The Truths That Won’t be Told: How Israel Spies on US Citizens

Alain Gresh

An investigative documentary by Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera scheduled for broadcast earlier this year was expected to cause a sensation. Its four 50-minute episodes centred on the young and personable James Anthony Kleinfeld, British, Jewish, an Oxford graduate who speaks six languages including Dutch and Yiddish and is well-informed about Middle East conflicts — seemingly a natural fit for a western foreign ministry or a major thinkthank.

The documentary showed Kleinfeld being enthusiastically recruited for his skills by The Israel Project (TIP), which defends Israel’s image in the media, and associating with senior members of organisations that support Israel unconditionally, especially the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the powerful US lobbying group. For five months, he mixed with them at cocktail parties, congresses and conventions, and on training courses. He won their trust and they opened up to him, abandoning doublespeak and official lines. How, he asked, did they go about influencing the US Congress? ‘Congressmen don’t do anything unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money’ (1). How did they counter Palestinian rights activists on university campuses? ‘With the anti-Israel people, what’s most effective, what we found at least in the last year, is you do the opposition research, put up some anonymous website, and then put up targeted Facebook ads.’

Kleinfeld’s contacts told him they were spying on US citizens with the help of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, founded in 2006, which reports directly to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. One official said: ‘We are a different government working on foreign soil, [so] we have to be very, very cautious.’ And indeed some of the things they do could be subject to prosecution under US law.

At the end of Kleinfeld’s time at TIP, his boss there, Eric Gallagher, was so happy with his performance that he wanted to hire ‘Tony’ (2) on a permanent basis: ‘I would love it if you came to work for me. I need someone who’s a team player, hardworking, excited, passionate, curious, well rounded, well spoken, well read. You’re all of those things.’ Kleinfeld turned down the job. His qualifications were genuine, but he was of course an undercover reporter, sent by Al Jazeera to investigate the pro-Israel lobby. He filmed conversations using a hidden camera and later, as part of an Al Jazeera investigations team led by executive producer Phil Rees, put together a spectacular documentary. There was all the more excitement over its impending broadcast, because a 2017 Al Jazeera report on the pro-Israel lobby in the UK (3) had revealed Israel’s interference in Britain’s internal affairs, and its attempts to bring down the deputy foreign secretary, Alan Duncan, whom it considered too pro-Palestinian. This had led to the Israeli ambassador in London making a public apology and a high-ranking diplomat being recalled to Tel Aviv.

The documentary was expected to be a media sensation, bringing outraged denials and intense controversy. But then the broadcast was postponed, with no official explanation. Eventually, articles in the US Jewish media (4) revealed that it would never be shown. Clayton Swisher, Al Jazeera’s director of investigative journalism, expressed regret at the decision in a published article, and announced he was taking sabbatical leave (5). The documentary had been sacrificed to the fierce battle between Qatar on one side and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the other for US support in the feud that began in June 2017. What better way to do this than by winning the favour of the pro-Israel lobby, known for its influence on US policy in the Middle East?

Burying the project

To tip the balance in its favour, Qatar ‘postponed’ the broadcast, winning a halt to the campaign against Doha by a section of the right wing of an already rightwing lobby. Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organisation of America (ZOA) and a close friend of Donald Trump’s former advisor Steve Bannon, flew to Doha and said he was delighted to see the documentary buried (see Qatar charms and wriggles out of trouble). That groups such as the ZOA, which had not long ago been accusing Qatar of funding Hamas and terrorism, should change sides in return for the documentary’s suppression says a lot about its explosive revelations.

But burying over a year’s work caused turmoil at Al Jazeera. Some were keen for the revelations not to sink into the quicksand of geopolitical compromise, which is why, thanks to a friend in the Gulf, I was able to watch all four episodes in their near-final version.

What was striking to see was the feverish mood of the pro-Israel lobby over the last few years due to a blind fear of losing its influence. How can that be, when support for Israel is massive in the US, and both Republicans and Democrats unfailingly back it, no matter what its ventures? And when, since Trump’s election, Washington no longer wishes to act as ‘unfair’ broker in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and has sided with Israel’s most rightwing government ever? Despite this apparently favourable climate, a spectre haunts the lobby: the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS).

