Fabricating a War on Iran

Serge Halimi

Secretary of State Colin Powell brandished a vial he claimed contained anthrax at the UN Security Council on 5 February 2003, and showed satellite photos of secret sites where chemical weapons were supposed to be manufactured. He later admitted the story was fabricated, but not before it had served as a PR launch pad for the Iraq war.

On 11 December 2017 the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, appeared with huge fragments of what she claimed was an Iranian missile that had missed its target. She maintained it had been fired from Yemen at a Saudi civil airport, ‘a G20 country’ and had ‘the potential to kill hundreds of innocent civilians in Saudi Arabia … Just imagine if this missile had been launched at Dulles Airport or JFK. Or the airport in Paris, London or Berlin.’

Never mind it could not have travelled that far. Once again, fear is being manufactured to justify war: 14 years after destroying Iraq, the US government has Iran in its sights.

Haley’s lack of imagination might be entertaining were the subject not so serious. In 2003 Powell criticised the existence of ‘sinister’ links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. This was replayed on 1 November 2017: the CIA published a cache of documents seized in Pakistan when Osama bin Laden was assassinated, supposed to prove the existence of improbable links between some of Bin Laden’s successors and Iran’s (Shia) leadership.

It’s as if Washington has already forgotten the support – real, not alleged – it gave Bin Laden when he fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, or Ronald Reagan’s illegal arms sales to Iran when he sought funding for his far-right friends in Nicaragua.

Back then, no one used this as a pretext for declaring war on the US. Today, Saudi Arabia, Israel and many US leaders are spoiling for a fight with Iran, which faces internal unrest. The influential Republican senator Tom Cotton, possibly the next head of the CIA, can hardly wait. He thinks that all the US’s diplomatic challenges (Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Ukraine) have a ‘military option’. And the danger posed by Iran, which he believes to be greater than that from North Korea, would justify a ‘primarily naval and air attack against its nuclear infrastructure’.

President Obama noted two years ago that Iran’s military budget was only one-eighth of that of US allies in the region and one-fortieth of the Pentagon’s. Nonetheless, the sound of war drums against the ‘Iranian threat’ is almost deafening. In such a climate of psychological war, how smart was it for the French foreign minister to criticise Iran’s desire for ‘hegemony’ last December in Washington?

The European Union and the Venezuelan “Opposition”

Aidan O’Brien

If anyone is in any doubt about the direction the European Union has been moving in the last say 30 years (or say 500 years) they should consider the recent recipient of the European Parliament’s “prestigious” [sic] Sakharov Freedom Prize: the Venezuelan “opposition”.

The European Parliament is the European Union’s (EU’s) only democratic body. If the will of the “European” people has an expression: this is it. The European Presidency, the European Commission and the European Central Bank (the EU’s agenda setters), in contrast, are strictly top-down organizations. For this reason the strengthening of the bottom-up Parliament is considered by many progressives to be the EU’s only hope.

So what’s there to hope for? Not much, judging by the latest Sakharov Freedom Prize. If the European Parliament has its way Europe and indeed the world is going to resemble Venezuela pre-Chavez. In other words – to put it very mildly – socialism in the 21st century is a nonstarter for the European Parliament.

By embracing the Venezuelan “opposition” – the European Parliament is embracing death. This is no exaggeration. Anyone familiar with the 500 year old Latin American oligarchy that has shaped everything in between Tijuana and Tierra del Fuego – knows the death we speak of. The social torture of the Native American and the African American, in particular, is the business of this oligarchy. And the Venezuelan “opposition” defends this business. And now the European Parliament officially defends it too.

The business in question is the straightforward one of peripheral capitalism. This global structure is based on the economic relations between the core countries of the Empire and the peripheral countries of the Empire. In essence, the peripheral regions must serve the core regions. In other words, the peripheral areas give up their independence, sovereignty and dignity for the benefit of the core areas.

The core is, of course, the obnoxious triad: the USA, the EU and Japan. However, the core essentially is the North Atlantic – Japan is nothing but an honorary White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP). The periphery, on the other hand, consists of those countries that follow the advice of “Economic Hit Men”: traditionally third world countries but now also including some “first world” countries (Ireland, Greece and Spain, for example – notably Catholic and Orthodox).

Venezuela today under its President – Nicolás Maduro – jealously defends (following the example set by Hugo Chavez) its independence, sovereignty and dignity. And therefore it breaks the golden rule of peripheral capitalism: submission to the imperial core. And so Venezuela – in the eyes of the core – must suffer.

And making the periphery suffer is what the imperial core does best. It has a 500 year history of doing precisely this. And it has had 500 years to cultivate a peripheral oligarchy to manage the suffering of the periphery. One that can twist and turn the pain that’s required for the core to gain.

In the case of Venezuela: the Bolivarian revolution has broken the back of the local oligarchy. And as a consequence not only is the peripheral oligarchy (throughout Latin America) hysterical but so too is the oligarchy within the imperial core.

In 2015, 2016 and early 2017 the US President, Barack Obama, declared the Venezuela of Maduro to be a threat to the national security of the USA. And in late 2017 the European Parliament declared the same Venezuela to be an enemy of “freedom”. These aren’t empty words. As the recent fates of Iraq, Libya and Syria testify: death on an industrial scale tends to follow the fanatical judgements of the North Atlantic fundamentalists.

When the self righteousness of the Atlanticists is combined with the social racism (a term Maduro uses) of the Venezuelan “opposition” – the danger facing Venezuela is stark. And it’s a danger with a name: fascism.

The oligarchic Empire demands a “natural” order, or a “natural” hierarchy, in the world. The people of color and the people who labor are expected to stay in the low and unseen place capital has designated for them. And if these “subhumans” get uppity – the oligarchy and their “God” will crucify them. This basically sums up the 500 year history of Latin America – a history that has enriched the North Atlantic countless times.

The Venezuelan “opposition” today is the weakest link in the fascist chain that has been wrapped around Latin America for so long. And the USA and EU (the ultimate beneficiaries of the Latin American status quo) have instinctively appointed themselves as the guardians of this “opposition”.

