. This includes conservative journalists and former right-wing lawmaker Song Yeong-seon, a longtime advocate of South Korean nuclear weapons. Chung Mong-joon, another former Saenuri Party lawmaker, son of the Hyundai Group founder, and one-time party leader, has also expressed his backing for such a plan.

In 2013, following North Korea’s third nuclear test, Chung stated during a speech at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington that South Korea should consider withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it ratified in 1975, and “match North Korea’s nuclear progress step by step while committing to stop if North Korea stops.” Chung claimed: “The only thing that kept the Cold War cold was the mutual deterrence afforded by nuclear weapons.”

While the government has never endorsed Chung’s position, the idea has been considered within South Korean ruling circles, to varying degrees, for decades. South Korea’s nuclear activities date back to the 1950s, but it was not until the 1970s that the program took off.

In late 1971, the military dictator Park Chung-hee, the current president’s father, instructed his staff to draw up plans to develop nuclear weapons. The following year, the US and South Korea signed the 1972 Atomic Energy Agreement, under which Seoul purchased an American nuclear reactor. However, once it became clear that Park was eyeing the acquisition of nuclear weapons, Washington forced the South Korean regime to sign an amended agreement in 1974 and ratify the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1975.

Despite these treaties, the Park government’s program carried on for two more years in secret in an effort to develop a nuclear bomb and a ballistic missile, known as the Baekkom (White Bear), as the preferred delivery system. In 1976, Park acquiesced to US pressure to give up the nuclear weapons program.

Through the latest agreement, Washington is again seeking to ensure that South Korea remains dependent on the US “nuclear umbrella” and thus an integral part of its military build-up throughout the Indo-Pacific region against China.

Greece’s Syriza government signals pension cuts

Christoph Dreier

At Friday’s meeting of European finance ministers in the Latvian capital of Riga, no agreement was reached with the Greek government on the repayment of loans. Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis made clear, however, that his government was ready to impose extensive pension cuts and labour market “reforms” in order to reach an agreement with the troika (European Union, International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank).

Even before the finance ministers’ meeting, Varoufakis published a comment on his blog in which he made far-reaching concessions to the troika. He assured it that negotiations since Syriza’s election victory in January had already brought “much convergence” between Greece and its “European partners.” The remaining differences, he said, were “not unbridgeable.”

He went on to assert that the Syriza-led government would promote entrepreneurialism, create an independent tax commission, continue the privatization of state property and “rationalize the pension system (for example, by limiting early retirement).”

The elimination of early retirement benefits is one of the central demands of the troika. The retirement age was already raised to 67 in 2012. Numerous exemptions, however, have allowed most workers to retire earlier. The “limiting” of exemptions means nothing less than the blanket enforcement of the higher retirement age.

Such a lengthening of the work life of Greek citizens amounts to a massive pension cut. And with the official jobless rate at 25 percent, few workers are able remain employed until they reach 67. Entire families already depend on a single pension to survive.

Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left) previously declared pension cuts a “red line” that it would not cross. The fact that Varoufakis threw this line overboard in the run-up to the finance ministers’ meeting made clear that there were no limits to the attacks on the working class the supposedly “left” government was prepared to carry out in order to reach a deal with the troika.

Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, added his own assurances that his government would adhere to the reactionary policies of the EU. At an EU summit on Thursday, he signed onto the so-called “ten-point plan” for immigration policy. The plan provides for the ramping up of police and military operations to block migrants from reaching European shores and lays the foundations for a large-scale military intervention in Africa.

At the meeting, Tsipras met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel for over an hour. The German newspaper Die Zeit reported that Merkel insisted Greece quickly implement the demanded reforms, while Tsipras protested that his country had already made “enough sacrifices.”

Tsipras expressed the hope that Greece and the EU could still come to an agreement by the end of April. Greece urgently needs an outstanding tranche of loans amounting to over 7.2 billion euros. In order to pay back wages and meet loan commitments, the Syriza-led government has already plundered the public treasury.

After the meeting in Riga, Varoufakis said it was necessary for a deal to be reached quickly. “We agreed that an agreement will be difficult,” he said, “but it will happen and it will happen quickly because that is the only option we have.”

Despite the groveling of Syriza, EU representatives showed little willingness to compromise. Eurogroup president Jeroen Dijsselbloem said after the meeting that there could be no paying out of loans if the Greek government did not submit a detailed “reform” program. Everyone was certain, he said, that the time for an agreement was running out. The responsibility for that lay with Greece.

Dijsselbloem added that “significant differences remain” between the EU ministers and Greece. Austrian Finance Minister Jörg Schelling reproached the Greek government for presenting no concrete proposals. He said, “I strongly urge that we now get something on the table that can be decided upon.”

Reuters reported that the Slovenian finance minister, Dusan Mramor, met with Varoufakis behind closed doors and suggested a “Plan B.” The Greek finance minister later called him “anti-European.”

According to those present, the finance ministers’ meeting became hostile. As Varoufakis, in a conference call, clarified the details of loan payments in the coming week, one of his interlocutors denounced him as a “time-waster, gambler and amateur.”