BDS, launched in 2005, aims to use the non-violent methods that proved effective in South Africa under apartheid. It is growing in popularity on US campuses, but David Brog, director of strategic affairs of Christians United for Israel and executive director of the Maccabee Task Force, a group fighting against BDS, questioned whether it is really a cause for alarm. He said: ‘Israel’s booming. It’s the startup nation. More venture capital is going into Israel today than at any other time in history. So why don’t we just calm down, realise that BDS is worthless, it’s losing, and ignore it … I don’t think BDS was ever supposed to be about getting colleges to take their money out of Israel. So if we focus on the dollars we can feel really good about ourselves. If we focus on the fact that an effort is being made to distance us, those who love Israel, from the rising generation, I think we need to worry. When you get to millennials and students, it’s a bad situation. And it’s getting to the point now where the majority is more favourable towards the Palestinians than the Israelis.’ Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, a group of organisations that fights BDS in universities, is also worried: ‘The one thing every member of Congress and president and ambassador and newspaper editors has in common is, by and large, they spent a little bit of time on campus and probably those were formative years.’

There’s another worry for the lobby: support for Israel has traditionally transcended the Republican-Democrat divide, and a few months before the end of his presidency, Barack Obama unconditionally approved $38bn of aid to Israel over 10 years, though his relations with Netanyahu were terrible. But the political landscape is changing, and the lobby’s unconditional support for Trump is narrowing its base to the Republican Party and the evangelical right.

‘The bigger problem’

David Hazony, founding editor of The Tower Magazine and an influential member of TIP, said in the documentary: ‘The specific potential of an immediate boycott, that’s not a problem. What’s a bigger problem is the Democratic Party, the Bernie Sanders people, bringing all the anti-Israel people into the Democratic Party. Then being pro-Israel becomes less a bipartisan issue, and then every time the White House changes, the policies towards Israel change. That becomes a dangerous thing for Israel. There is actually an important battle being fought on the campuses.’ John Mearsheimer, co-author of a well-known book on the lobby (6), confirmed this in his frequent comments in the documentary. He said that support for Israel is now growing among Republicans and falling among Democrats: ‘There is a substantial difference in support for Israel in the two parties.’

How to halt this trend? It would be hard to do it through political debate. Since the failure of the 1993 Oslo accords, Israel has been led by far-right parties that reject any diplomatic solution. There is no question of any discussion of the fate of the Palestinians, the future of the settlements or the tragedy in Gaza. And the lobby’s support for Netanyahu and Trump is unlikely to generate much enthusiasm among US students. Journalist Max Blumenthal points out that the lobby took a similar approach to the documentary, refusing discussion and likening investigative journalism to espionage; discrediting Al Jazeera by dismissing it as a puppet of Qatar; and insisting that the documentary’s subject was ‘the Jewish lobby’ not support for Israel (Twitter, 15 February 2018). It could thus avoid any discussion of the details of the documentary’s revelations.

Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, said to a gathering of pro-Israel students: ‘You discredit the messenger as a way of discrediting the message. When you talk about … BDS, you talk about them as a hate group, as a movement that absolutely endorses violence against civilians … aka terrorism’— and of course as antisemitic. Pollak called Jewish Voice for Peace (a US leftwing organisation focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) ‘Jewish Voice for Hamas’. He told Kleinfeld: ‘The majority of Americans are pro-Israel. Whereas if you take a poll of Israel in the UK, it’s just pure hatred of Israel. Your country basically let half of fucking Pakistan move in. So you have a different problem than we do here.’

To discredit the messenger, as the documentary reveals, the pro-Israel lobby has built up a spy network over the last few years to gather information on opponents’ private lives, careers and political convictions. Baime said: ‘The research operation is very high-tech. When I got here a few years ago the budget was $3,000. Today it’s like a million and a half, or more. Probably it’s two million at this point. I don’t even know, it’s huge. It’s a massive budget.’ He and his colleagues are keen to stay invisible: ‘We do it securely and anonymously. That’s the key.’

‘If you’re a racist, the world should know’

One of the groups most feared by Palestinian rights activists is Canary Mission (7), whose funding, members and methods are shrouded in secrecy. A journalist with close links to the lobby said: ‘People who hate it, the people who are being targeted by it, call it a blacklist. You have names here that showup on this database. Students and professors, faculty, speakers, organisations that have ties to terrorism, outright ties to terrorism, or terrorists who have called for the destruction of the Jewish state.’ Canary Mission’s website describes its aim as being to ‘ensure that today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees’. Above the biography of each victim is the slogan ‘If you’re a racist, the world should know’.