They automatically do so because the relationship between the core and the periphery is similar to that between a master and a slave. And the fascist chain is that which maintains the imperial order of things. Let go of the chain and the slaves will escape. And the Empire unravel.

In the Capitalist (Orwellian) world in which we live – the world of doublespeak – the giving of shelter and sustenance to the “social racism” of the Venezuelan “opposition” is known as “defending democracy” in the USA and “supporting freedom” in the EU.

However, the fact is that in Europe (and it looks like in America too) there’s no longer any doublespeak. “Freedom” really is the freedom to hate the people of color and the people who labor. As parts of the European core begin to resemble the global periphery (Greece, Ireland, etc.) – as austerity turns the European core into a version of the third world – the European oligarchy is beginning to stink like the third world oligarchy.

Noam Chomsky once intimated that the foreign policy of a government (or a newspaper) most reveals its true political vision. He was right. Foreign affairs allows those in power to openly lay their cards on the table. Uninhibited by domestic details power has the opportunity to freely express it’s values. One way or the other it can without fear show it’s fangs.

By giving the Sakharov Freedom Prize to the Venezuelan “opposition” that’s exactly what the European Parliament has just done. It has bared its fascist fangs. But the European Union has being doing this nonstop recently. In North Africa and the Middle East it openly savages the people of color (genocidal wars). And within Europe it openly savages those who labor for a living (genocidal economics).

The Empire advertised “globalization” as being “the Americanization” of the world. And it was right. But which America was it talking about? North America or Latin America? Decades later the evidence suggests that the world has been “Latin Americanized”. The 1% gloat over all the inequality they’ve created. And the “Salvador option” is on the table everywhere the Empire rules.

This being case it makes perfect sense that the imperial core sees the Venezuelan “opposition” as being the vanguard of “freedom and democracy”. The North Atlantic WASPS may not be Latin but their politics is. Has not “Rome” (the coliseum, the circus and the Vatican) always been their model?

The end result of globalization has been the creation of yet another crude Fascist International. The European Union and the Venezuelan “opposition” were thus made for each other. But not for the people of color and the people who labor in Europe, Venezuela and everywhere else.

To Liberate Cambodia

Robert J. Burrowes

A long-standing French protectorate briefly occupied by Japan during World War II, Cambodia became independent in 1953 as the French finally withdrew from Indochina. Under the leadership of Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Cambodia remained officially neutral, including during the subsequent US war on Indochina. However, by the mid-1960s, parts of the eastern provinces of Cambodia were bases for North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (NVA/NLF) forces operating against South Vietnam and this resulted in nearly a decade of bombing by the United States from 4 October 1965. See ‘Bombs Over Cambodia: New Light on US Air War’.

In 1970 Sihanouk was ousted in a US-supported coup led by General Lon Nol. See ‘A Special Supplement: Cambodia’. The following few years were characterized by an internal power struggle between Cambodian elites and war involving several foreign countries, but particularly including continuation of the recently commenced ‘carpet bombing’ of Cambodia by the US Air Force.

On 17 April 1975 the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), otherwise known as the Khmer Rouge, took control of Cambodia. Following four years of ruthless rule by the Chinese-supported Khmer Rouge, initially under Pol Pot, they were defeated by the Vietnamese army in 1979 and the Vietnamese occupation authorities established the People’s Republic of Kampuchea (PRK), installing Heng Samrin and other pro-Vietnamese Communist politicians as leaders of the new government. Heng was succeeded by Chan Sy as Prime Minister in 1981.

Following the death of Chan Sy, Hun Senbecame Prime Minister of Cambodia in 1985 and, despite a facade of democracy, he and the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) have been in power ever since. This period has notably included using the army to purge a feared rival in a bloody coup conducted in 1997. Hun Sen’s co-Prime Minister, Prince Norodom Ranariddh, was ousted and fled to Paris while his supporters were arrested, tortured and some were summarily executed.

The current main opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) was founded in 2012 by merging the Sam Rainsy Party and the Human Rights Party. Emblematic of Cambodia’s ‘democratic’ status, more than two dozen opposition members and critics have been locked up in the past yearalone and the CNRP leader, Kem Sokha, known for his nonviolent, politically tolerant views, is currently imprisoned at a detention centre in Tboung Khmum Province following his arrest on 3 September 2017 under allegations of treason, espionage and for orchestrating anti-government demonstrations in 2013-2014. These demonstrations were triggered by widespread allegations of electoral fraud during the Cambodian general election of 2013. See ‘Sokha arrested for “treason”, is accused of colluding with US to topple the government’.

On 16 November 2017 the CNRP was dissolved by Cambodia’s highest court and 118 of its members, including Sokha and exiled former leader Sam Rainsy, were banned from politics for five years.

Cambodian Society

Socially, Cambodia is primarily Khmer with ethnic populations of Chinese, Vietnamese, Cham, Thai and Lao. It has a population of 16 million people. The pre-eminent religion is Buddhism. The adult literacy rate is 75%; few Cambodians speak a European language limiting access to western literature. Most students complete 12 years of (low quality public) school but tertiary enrollment is limited. As in all countries, education (reinforced by state propaganda through the media) serves to intimidate and indoctrinate students into obedience of elites. Discussion of national politics in a school class is taboo and such discussions are rare at tertiary level. This manifests in the narrow range of concerns that mobilize student action: personal outcomes such as employment opportunities. Issues such as those in relation to peace, the environment and refugees do not have a significant profile. In short, the student population generally is neither well informed nor politically engaged.

However, many other issues engage at least some Cambodians, with demonstrations, strikes and street blockades being popular tactics, although the lack of strategy means that outcomes are usually limited and, despite commendable nonviolent discipline in many cases, violent repression is not effectively resisted. Issues of concern to workers, particularly low wages in a country with no minimum wage law, galvanize some response. See, for example, ‘Protests, Strikes Continue in Cambodia: Though their occupations differ, Cambodian workers are united in their push for a living wage’. Garment workers are a significant force because their sector is important to the national economy. Land grabbing and lack of housing mobilize many people but usually fail to attract support beyond those effected. See, for example, ‘Housing Activists Clash With Police in Street Protest’. Environmental issues, such as deforestation and natural resource depletion, fail to mobilize the support they need to be effective.