Tsipras was also rebuffed. French President François Hollande warned him to speed up the imposition of social cuts. After a short meeting with Tsipras, he said, “Greece must continue to provide the necessary information and show that it can make decisions about reforms.”

EU officials have made it more than clear that they are not prepared to make any concessions and intend to make an example of Greece. The social assault is to be carried out whatever the cost and serve as a model for the entire continent.

Indian Muslims Need Secular Education

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Interview with Maulana Wahiduddin Khan on Issues Facing Muslims By India Today

Q: What do you feel are the major issues facing Muslims in India today?

A: I’ve studied this issue in detail and have written about it extensively. There’s only one reason for the overall backwardness of the Indian Muslims, and that is their backwardness in education. By education here I mean secular education. There are madrasas in every Muslim locality, but madrasas only tell you about religion, about how to pray and so on. But to understand how to live in this world, how to live in society, requires more than madrasa education. It requires secular education.

Muslims always complain of discrimination. Now, what is this ‘discrimination’? The fact is that Muslims are backward in secular education, because of which they can’t compete with others. And if you can’t compete with others, it is but natural that you can’t get jobs and avail of many other opportunities. All these jobs and other opportunities are for those who are trained in modern disciplines, and especially for those who have professional education. But Muslims are backward in modern education. Many of them don’t even know what professional education means. This is the basic reason for their backwardness.

Some Muslims have now started entering the field of secular education. They began setting up modern schools. But it proved to be a non-starter. Why? Because they started Muslim schools, Muslim colleges, Muslim universities. All these Muslim institutions are nothing but ghettos. They are ghetto schools, ghetto colleges, ghetto universities. This kind of ghettoized education cannot help you in the modern age.

Q: Do you think that all madrasas should be converted into good, secular, modern schools?

A: No. Never. Madrasas are doing good service, in their field, to provide people with religious knowledge. That’s also an important need. I don’t complain against madrasas. I only say that there is another field of learning—modern, secular education—which is directly related to jobs and other opportunities that needs to be also promoted. I don’t subscribe to the notion that madrasas should be ‘modernised’. No, not at all.

Q: In the last several decades, Muslims seem to have gone back in modern education. Are Muslims alone responsible for this, or is there the hand of the establishment in pushing Muslims backward in this regard?

A: This thesis of others being responsible is completely wrong. Muslims are themselves responsible for this. Their leaders are responsible. No one else is responsible. There’s a verse in the Quran that says: “Man shall have only that for which he strives.” (53:39) From this we learn that everyone achieves according to his or her own effort. It is wrong to say that others are responsible for Muslim backwardness. It is totally, completely wrong. The basic reason for Muslim backwardness is that Muslim leaders failed to provide Muslims with modern thinking. So, basically, Muslim leaders are responsible.

Q: What do you feel about the recent mushrooming of Muslim-led political parties in India in the context of the decline of Muslim political representation? Do you support this? Will it help increase Muslim political representation?

A: It is a fact that Muslim political representation has declined. But the blame for this goes to Muslims themselves. It is not because of any discrimination or anything else. The sole reason is that Muslim voters are divided. There is no unity among Muslims.

Q: Do you support the formation of Muslim political parties? Some people say that it will further alienate Muslims, rather than help them.

A: Muslim political parties are not the solution. It will not help Muslims. Setting up such parties will only increase their problems. In the past, Muslims set up many political parties, but they all failed to serve any positive purpose.

Q: What is the future of Islam in India?

A: The future of Islam is always bright—and everywhere, not only in India. But this is an irrelevant question, because Islam is a concern of God. God Himself is the Guardian of Islam. He Himself is the Protector of Islam. So, there’s no question at all about Islam’s future. If there is any question, it is about the future of the Muslim community. Islam and Muslims are two very different things. Islam is an ideology, while Muslims are a community just like any other community.

Q: What do you feel about the stereotyping of Muslims as terrorists in the media?

A: Here, too, I blame Muslims. Why? Because Muslims always react negatively. For example, when Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses was published, they raised a huge hue and cry, demanding that Rushdie be killed. That is terrorism. How can you demand that an author be killed? You have no right to do so. Who are you? Only the judicial system can give a verdict. You can’t take the law into your hands. You have no right to demand “Kill Rushdie!” You can respond to him by publishing a book in reply to his. You can take his case to the court, if you like. But how can you demand that he be killed? This is sheer terrorism.

So, when Muslims demand that this or that person be killed, they are engaged in acts of terrorism. They are constantly demanding that someone or the other be killed. Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they fail. In Pakistan, for instance, they’ve killed I don’t know how many people in this way, without any judicial verdict. This is terrorism. According to my definition, terrorism is the use of arms by agencies other than the state.

Q: What advice would you give to Muslims in the face of media misrepresentation of Islam, which has, in the past, led to massive Muslim protests?

A: When some time ago, some cartoons were published in Denmark and Muslims were enraged, I wrote an article titled Muslims Must Ignore Cartoons. I said that Muslims should simply ignore such things. So, I say ignore the cartoons. Ignore Rushdie. Don’t waste your time on these things. There are so many other things that require your full attention—education, dawah work and so on. Avoid and ignore all the cartoons and so on, so that you can use your energies for all these constructive things.