Kleinfeld managed to talk to Canary Mission’s founder and financial backer, Adam Milstein, chairman of the Israeli-American Council (IAC). Milstein was jailed briefly for tax fraud in 2009, but that didn’t prevent him from carrying on his activities from prison. He explained his philosophy to Kleinfeld: ‘First of all, investigate who they [the pro-Palestine activists] are. What’s their agenda? They’re picking on the Jews because it’s easy, because it’s popular. We need to expose what they really are. And we need to expose the fact that they are anti everything we believe in. And we need to put them on the run. We’re doing it by exposing who they are, what they are, the fact that they are racist, the fact that they are bigots, [that] they’re anti-democracy.’

Students recounted in the documentary exactly what they faced. Summer Awad, who took part in a campaign for Palestinian rights in Knoxville, Tennessee, was harassed on Twitter, and information about her, some of it dating back a decade, was posted online: ‘They are digging and digging. Somebody contacted my employer and asked for me to be fired. If they continue to employ me they will be denounced as antisemitic.’ Denunciation can end careers or make it hard for students to find a job after graduation. To get their names off the blacklist, some victims write messages of ‘repentance’, which Canary Mission posts on its site (8). These anonymous confessions, whose writers explain that they were ‘deceived’, are much like those of suspected communist sympathisers under McCarthyism in the US in the 1950s, or victims of authoritarian regimes today. Baime said: ‘It’s psychological warfare. It drives them crazy. They either shut down, or they spend time investigating [the accusations against them] instead of attacking Israel. It’s extremely effective.’ Another person told Kleinfeld: ‘I think antisemitism as a smear is not what it used to be.’

These campaigns, based on personal information gathered about US citizens, would not be possible without the resources of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs. Its director-general, Sima Vaknin-Gil, said in a talk at the IAC annual conference shown in the documentary: ‘The fact that the Israeli government decided to be a key player means a lot because we can bring things that NGOs or civilian entities involved in this thing [don’t have] … We’ve got the budget. We can bring things to the table that are quite different. Everybody out there who has anything to do with BDS should ask himself twice: should I be on this side or do I want to be on the other side?’

‘A destabilising force’

Vaknin-Gil admitted that to gather information, ‘we have FDD. We have others working on this.’The Foundation for the Defence of Democracies (FDD) is a conservative thinktank that has played an important role in the recent rapprochement between the UAE and Israel. It took part in the 2017 campaign against Qatar and Al Jazeera, which was accused of being a destabilising force in the region. Under US law, organisations and individuals working for foreign governments must register with the Department of Justice. Would the DOJ dare take the FDD to court for failing to register (9)?

As Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the website The Electronic Intifada, says, ‘if you had on tape a statement of a senior Russian or Iranian or even Canadian official saying that they were running covert operations, to spy on Americans, and using an organisation like the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies as a front … it would be a bombshell.’ This kind of cooperation is not limited to the FDD, and many of the people Kleinfeld talked to, including Baime, told him so in confidence, though they didn’t want to elaborate on such a sensitive subject.

There are other revelations, like the way that TIP takes charge of US journalists visiting Jerusalem and feeds them ready-made stories for publication on their return to the US; how the lobby pays for upscale holidays in Israel for US Congress members, circumventing US law; and how it pressures the media, including news agencies, to amend wires and copy.

Everything seems to be going well for Israel, but its American supporters, despite their extensive resources, are nervous. The future seems dark to them, and even those most likely to support them are wavering. The documentary shows Vaknin-Gil admitting in a Knesset hearing: ‘Today we [have] lost the second generation of Jews, which are the millennial generation of Jews. I hear this from their parents, who come and explain to me what a hard time they’re having with their kids at Friday dinners. They don’t recognise the state of Israel and don’t see us as an entity to be admired.’

Seeds of Misery: Unfolding the Chronicles of Colonialism in West Asia

Gokul K.S

A cradle of civilizations like Mesopotamia and Egyptian, a region which saw the rise and fall of some of the illustrious empires like Assyrian, Neo-Assyrian, Achaemenid, Macedonian, Parthian, Sassanid, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman, the birthplace of three Semitic religions – West Asia – is at present an arena for social, religious, political, cultural and ethnic conflicts and where perpetual peace never comes to pass. The political unrest in the region owes its origin to the centuries old rivalries and mutual mistrust between various religions and their beliefs. The crooked and imperial mindset of colonial powers and their ‘divide and rule’ game unfolded the modern chapter of confrontations and political instability in the region. Every form of violence that is known to the human world exists in this region. Civil wars, extreme terrorist activities, displacement and refugee crisis, targeted civilian killings, state sponsored violence, religious fundamentalism, ethnic cleansing, dictatorships, and superpower proxy wars and so on, the jeopardy goes on. The seeds of the aforesaid misery was sown by the colonial ‘masters’, specifically by Britain and France in the first half of the twentieth century and later on the USA and Russia took the lead.