Having noted that, however, Cambodian activists require enormous courage to take nonviolent action as the possibility of violent state repression in response to popular mobilization is a real one, as illustrated above and documented in the Amnesty International report ‘Taking to the streets: Freedom of peaceful assembly in Cambodia’ from 2015.

Perhaps understandably, given their circumstances, international issues, such as events in the Middle East, North Korea and the plight of the Rohingya in neighbouring Myanmar are beyond the concern of most Cambodians.

Economically, Cambodians produce traditional goods for small local households with industrial production remaining low in a country that is still industrializing. Building on agriculture (especially rice), tourism and particularly the garment industry, which provided the basis for the Cambodian export sector in recent decades, the dictatorship has been encouraging light manufacturing, such as of electronics and auto-parts, by establishing ‘special economic zones’ that allow cheap Cambodian labour to be exploited. Most of the manufacturers are Japanese and despite poor infrastructure (such as lack of roads and port facilities), poor production management, poor literacy and numeracy among the workers, corruption and unreliable energy supplies, Cambodian factory production is slowly rising to play a part in Japan’s regional supply chain. In addition, Chinese investment in the construction sector has grown enormously in recent years and Cambodia is experiencing the common problem of development being geared to serve elite commercial interests and tourists rather than the needs (such as affordable housing) of ordinary people or the environment. See ‘China’s construction bubble may leave Cambodia’s next generation without a home’.

Environmentally, Cambodia does little to conserve its natural resources. For example, between 1990 and 2010, Cambodia lost 22% of its forest cover, or nearly 3,000,000 hectares, largely to logging. There is no commitment to gauging environmental impact before construction projects begin and the $US800m Lower Sesan 2 Dam, in the northeast of the country, has been widely accused of being constructed with little thought given to local residents (who will be evicted or lose their livelihood when the dam reservoir fills) or the project’s environmental impact.

Beyond deforestation (through both legal and illegal logging) then, environmental destruction in Cambodia occurs as a result of large scale construction and agricultural projects which destroy important wildlife habitats, but also through massive (legal and illegal) sand mining – see ‘Shifting Sand: How Singapore’s demand for Cambodian sand threatens ecosystems and undermines good governance’ – poaching of endangered and endemic species, with Cambodian businesses and political authorities, as well as foreign criminal syndicates and many transnational corporations from all over the world implicated in the various aspects of this corruptly-approved and executed destruction.

In the words of Cambodian researcher Tay Sovannarun: ‘The government just keeps doing business as usual while the rich cliques keep extracting natural resources and externalizing the cost to the rest of society.’ Moreover, three members of the NGO Mother Nature – Sun Mala, Try Sovikea and Sim Somnang – recently served nearly a year in prison for their efforts to defend the environment and the group was dissolved by the government in September 2017. See ‘Environmental NGO Mother Nature dissolved’.

Cambodian Politics

Politically, Cambodians are largely naïve with most believing that they live in a ‘democracy’ despite the absence of its most obvious hallmarks such as civil and political rights, the separation of powers including an independent judiciary, free and fair elections, the right of assembly and freedom of the press (with the English-language newspaper The Cambodia Daily recently closed down along with some radio stations). And this is an accurate assessment of most members of the political leadership of the CNRP as well.

Despite a 30-year record of political manipulation by Hun Sen and the CPP – during which ‘Hun Sen has made it clear that he does not respect the concept of free and fair elections’: see ‘30 Years of Hun Sen: Violence, Repression, and Corruption in Cambodia’ – which has included obvious corruption of elections through vote-rigging but also an outright coup in 1997 and the imprisonment or exile of opposition leaders since then, most Cambodians and their opposition leaders still participate in the charade that they live in a ‘democracy’ which could result in the defeat of Hun Sen and the CPP at a ‘free and fair’ election. Of course, there are exceptions to this naïveté, as a 2014 article written by Mu Sochua, veteran Cambodian politician and former minister of women’s affairs in a Hun Sen government, demonstrates. See ‘Crackdown in Cambodia’.

Moreover, as Sovannarun has noted: most Cambodians ‘still think international pressure is effective in keeping the CPP from disrespecting democratic principles which they have violated up until this day. Right now they wait for US and EU sanctions in the hope that the CPP will step back.’ See, for example, ‘The Birth of a Dictator’. He asks: ‘Even assuming it works, when will Cambodians learn to rely on themselves when the ruling party causes the same troubles again? Are they going to ask for external help like this every time and expect their country to be successfully democratized?’

The problem, Sovannarun argues, is that ‘Cambodians in general do not really understand what democracy is. Their views are very narrow. For them, democracy is just an election. Many news reports refer to people as “voters” but in Khmer, this literally translates as “vote owners” as if people cannot express their rights or power beside voting.’

Fortunately, recent actions by the CPP have led to opposition leaders and some NGOs finally declaring the Hun Sen dictatorship for what it is. See, for example, ‘The Birth of a Dictator’. But for Sovannarun, ‘democratization ended in 1997. The country should be regarded as a dictatorship since then. The party that lost the election in 1993 still controlled the national military, the police and security force, and the public administration, eventually using military force to establish absolute control in 1997. How is Cambodia still a democracy?’

However, recent comprehensive research undertaken by Global Witness goes even further. Their report Hostile Takeover ‘sheds light on a huge network of secret deal-making and corruption that has underpinned Hun Sen’s 30-year dictatorial reign of murder, torture and the imprisonment of his political opponents’. See ‘Hostile Takeover: The corporate empire of Cambodia’s ruling family’ and ‘Probe: Companies Worth $200M Linked to Cambodian PM’s Family’.

So what are the prospects of liberating Cambodia from its dictatorship?