The Dictionary of Human Geography lucidly defines the fiend, termed colonialism as “an instrument of wholesale destruction, dependency and systematic exploitation producing distorted economies, socio-psychological disorientation, massive poverty and neocolonial dependency”. The invasion of Canary Islands by the Hispanic Monarchy (Spanish Empire) in 1402 marked the beginning of ‘colonisation’ in the world. When it comes to the West Asia, the Battle of Diu (1509) was a significant event which according to the scholar Michael Adas “established European Naval superiority in the Indian Ocean for centuries to come”. The region lying between Europe and Indian Ocean got attention in order to fulfill the trade aspirations of the colonial powers. The opening of Suez Canal was a landmark in global maritime trade history which paves the way for substantial European supremacy in West Asia.

How colonialism affected the West Asia? What were the impacts of colonisation on twentieth century West Asia? How the ‘outsiders’ became the antagonists in the West Asian story?

Origins of Western Imperialism

At its height in the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire stretched from central Europe to the Gulf and from Algeria to Azerbaijan. Post 17th century saw the increasing European influence in West Asia, especially centering the trade routes. During those times, Europe sold manufactured goods in exchange for raw materials and agricultural products from West Asia. The Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean are no longer in the control of native people; European sailing ships overlooked those strategic maritime routes. The rivalry between Anglo-French powers saw its replications in Ottoman territories in the form of French Campaign in Syria and Egypt (1798) under Napoleon Bonaparte. The purpose of the invasion was to weaken the British access to its colonies in Indian subcontinent. Even though French forces withdrew in 1801, the action motivated leaders in Egypt, Persia and Ottoman to introduce reforms which was clearly leading to westernization.

Egypt under the autocratic ruler Muhammad Ali became the first to recognize Industrial Revolution and his son Ibrahim conquered Syria in 1832, reaching the doorsteps of Ottoman. Britain needed Ottoman Empire to defend against Russian influence in geopolitically significant Balkan region. Hence, the English opposed the takeover of Ottoman Syria which thwarted the expansionist ambitions of Egypt. The Tanzimat or the Reorganization Era saw the beginning of reforms in Ottoman during the periods of Sultan Mahmud II and his successors. Ottomans defeated Russia in Crimean War (1853-56) with the help of Anglo-French forces who never wished to see Russian presence in Europe. The railroad connecting Alexandria and Cairo was built in 1851 and the British also started steamship navigation in Euphrates River. The opening of Suez Canal, joining the Mediterranean to Red Sea, opened a new era in the Eurasian trade history. It was Ferdinand de Lesseps, a French diplomat, who brought the permission from Egypt to build the canal in the Isthmus of Suez. The Suez Canal is not only known for its engineering marvel, but also for its role in augmenting the European imperialism from Near East to Far East.

Conquest of Algeria (completed in 1857), Bardo Treaty (establishing Protectorate in Tunisia), Agadir Crisis (Morocco became French protectorate) and control over much of the present day North-West Africa completed the imperialist expansion of France. Mount Lebanon, a part of Syria was under international protectorate (1864-1914). Britain occupied Egypt in 1882 following a confrontation against Colonel Urabi’s troops. The weak Qajar Dynasty, even though allowed to set up a Parliament (majiles) after a national revolution in 1906, called in Russian troops to suppress the revolutionary Constitutionalists in Iran. The Russians and Britain had clear intensions and they divided their areas of influence within Persia. The Constitutionalists who followed the shahs were also weak which made things easier for the imperial powers. The incorporation of Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1908 following a major discovery of oil reserves was a turning point in the changing the British imperial perspectives towards this region.

Fall of Ottoman and Age of Western Imperialism

World War I acted as a catalyst in the completion of overall Western domination in the West Asia region. “Istanbul’s decision to enter World War I as Germany’s ally sealed the fate of the Ottoman Empire” (Goldschmidt, 2008). The Turks attempted to rally the Muslims by proclaiming a Jihad (struggle for Islam); but the move was futile because of the British tie-up with the other Arabs. The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence was a major move from the part of British which made an agreement to contain Ottoman. The series of letters exchanged between the Sharif of Mecca and Henry McMahon promised independence for Arabs after the war in exchange for the Arab Revolt against Ottoman Empire. The purpose of Sharif Hussein was to integrate the Arab-speaking Ottoman lands. But the negotiations ‘reserved’ some regions like Baghdad, Basra and some portions of Syria. The Arab revolt in 1916 fueled with the British support, thrown away the Turks from Palestine and Syria. The British also seized Iraq before the surrender of Ottoman Empire in 1918. Thus the World War I ended the triumph of Turks and initiated the ‘cutting of cake’ ceremony.

At this juncture, there is a moral call to look into two other notorious agreements or promises that were made during the First World War. The Sykes- Picot Agreement, or the Asia Minor Agreement, between the imperial powers (Britain and France with Russian nod) in 1916 virtually torn the soul of the Arab region and sow the seeds of misery. The following is an excerpt from Sykes-Picot Agreement archive.

“The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia. The controlling powers were left free to determine state boundaries within their areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration in the “brown area” (an area including Jerusalem, similar to and smaller than Mandate Palestine), the form of which was to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca”.

In order to achieve their imperial aspirations, the colonial masters divided the region into several parts which wounded the dreams of Arab people to stay united and the only core reason for the century long political unrest in West Asia owes its origin to this ‘Divide and Rule’ policy. The 1917 Balfour Declaration was the next poison which altered the lives of millions in Palestine. The Zionist movement, which triggered waves of Jewish migration to Palestine during the 18th and early 19th centuries, was ‘internationally recognized’ by the same venomous colonial powers. Chaim Weizmann, an influential Zionist leader, negotiated with the British authorities and Arthur Balfour, then Foreign Secretary, declared the support for establishing a ‘homeland’ for Jews in their so called ‘promised land’ in Palestine. The double act of Britain and others promising Arab and Jewish independence is a textbook example of crooked imperial mindset of European countries. Balfour Declaration boosted the nascent Zionist movement and conflicts started to emerge between native Arabs and the Jewish immigrants.

The postwar peace settlement introduced Mandate System under Article 22 of the Covenant of League of Nations. Nele Matz wrote in an article that “two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilization” on the other… The principle of administration as a “sacred trust of civilization” was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory’s administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people” (Matz, 2005). The goodness remained only in papers; the West continued to exploit the Near East. Mandate system ultimately became a legitimate instrument to carry on the divide and rule motive. France got Syria and Britain was the mandatory power in Iraq and Palestine.

France further divided the Syria which paved way for the formation of Republic of Lebanon and some areas were also given to Alawis and Druze. Britain installed Faisal in Iraq to rule the kingdom comprising of Basra, Mosul and Baghdad. Transjordan, carved out from Palestine was formed and Abdullah was seated the throne. The emergence of military rule in Iran from 1921 under Reza Khan and the nationalist government set up by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey send a message to the imperial powers that the civil nationalist movements will become a threat in all colonies (or Mandates). Britain agreed to the call for independence of Egypt in 1922 but the Suez Canal was ‘guarded’ by the troops. Sudan remained under the British control. France also held Algeria and Tunisia whereas Morocco was divided between the French and Spanish. Italy annexed Tripolitania, present day Libya, from Ottoman Empire.

The subsequent nationalist movements compelled the mandatory powers to grant independence for the mandates. Iraq achieved formal independence in 1932 from Britain. The back to back military coups lead to political instability in the region and in 1941, Britain, after enjoying all the ‘junta show’, intervened again when a nationalist government under Rashid Ali came to power. The Anglo-Iraqi War of 1941 resulted in the reoccupation of Iraq. Transjordan became independent in 1946 and Abdullah continued to rule who supported the Britain to suppress popular movements in Palestine. The huge influx of Jewish immigrants due to the Holocaust in Germany created civil conflicts between the Arabs and Jews in the 1930s which culminated in a three year long Civil War. The Peel Commission report stated that the Mandate in Palestine is a failure and proposed partition of Palestine as the only solution to end the Arab-Jewish “deadlock”. Another commission was appointed to prepare a partition plan known as Woodhead Commission. All parties concerned rejected the proposal for partition. Keeping in the mind the geopolitical significance of Egypt and Iraq, anticipating the Second World War, Britain issues White Paper in 1939 which put on restrictions to Jewish land purchase and limited Jewish immigration. The Paper also called for establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine within 10 years. Once again, Britain used its crooked diplomacy to betray the Arabs.