To begin, there is little evidence to suggest that leadership for any movement to do so will come from within formal political ranks. Following the court-ordered dissolution of the CNRP on 16 November 2017 – see ‘Cambodia top court dissolves main opposition CNRP party’ – at the behest of Hun Sen, ‘half of their 55 members of parliament fled the country’. And this dissolution was preceded by actions that had effectively neutralized the opposition, with two dozen opposition members (including CNRP leader Kem Sokha) and critics imprisoned in the past year alone, as reported above, and the rapid flight of Opposition Deputy President Mu Sochua on 3 October after allegedly being notified by a senior official that her arrest was imminent. See ‘Breaking: CNRP’s Mu Sochua flees country following “warning” of arrest’.But while Mu Sochua called for a protest gathering after she had fled, understandably, nobody dared to protest: ‘Who dares to protest if their leader runs for their life?’ Sovannarun asks.

Of course, civil society leadership is fraught with danger too. Prominent political commentator and activist Kem Ley, known for his trenchant criticism of the Hun Sen dictatorship, was assassinated on 10 July 2016 in Phnom Penh. See ‘Shooting Death of Popular Activist Roils Cambodia’ and ‘Q&A With Kem Ley: Transparency on Hun Sen Family’s Business Interests is Vital’. Ley was the third notable activist to be killed following the union leader Chea Vichea in 2004 – see ‘Who Killed Chea Vichea?’ – and environmental activist Wutty Chut in 2012. See ‘Cambodian Environmental Activist Is Slain’. But they are not the only activists to suffer this fate.

In addition, plenty of politicians, journalists and activists have been viciously assaulted by the security forces and members of Hun Sen’s bodyguard unit – see, for example, ‘Dragged and Beaten: The Cambodian Government’s Role in the October 2015 Attack on Opposition Politicians’ – and/or imprisoned by the dictatorship. See ‘Cambodia: Quash Case Against 11 Opposition Activists: No Legal Basis for Trumped-Up Charges, Convictions, and Long Sentences’. In fact, Radio Free Asia keeps a record of ‘Cambodian Opposition Politicians and Activists Behind Bars’ for activities that the dictatorship does not like, including defending human rights, land rights and the natural environment.

Moreover, in another recent measure of the blatant brutality of the dictatorship, Hun Sen publicly suggested that opposition politicians Sam Rainsy and Kem Sokha ‘would already be dead’ had he known they were promising to ‘organise a new government’ in the aftermath of the highly disputed 2013 national election result. See ‘Rainsy and Sokha “would already be dead”: PM’.He also used a government-produced video to link the CNRP with US groups in fomenting a ‘colour revolution’ in Cambodia. See ‘Government ups plot accusations with new video linking CNRP and US groups to “colour revolutions”’.

In one response to Hun Sen’s ‘would already be dead’ statement, British human rights lawyer Richard Rogers, who had filed a complaint asking the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the Cambodian ruling elite for widespread human rights violations in 2014, commented that it was simplymore evidence of the government’s willingness to persecute political dissidents. ‘It shows that he is willing to order the murder of his own people if they challenge his rule’. Moreover: ‘These are not the words of a modern leader who claims to lead a democracy.’ See ‘Rainsy and Sokha “would already be dead”: PM’.Whether Hun Sen is even sane is a question that no-one asks.

So what can Cambodians do? Fortunately, there is a long history of repressive regimes being overthrown by nonviolent grassroots movements. And nonviolent action has proven powerfully effective in Cambodia as the Buddhist monk Maha Gosananda, and his supporters demonstrated on their 19-day peace walk from Siem Reap to Phnom Penh through war ravaged Khmer Rouge territory in Cambodia in May 1993, defying the expectations of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) coordinators at the time that they would be killed by the Khmer Rouge. See ‘Maha Gosananda, a true peace maker’. However, for the Hun Sen dictatorship to be removed, Cambodians will be well served by a thoughtful and comprehensive strategy that takes particular account of their unique circumstances.

A framework to plan and implement a strategy to remove the dictatorship is explained in Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy with Sovannarun’s Khmer translation of this strategy here.

This strategic framework explains what is necessary to remove the dictatorship and, among consideration of many vital issues, elaborates what is necessary to maintain strategic coordination when leaders are at high risk of assassination, minimize the risk of violent repression while also ensuring that the movement is not hijacked by government or foreign provocateurs whose purpose is to subvert the movement by destroying its nonviolent character – see, for example, ‘Nonviolent Action: Minimizing the Risk of Violent Repression’ – as well as deal with foreign governments (such as those of China, the European Union, Japan and the USA) who (categorically or by inaction) support the dictatorship, sometimes by supplying military weapons suitable for use against the domestic population.

Sovannarun is not optimistic about the short-term prospects for his country: Too many mistakes have been repeated too often. But he is committed to the nonviolent struggle to liberate Cambodia from its dictatorship and recognizes that the corrupt electoral process cannot restore democracy or enable Cambodians to meaningfully address the vast range of social, political, economic and environmental challenges they face.

Swiss Newspaper Unveils Secret Saudi Arabia-Israel Military Alliance

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Saudi Arabia is seeking to buy Israeli defense systems and working with Israel to prevent Iran’s expansion in the Middle East, according to the Swiss newspaper Basler Zeitung.

Basler Zeitung reported on Monday (Jan 8) a “secret alliance” between Saudi Arabia and Israel, intended “to restrain Iran’s expansion in the region, despite the absence of any official relations between the two countries.”

The paper said the two countries are cooperating significantly in the areas of military issues and security on strategic issues, despite the fact that they have no open diplomatic ties.

“For the time being, Riyadh rejects any official normalization of relationships with Israel as long as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not resolved and normalization has not been publicly declared by Arab countries and thus there will be no exchange of ambassadors,” Pierre Heumann, the newspaper’s correspondent in Israel said in his report.

Iranian Factor

“There is an intensive secret cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel in order to achieve the main goal of curbing Iran’s expansion project and undermining its regional ambitions,” Heumann said. He added that “there exists indeed military cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Tel Aviv.”

According to Middle East experts, the unifying security factor that has animated Israel and Saudi Arabia to intensify military cooperation is the Iranian regime’s “jingoism in the Middle East”.

“Both want to hold back the regional ambitions of Iran,” wrote Heumann.

The Swiss daily also claimed that Riyadh requested Israel examine the possibility of acquiring, including through a third party, anti-tank defense systems and the Iron Dome anti-missile system.

According to the newspaper, “Riyadh seeks to intercept missiles coming from Yemen. Observers from Tel Aviv and Riyadh are confirming that cooperation between the security services of Israel and Saudi Arabia is very advanced, although Saudi Arabia has been officially denying any sort of cooperation with Israel,” as the newspaper put it.

The Swiss newspaper also said “the Saudi elite has abandoned its fears of overt contact with representatives of Israel long time ago.” CIA Director Mike Pompeo announced in early December last year that Saudi Arabia is working directly with Israel and other Sunni countries in the field of fighting terrorism.

Recently, there were several reports of Israeli and Saudi officials meeting, though neither side disclosed the topics discusses. The Swiss report claims that in October, intelligence officials from both countries met in order to tighten cooperation, and discussed holding an additional meeting with intelligence leaders of both countries.

The newspaper pointed out that a number of Saudi prominent figures met up with Israeli officials in public. In October, the two former Intelligence chiefs in Israel and Saudi Arabia met to exchange views about the US policy in the region. The newspaper noted that former Saudi Intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal held talks with former “Mossad” chief Efraim Halevy. Al-Faisal was even ready to participate with his Israeli counterpart at a symposium at the Jewish Community Centre in New York.

Israeli General’s interview

In November, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot gave an interview to the Saudi Arabian news site Elaph, stating that “the real and greatest threat in the region is Iran, which has three important issues that need to be acted upon.

The first is its nuclear programme, which has been temporarily frozen, but there is no doubt about Iran’s intentions to achieve nuclear capabilities.

Second, Iran’s imposing its influence on various regions and third, its supplying arms [to proxies] to carry out missions, such as to Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Islamic Jihad.

He also said Israel is prepared to share intelligence with the Gulf kingdom in their joint efforts to curb Iranian influence in the region.

How long before the Israeli flag flies over Riyadh?

At a MEMO (The Middle East Monitor)  conference in November 2017 entitled “Crisis in Saudi Arabia: War Succession and Future”, UK-based Palestinian Prof. Kamel Hawwash asked Professor Madawi Al-Rasheed of the London School of Economics if she thought that the Israeli flag would be flying over Riyadh within the next two years.

“In terms of an Israeli flag in Makkah or in Riyadh,” she replied, “well, you don’t need to raise the flag to have contacts.”

Prof. Kamel Hawwash wrote, “My question was of course about the symbolism of the Israeli flag flying in Riyadh. Would the young pretender to the Saudi throne, Mohammed Bin Salman, actually establish formal, above the table relations with the Zionist state?”

There have, of course, been robust reports of growing normalization between Israel and Gulf States, essentially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Hawwash said adding: They have included an “unofficial” visit to Israel by retired Saudi General Anwar Eshki in 2016; he met the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Director General and a group of Knesset members to “encourage dialogue in Israel on the Arab Peace Initiative.”

While Saudi Arabia continues to deny any contact with Israel, evidence is mounting to the contrary. In an interview on Army Radio, Israel’s Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz, a member of Netanyahu’s security cabinet, confirmed but did not characterize the contacts or give details when asked why Israel was “hiding its ties” with Saudi Arabia. “We have ties that are indeed partly covert with many Muslim and Arab countries,” he explained, “and usually (we are) the party that is not ashamed. It’s the other side that is interested in keeping the ties quiet. With us, usually, there is no problem, but we respect the other side’s wish, when ties are developing, whether it’s with Saudi Arabia or with other Arab countries or other Muslim countries, and there is much more … (but) we keep it secret.”

In exchange for cooperation with the Trump Administration and Israel to combat the perceived threat from Iran, Saudi Arabia seems to be willing to sacrifice Palestinian rights. In fact, it is ready to throw Palestinians to the dogs. It is reported that when Bin Salman recently “summoned” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to Riyadh it was to tell him either to accept the “ultimate peace deal” —which will be made in Israel and marketed by Trump — or resign.

What the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince and all other normalizers appear to ignore is that Israel takes and never gives. It will take normalization but give nothing in exchange. If they think that Israeli jets will ever fly over Riyadh or Abu Dhabi to protect its newly found allies from a fictitious Iranian air strike, then they are deluded. They only need to look at Egypt and Jordan, the two Arab states which have long normalized relations with Israel, to see which party has benefited from their peace deals.

Mohammad Bin Salman would do better to support the BDS movement against Israel rather than normalise Saudi Arabia’s relations with the Zionist state; that is, if he is serious about supporting the Palestinians to attain their rights. Moreover, if Mahmoud Abbas has to choose between accepting an unacceptable deal or resign, then I say to him resign now with honor, before the Israeli flag is indeed flying proudly on the Riyadh skyline.

Shadow Armies: The Unseen, But Real US War In Africa

Ramzy Baroud

There is a real – but largely concealed – war which is taking place throughout the African continent. It involves the United States, an invigorated Russia and a rising China. The outcome of the war is likely to define the future of the continent and its global outlook.

It is easy to pin the blame on US President Donald Trump, his erratic agenda and impulsive statements. But the truth is, the current US military expansion in Africa is just another step in the wrong direction. It is part of a strategy that had been implemented a decade ago, during the administration of Preident George W. Bush, and actively pursued by President Barack Obama.

In 2007, under the pretext of the ‘war on terror’, the US consolidated its various military operations in Africa to establish the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM). With a starting budget of half a billion dollars, AFRICOM was supposedly launched to engage with African countries in terms of diplomacy and aid. But, over the course of the last 10 years, AFRICOM has been transformed into a central command for military incursions and interventions.

However, that violent role has rapidly worsened during the first year of Trump’s term in office. Indeed, there is a hidden US war in Africa, and it is fought in the name of ‘counter-terrorism’.

According to a VICE News special investigation, US troops are now conducting 3,500 exercises and military engagements throughout Africa per year, an average of 10 per day. US mainstream media rarely discusses this ongoing war, thus giving the military ample space to destabilize any of the continent’s 54 countries as it pleases.

“Today’s figure of 3,500 marks an astounding 1,900 percent increase since the command was activated less than a decade ago, and suggests a major expansion of US military activities on the African continent,” VICE reported.