Italian expansion to Libya and Ethiopia, two countries sharing borders with Egypt, was a nightmare for Britain because of the strategic Suez Canal. Fascist Italy and the Nazis invaded the aforesaid regions and more British troops were sent to Egypt during the Second World War. Arab League formed in 1945, gave a new face to the idea of Arab unification. But the conflict of interest among the member states hindered the prospects of such a unity. The emergence of extremist terrorist activities among Jews made Palestine ever more hostile. British troops failed to manage the civil rebellions and subsequently referred the issue to United Nations. An organization formed for world peace and prosperity became the antagonist. The UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (2), a Partition Plan to divide Palestine into three – Arab State, Jewish State and religiously significant Jerusalem and Bethlehem under international control. The Jewish lobby succeeded in achieving what they needed – their ‘Promised Land’. The outright rejection from Arab coalition and the instant Jewish embrace increased violence and war broke out. The withdrawal of Britain and the of declaration of independence by the Jewish Agency one day before the end of the mandate period started the Arab-Israeli War in 1948. The immediate recognition of the Jewish state by Soviet Union and the USA brings into light the conspiracy behind all the drama. Israel’s forces backed by US defeated the Arabs which lead to a mass exodus of Palestinians (nearly 750,000 Arabs) to the neighboring Arab states and some seek refuge in West Bank and Gaza Strip. The fall of Arabs in Palestine created a Domino effect in WANA region. Revolts in Syria (1949) and fall of monarchies in Egypt (1952), Iraq (1958), Yemen (1962) and Libya (1969) underlined the anti-imperial notion. Sudan tasted freedom in 1956. An anti-Communist alliance, known in the name Baghdad Pact or the METO (Middle East Treaty Organization), was formed in 1955. The Pact, which was a part of Containment Policy of the U.S, was signed by Iraq, Britain, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. The Suez Crisis amidst these developments ended the British supremacy and US filled the vacuum. Then West Asia was a theatre for Cold War and began the neo-imperialist stage. Till now, the region’s peace and stability is in the hands of external actors like Russia and the USA or NATO. The tales of the brutal, repressive and unjust colonialist history of West Asia ends here.

Impacts of Colonialism: The Seeds of Misery

If we look into the global scenario, no other region is politically volatile like the West Asia in the postcolonial years. The colonial rule in the 19th and 20th centuries ruined the region in all aspects. In every spheres of life, whether social, economic or political, the region is deeply divided and exploited. The arbitrary interventionist attitude of European powers in the regional affairs of West Asia, especially in the twentieth century, shattered the legacy and heritage of the civilization and culture of the Arab land. “Decisions made during the colonial era had effects that persist today and continue to influence the Middle East’s political development” (Gerner and Schrodt, 2008).

The substantial influence of colonial powers can be seen mainly in the mutual mistrust and suspicion among the countries in Middle-East. During the colonial era the European powers meddle in the domestic affairs of many of these countries. Iran’s last Shah once said that “the English always talk about the merits of democracy, but found it perfectly normal to dictate how Iranian elections should be held”. Only aim of Britain was to protect their ‘route’ to India. All games played by Britain and France discussed in the preceding sections shows how those powers used this land just as a ‘medium’ to protect their larger interests. The Divide and Rule strategy implemented in West Asia was the prima-facie example of historical injustice done to the people of the region.

Palestine Refugee Crisis, Arab-Israeli Wars, coups d’état’s in many countries (Egypt, Operation Ajax in Iran, 14 July Revolution of Iraq, 1960 Turkish coup d’état, 8 March Revolution in Syria, Ramadan Revolution of Iraq, Corrective Movement, Coup by Memorandum and so on until the Battle of Aden), Civil wars (Lebanon, Syria and in Yemen), Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War, Syrian Refugee Crisis, Iraqi-Kurdish conflicts, Hamas-Israel conflicts and the Arab Spring in North Africa were some of the region’s dark episodes of instable postcolonial history, many of which still goes on. The origins of all these events can be traced back to colonial era interventions and policies. Perpetual peace and prosperity is now nearly impossible in the region. Anything can happen at any time. The deep divisions among many religious and ethnic groups, regional cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, large scale weapon sale interests of Russia and the US, democratic deficit and legitimacy of rulers, terrorist activities, and influence of non-state actors and their ideologies – these factors also contribute to the present day scenario of West Asia, which again points the finger to the erstwhile colonial rule.