Following the death of four US Special Forces soldiers in Niger on October 4, US Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, made an ominous declaration to a Senate committee: these numbers are likely to increase as the US is expanding its military activities in Africa.

Mattis, like other defense officials in the previous two administrations, justifies the US military transgressions as part of ongoing ‘counter-terrorism’ efforts. But such coded reference has served as a pretense for the US to intervene in, and exploit, a massive region with a great economic potential.

The old colonial ‘Scramble for Africa’ is being reinvented by global powers that fully fathom the extent of the untapped economic largesse of the continent. While China, India and Russia are each developing a unique approach to wooing Africa, the US is invested mostly in the military option, which promises to inflict untold harm and destabilize many nations.

The 2012 coup in Mali, carried out by a US-trained army captain, Amadou Haya Sanogo, is only one example.

In a 2013 speech, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cautioned against a “new colonialism in Africa (in which it is) easy to come in, take out natural resources, pay off leaders and leave.” While Clinton is, of course, correct, she was disingenuously referring to China, not her own country.

China’s increasing influence in Africa is obvious, and Beijing’s practices can be unfair. However, China’s policy towards Africa is far more civil and trade-focused than the military-centered US approach.

The growth in the China-Africa trade figures are, as per a UN News report in 2013, happening at a truly “breathtaking pace”, as they jumped from around $10.5 billion per year in 2000 to $166 billion in 2011. Since then, it has continued at the same impressive pace.

But that growth was coupled with many initiatives, entailing many billions of dollars in Chinese credit to African countries to develop badly needed infrastructure. More went to finance the ‘African Talents Program’, which is designed to train 30,000 African professionals in various sectors.

It should come as no surprise, then, that China surpassed the US as Africa’s largest trading partner in 2009.

The real colonialism, which Clinton referred to in her speech, is, however, under way in the US’s own perception and behavior towards Africa. This is not a hyperbole, but in fact a statement that echoes the words of US President Trump himself.

During a lunch with nine African leaders last September at the UN, Trump spoke with the kind of mindset that inspired western leaders’ colonial approach to Africa for centuries.

Soon after he invented the none-existent country of ‘Nambia’, Trump boasted of his “many friends (who are) going to your (African) countries trying to get rich.” “I congratulate you,” he said, “they are spending a lot of money.”

The following month, Trump added Chad, his country’s devoted ‘counter-terrorism’ partner to the list of countries whose citizens are banned from entering the US.

Keeping in mind that Africa has 22 Muslim majority countries, the US government is divesting from any long-term diplomatic vision in Africa, and is, instead increasingly thrusting further into the military path.

The US military push does not seem to be part of a comprehensive policy approach, either. It is as alarming as it is erratic, reflecting the US constant over-reliance on military solutions to all sorts of problems, including trade and political rivalries.

Compare this to Russia’s strategic approach to Africa. Reigniting old camaraderie with the continent, Russia is following China’s strategy of engagement (or in this case, re-engagement) through development and favorable trade terms.

But, unlike China, Russia has a wide-ranging agenda that includes arms exports, which are replacing US weaponry in various parts of the continent. For Moscow, Africa also has untapped and tremendous potential as a political partner that can bolster Russia’s standing at the UN.

Aware of the evident global competition, some African leaders are now laboring to find new allies outside the traditional western framework, which has controlled much of Africa since the end of traditional colonialism decades ago.

A stark example was the late November visit by Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir to Russia and his high-level meeting with President Vladimir Putin. “We have been dreaming about this visit for a long time,” al-Bashir told Putin, and “we are in need of protection from the aggressive acts of the United States.”

The coveted ‘protection’ includes Russia’s promised involvement in modernizing the Sudanese army.

Wary of Russia’s Africa outreach, the US is fighting back with a military stratagem and little diplomacy. The ongoing US mini war on the continent will push the continent further into the abyss of violence and corruption, which may suit Washington well, but will bring about untold misery to millions of people.

There is no question that Africa is no longer an exclusive western ‘turf’, to be exploited at will. But it will be many years before Africa and its 54 nations are truly free from the stubborn neocolonial mindset, which is grounded in racism, economic exploitation and military interventions.

US Hypocrisy, From Cairo To Tehran

Soumaya Ghannoushi

Last week protests broke out in the city of Isfahan, spreading to Iran’s remaining cities, including the capital, Tehran.

The riots have given voice to calls for socio-economic change amid rising deprivation and unemployment among young people and a sense of injustice among poorer Iranians. These groups have suffered the brunt of inefficient economic management and the effects of the embargo imposed by international forces on Iran for many years.

The protests have revealed the vast gap between educated Iranian youth and successive Iranian governments, both conservative and reformist.

A fully fledged revolution?

Three actors have responded to this political crisis at lightning speed, each with its own stakes and calculations, in an attempt to turn this relatively limited social mobilisation into a fully fledged revolution against the government.

First are the Gulf states, which have fiercely pushed back against the Arab Spring, using money and the media to crush the uprisings, going so far as to engineer a military coup in Egypt in 2013.

Ironically, these states are dubbing the riots the “Persian Spring”. In other words, what is forbidden for the Arabs is permissible, even desirable, for Iranians.

The second is Israel, which, from the first months of political transformations that swept across the region in 2011, had labelled them “the Arab winter”, seeing them as an existential threat and a danger to its efforts to promote itself as the sole democracy in a Middle Eastern sea of dictatorships.

The third is the Trump administration, which had in the past shown no interest in democratic change in the region, instead devoting its energy to annulling the nuclear agreement with Iran and repositioning itself in the Middle East after successive US withdrawals since its defeat in Iraq.

Its UN representative had rushed to put the Iranian protests on the agenda of the Security Council, an institution which only a few days ago was denounced by her, accusing it of being hostile to Israel and threatening to suspend its funding.

Nauseating hypocrisy

The mobilisation of Iranian youth has no doubt many reasons, given the rise in marginalisation, unemployment, poverty rates and living costs. The main driving force behind this wave seems to be poor and marginalised social sectors, which did not put forward any clear political demands.

Unlike the protests that had erupted in 2009 and were spearheaded by the reformists, this latest movement doesn’t appear to be led by any specific political group.

Despite reservations about the Iranian system, it is more democratic than those of Washington’s Arab allies in the region (Reuters)

The rhetoric adopted by the US and its allies lacks any credibility, for the simple reason that this administration is the least qualified to promote democracy and human rights in the region, given its extensive financial transactions and involvement in arms and oil deals in the Middle East (as demonstrated by Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, from which he returned laden with contracts and gifts).

More importantly, only a few hundred miles from Iran, a bloody military coup had trampled over the people’s will, imposed absolute rule, placed an elected president behind bars, and subjected him to a slow death policy, while America and the West look on silently, even approvingly.

This nauseating hypocrisy – supporting our dictator friends, aiding and abetting them while they trample upon our much-vaunted values of human rights and democracy, while using these hollow principles as whips with which to flagellate our adversaries – has become plain for all to see in the Middle East and beyond.

Evidently, the political situation in Iran is far from ideal and the government still imposes many political and social restrictions on Iranian society.

The pulse of the street

Yet the situation is undeniably superior to that reigning in much of the region, dominated either by military rulers unconstrained by a constitution, parliament or political institutions (as is the case in Egypt, Syria, Eastern Libya, Sudan and others), or by monarchs, who enjoy absolute power and wealth, dictating the fate of their people from the cradle to the grave in the name of divine authority or a “natural right to rule” passed down from father to son.

The truth is that whatever our reservations with the Iranian system, it is more democratic than those of Washington’s Arab allies in the region.

Washington would be better off challenging absolute theocracies and brutal dictatorships, rather than confronting a semi-democracy in a region in which tyranny and absolutism are the norm.

This means introducing constitutions that respect universal standards, halting incidents of arbitrary detention and torture, and introducing free elections – at least at municipal council level, before we can even begin to talk about elected parliaments or governments, a fantasy under governments that hold the destinies of their nations in their iron grip and see any criticism of rulers as an act of treachery punishable by death.

Democracy and theocracy

This latest wave of protests in Iran will most likely be resolved sooner or later, but will force the authorities to pay more attention to the pulse of the Iranian street. This will force the Islamic Republic to allow more political openness and lift restrictions on public and private freedoms, given that it its political legitimacy is derived from a popular revolution.

Since Mohammad Khatami’s term, reformists have made significant strides towards greater political and cultural openness, despite the pressures imposed by a harsh US blockade and extensive record of Iranian interventions in the region, from Iraq to Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere.

The Islamic revolution that overthrew the shah’s rule in 1979 established a government that combines both democracy and theocracy.

Sooner or later, the Iranian government will be forced to allow greater openness towards a more liberal Islamic approach. Perhaps the current protests will take the country further in this direction.

The most urgent task for the Americans, if they are serious about calling for freedom, is to impose a minimal level of democracy on their allies in the region, from bloodthirsty generals to authoritarian kings and emirs.

Fuel tanker collision in East China Sea

Robert Campion

Two large ships, the MV Sanchi, an Iranian tanker and the CF Crystal, a bulk carrier, collided on Saturday evening off the coast of China, roughly 160 nautical miles east of Shanghai. The tanker is still ablaze and all its crew members are missing, believed dead.

Chinese authorities fear that the vessel could explode or sink to the seabed, leaking large quantities of crude oil into the East China Sea and threatening widespread pollution of coastal waters.

The incident occurred at approximately 8 p.m. local time. The MV Sanchi, carrying 136,000 tonnes of fuel to South Korea, collided with the Hong-Kong registered CF Crystal, which was heading south to Guangdong with 64,000 tonnes of grain from the US. Chinese authorities initiated an investigation but no details of the collision have been released.

According to TradeWinds, a news source for global shipping, the CF Crystal suffered “non-fatal” damage to its bow, and proceeded with the assistance of a tug to the port of Zhoushan, 150 kilometres south of Shanghai. The 21 mariners on board, all Chinese nationals, were rescued safely.

The MV Sanchi, however, was set ablaze. Poor weather conditions, including strong winds, rain and high waves, along with thick, toxic plumes of smoke from the vessel, have severely hampered search and rescue efforts.

One unidentified body was found in the water near the tanker on Monday. But the fate of the other 32 crew members—30 Iranians and 2 Bengalis—is unknown. Given the intensity of the blaze and failure to find anyone in the water, it is increasingly likely they are dead.

China sent vessels to try to bring the fire under control and search for survivors, including two law enforcement craft, two rescue boats, three cleaning ships and a high-powered tugboat. South Korea provided a marine police ship and a fixed-wing aircraft for the operation, which was coordinated by the China Maritime Search and Rescue Centre.

The US Navy sent a P-8A fixed-wing aircraft from its Pacific Fleet on Sunday to search for survivors over a radius of 3,600 nautical miles. No one was found.

The Shanghai Maritime Safety Administration has cordoned off a 10-nautical-mile exclusion zone around the Sanchi, and rescue and salvage workers have been provided with protective suits, protective masks and gas testing equipment.

Preventing an environmental disaster depends on putting out the fire and keeping the MV Sanchi afloat.

The ship was carrying an ultra-light version of crude oil called condensate, which is used for jet fuel, petrol and diesel. It is more toxic and combustible than regular crude oil, as well as being almost transparent and odourless.

Authorities are hoping most of the oil will burn off and dissipate. However, should the vessel sink due to secondary explosions, the condensate could leak into the surrounding waters where it would prove difficult to contain and remove.

University of Southampton oceanographer Dr Simon Boxall told the BBC: “Potentially the entire load, 136,000 tonnes, could end up in the ocean, and that would put this in the top 10 spills of all time, so it is significant.”

Boxall pointed out that condensates, unlike heavier crude oil, could not be picked off the water’s surface. “It’s not like crude [oil], which does break down under natural microbial action; this stuff actually kills the microbes that break the oil down,” he warned.

“If she sinks with a lot of cargo intact, then you have a time bomb on the sea bed which will slowly release condensate. There could be a long-term exclusion of fishing for many hundreds of kilometres in this area.”