The British failure in handling the Arab-Jewish conflicts which resulted in the formation of ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine instigated the persistent Israel-Palestine Wars. By simultaneously offering freedom to Palestine and promising a Jewish State, Britain became the traitor here. Now with the help of a group of scholars, they are rewriting the history and erasing the realities. They draw borders according to their interest and gains, but on the other side the people were thrown into the whirlpool of wretchedness. Now many of these colonial masters are messengers of peace and democracy. If they considered the people in the colonies as at least ‘human beings’, the case wouldn’t have been this worse. The ever widening gap among rich and power, poverty, human rights violations, gender discrimination, religious rivalry and conflicts is affecting the region now. The growth of many non-state actors as a result of these misfortunes makes the condition more fragile. Yes, some countries achieved development after the decolonization, but West Asia is still burning. The flames of that fire reflect the forbidding chronicles of Colonialism.

Bizarre Israeli Analyses of Syrian Curriculum Circulate In The Middle East

 Andre Vltchek

My friend, a senior UN official based in Amman, Jordan, recently received a newsletter from an Israeli institution – “IMPACT-se”. Their report was called, ‘modestly’, “Reformulating School Textbooks During the Civil War”.

It is full of analyses of the Syrian curriculum.

Interesting stuff, without any doubt:Manipulative, negative, but interesting. It made it to many other places in the Middle East; to Lebanon, for instance, where even the word “Israel” is hardly ever pronounced.

Predictably, being compiled in Israel, the report trashes Syria, its ideology, and the determined anti-imperialist stand of President al-Assad.

However, that may backfire. Excerpts that are quoted from the Syrian curriculum would impress both education experts, as well as the general public, if they were to get their hands and eyes on them. And I am trying to facilitate precisely that, in this essay.

What the report found outrageous and deplorable, others could find very reasonable and positive. Let’s read, here is what the “IMPACT-se” is quoting, while ringing alarm bells:

“Saddam Hussein took power, and his period witnessed a number of wars in the Arab Gulf area. The first was with Iran, called the First Gulf War (1980–88), which occurred through incitement by the US, in order to weaken both countries. History, Grade 12, 2017–18, p. 105.”

Well put, isn’t it? But it gets much better, philosophically. Imagine, this brilliant intellectual stuff is actually served to all Syrian children in their public schools, while in Europe and North America; kids are fed with neo-colonialist mainstream propaganda. No wonder that Syrian children are much better versed in what is happening in the world. No wonder that millions of Syrian refugees are now ready to return home, after the abuse they received abroad, and after realizing how indoctrinated and brainwashed by Western propaganda, the people all over the world are.

“IMPACT-se” continues quoting the Syrian curriculum, naively thinking that the words engraved there, will terrify the entire world:

“This competition and struggle worsened as the capitalist system developed and new occupying forces such as the US, took control over international politics. It exploited its scientific, technological, economic and military supremacy in order to expand its influence and [gain]control over the capabilities of the peoples of the world. This was done in cooperation with its allies, to increase its presence in the international arena as the only undisputed superpower. National Education, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 81.(The US) strives to maintain its supremacy by monopolizing developing technology, controlling wealth and energy sources in the world, most importantly oil, and forcing its hegemony on the international community. National Education, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 82.

This could be easily written by the progressive economist Peter Koenig, by the international lawyer Christopher Black, or, why not, by myself.

Children in Damascus taking summer programme

The people, who worked on the Syrian curriculum, combined two things brilliantly: 1) indisputable facts, 2) elegant simplicity! Actually, this curriculum should be offered not only to the Middle East kids, but all over the world.

Look how skillfully and honestly it summarizes modern history:

“After the disappearance of international balance and unipolar hegemony took control of the world, the US began searching for excuses to justify its intervention in other countries. It occupied Afghanistan in 2002, under the pretext of fighting against “terrorism” in order to realize its political and economic goals. One of the goals was to build an advanced military base close to countries which the US considers to be dangerous (Russia, China, India, Iran and North Korea). In addition, Afghanistan had many assets (such as iron ore and gas). In 2003, the US—helped by a group of countries—declared war on Iraq under the pretext that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction and aiding terrorism. The occupation came after an unjust siege and air strikes over Iraqi cities and institutions, without authorization from the UN general assembly and the Security Council. National Education, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 82

Making the world become one form, one structure and one model, which is the most powerful model now controlling the world, economically and militarily—the American model. The hegemony of the capitalist system . . . turning the world into a consumer market for Western products and ideas, while stripping the nation of its principles, customs and traditions, abolishing its personality and identity, first diluting and then gradually eliminating nations and cultures. National Education, Grade 12, 2017–18, p. 31.”

According to “IMPACT-se”, this is supposed to scare random readers, providing proof how evil the ‘regime in Damascus’ is!

The opposite is true.