According to the BBC, the Sanchi’s load is equivalent to about 35 million gallons, making the potential leak more than three times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, which is considered one of the world’s worst environmental disasters.

The National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC), the MV Sanchi’s owner, has downplayed the risks. NITC managing director Siroos Kianersi said: “[D]espite the current state of the ship and the damages to the hull, the possibility of sinking is low.”

NITC reported that two of its tankers and a vessel belonging to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) are also taking part in the search. The NITC, Iran’s Port Maritime Organisation (PMO) and the Panamanian Maritime Authority launched investigations into the cause of the accident, in conjunction with the Shanghai Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre (MRCC).

This is the second recent collision involving an NITC vessel. In August 2016, one of its tankers struck a Swiss ship in the Singapore Strait. In this instance, both ships were damaged but there were no injuries or oil spill.

Twitter censors German satirical magazine

Johannes Stern

Last week the message service Twitter blocked the account of the satirical magazine Titanic and deleted a tweet. The magazine had used the term “barbarian hordes” to parody a tweet by the deputy leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), Beatrix von Storch.

Earlier in the week, von Storch, an AfD parliamentary deputy, railed against “barbaric, Muslim, hordes of men seeking to gang rape,” whereupon Twitter blocked her account for 12 hours.

After 48 hours, Twitter lifted the suspension of Titanic magazine’s account but, according to the Titanic editorial staff in an official statement on January 5, “at least five tweets from the months of January and December remain blocked in Germany.” The tweets include “reports on [Austrian Prime Minister] Sebastian Kurz, the police in Saxony and Munich and some from the fake Beatrix von Storch.” The magazine intends to “continue to defend itself against blocks that affect Titanic and other satirists following the implementation of the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG).”

The blocking of satirical sites confirms warnings made by the World Socialist Web Site. Under the pretext of combating “fake news” and “hate messages,” the NetzDG drafted by Justice Minister Heiko Maas (SPD), and adopted by the grand coalition of the Social Democratic Party and the conservative Union parties, serves to massively regulate and censor the Internet.

Last Wednesday, the German Association of Journalists (DJV) called on Twitter “to immediately end any form of censorship of the Titanic satirical magazine.” DJV national chairman Frank Überall described the action by Twitter as “anticipatory obedience to prevent possible fines under the NetzDG.” A private enterprise based in the US is determining “the range of freedom of the press and opinion in Germany.” This, Überall exclaimed, amounted to “selling out basic rights!”

The NetzDG law obliges operators of Internet platforms with more than 2 million users to delete or block “obviously unlawful content within 24 hours of receiving a complaint.” A period of seven days applies for “unlawful content.” If platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat violate the rules, they face fines of up to 50 million euros.

There are hardly any limits laid down for multibillion-strong corporations, which cooperate closely with the state, when it comes to censoring the Internet. According to its own data, Facebook had already deleted 15,000 posts monthly before the NetzDG came into effect on January 1.

The German censorship law is part of a far-reaching global campaign to control the Internet. In the US, the Trump government abolished net neutrality in mid-December. Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron announced a ban on “fake news” during election campaigns. Meanwhile, the European Union is preparing to set up an anti-fake news agency to censor the Internet en masse.

Justice Minister Maas’ insistence that NetzDG serves the struggle against the far right is a flagrant lie. Propaganda terms such as “fake news” and “hate speech” are used primarily to suppress and banish from the Internet political news and views that contradict the official political line of governments, the military and intelligence agencies. Since the end of April, Google has been censoring leftist and progressive websites in close consultation with German government circles. The most notable victim is the World Socialist Web Site .

The ruling class is pursuing the same goal with NetzDG. Representatives of the German government have vehemently defended the law against mounting opposition.

The new censorship law is good and right and must be implemented, declared SPD parliamentary leader Andrea Nahles in the Bild am Sonntag: “We have to bring more responsibility to the Internet, it cannot be a free for all. It has nothing to do with censorship.”

Although Germany’s nominal opposition parties express criticism of the existing form of the NetzDG, they generally agree with censorship of the Internet. “The law is all messed up and should be replaced by a decent one,” said FDP Secretary General Nicola Beer. The Green Party chair Simone Peters spoke of the “need for tweaks” in the fight against hatred and agitation on the Internet. Platforms like Twitter have to be “held accountable without assuming the role of judges.”

Even sections of the Left Party openly back censorship of the Internet. A comment titled “Free hate is not free Internet” in Neues Deutschland on January 6, declared: “Leaving aside the quality of the law now passed—the step was correct and important.” Companies like Facebook and Twitter had already “decided before the entry into force of the NetzDG what was deleted and who was blocked, based on their own rules.”

The AfD has protested against the censorship of the tweet by von Storch and is cynically trying to portray itself as a guardian of democratic rights. In reality, the party is not opposed to censorship and the control of the Internet. The intrigues of the far right are well known. They spread their vile propaganda, claiming the right to free expression, while working closely with establishment parties and the state to suppress progressive and left-wing viewpoints.

The German ruling class is currently preparing to introduce an extreme right-wing and militaristic government and fears, above all, growing socialist sentiment in the population. In February 2016, a survey by the YouGov research institute revealed that 45 percent of respondents in Germany have a positive opinion of socialism and just 26 percent a negative one. Regarding capitalism, the result was exactly the opposite: only about one in four (26 percent) had a positive attitude and almost half (47 percent) of all respondents expressed a negative attitude.

The radicalization of workers and young people and the possibility of organising their protests and strikes via the Internet, as was the case during the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, is being followed closely by the bourgeoisie.

Recently, the government-related Science and Politics Foundation (SWP) published a study titled “Urban Spaces. Protests, World politics.” It stated that “Policymakers” and “Experts” increasingly see the occupation and blockade of public squares, streets or buildings as a global political challenge. …This “politicization of the street” is reinforced by the accelerated digital and frequent (audio) visual dissemination of protest activities through social media.”

Open questions and “challenges” are “not only aspects of data protection, political regulation and national jurisdiction in cases of conflict, but also the control of certain algorithms with which platforms work,” the foundation wrote.