An international (non-Western) educator, who is presently based in the Middle East, explained to me over a cup of coffee. I think that this statement is actually a good summary of what many others that are studying the Syrian curriculum really feel:

“Education reflects the vision of a given society.  The heart of what a society expects from its citizens is in the curriculum.  Having carefully read the analysis of the new Syrian curriculum and textbooks reinforces my strong conviction of how great a society Syria really is.”

* 

With or without textbooks children flock to school in newly liberated Aleppo, January 2017

Let us see the ‘other side’; those who are critical of Syrian education, those who are making a living from such criticism and from antagonizing the system.

ESCWA (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia), based in Beirut, Lebanon, has an initiative defined as ‘the future of Syria for the peace-building phase’. This ‘process’ involves Syrian experts from all walks of life.

But who are these experts? In 2018, during the expert’s meeting on education, the list included these specialists:

• Former professors (education and law) of Aleppo University
• Former professor of Damascus University
• Head of an education NGO in Lebanon
• Academics and researchers now based in Turkey and Germany
• Independent consultants

Clearly, if at this meeting any participants were Syrians,they were ‘former somethings’. Meaning exiles, anti-government cadres, and mostly pegged to some Western organization (predominantly the organizations based in France or Germany). Not one person from the legitimate government of Syria was invited!A typical Western approach: “about them, without them”.

And these people who are serving Western interests, are supposed to help to define a component on education which is considered vital to “reconciliation and social cohesion in post-war Syria”.

Predictably, instead of promoting reconciliation, the speeches were full of hate, bitter and aggressive, anti-Syrian and pro-Western. ‘Experts’ used terminology such as: ‘Hegemony of the Syrian regime’, ‘The Ba’ath Party is only concerned about ideology, never giving Syrians an identity’ (they were actually demanding that religions would serve as ‘identity’, replacing the presently secular Syrian state), ‘We need to talk about the truth of what happened in 2011, what led to the war in 2011. Without that nothing makes sense’ (but the ‘truth about 2011’ in their minds has definitely nothing to do with the fact that the West encouraged the anti-government rebellion, injected jihadi cadres and triggered the brutal civil war aimed at overthrowing a social state).

Their main point seems to be: ‘The war has strengthened the culture of hatred’.

Correct, but not because of the Syrian state, but, because of people like those ‘experts’!

What do they really want? Religion instead of secularism, capitalism instead of socialism, and of course, the Western perception of ‘democracy’, instead of a patriotic and pan-Arab independent vision of the state.

*

No matter how one turns it, the Syrian education system, including its curriculum, appears to be greatly superior to those in the neighboring countries. Perhaps that is why it is being placed under scrutiny and under attack.

After all, wasn’t the main goal of the West, in 2011 and after, to destroy yet another socialist, internationalist state that was primarily serving its people?

And the state of Israel? What is “IMPACT-se” mainly complaining about? What is irking it most, in the Syrian curriculum? Perhaps this, in its own words and analyses:

“The Syrian curriculum bases Syrian national identity on the principles of a continued struggle to realize one Arab Nation that includes all Arab states, constituting one country, the “Arab Homeland.” The textbooks present the borders dividing the Arab states as artificial, having been imposed by European colonialism.”

For most of us, this is actually, not bad, is it?

Or possibly this:

“The current borders are political ones, drawn through the policy of the colonial powers that had controlled the region, especially France and Britain. They do not overlap the natural borders that used to separate the Arab Homeland from the neighboring countries. So, important changes took place in these borders to the benefit of those countries and to the detriment of the Arab land. Geography of the Arab Homeland and the World, Grade 12, 2017–2018, p. 13.”

What is incredibly impressive, is, how the Syrian curriculum addresses the Soviet period of its close ally – Russia:

“We shall become acquainted with the reality of Russia prior to the Communist Revolution, and the causes which led to its political, economic, social and intellectual renaissance, from World War I until the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the Russian Federation in 1991. History, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 98.

The Socialist Revolution in Russia broke out in order to confront the imperial regime. It declared the establishment of the first socialist country in 1917. [The Revolution] was based on the rule of the workers and the peasants, and it had a global impact, as it supported national liberation movements. History of the Modern and Contemporary World, Grade 11, 2017–18, p. 168.

Gorbachev took over the leadership of the state and party in 1988, and aspired to implement a plan of economic, social and ideological reconstruction. However, the imperialistic countries conspired against the destiny of the Soviet Union and took advantage of the administrative corruption and the circumstances of multiple nationalities, leading to its dissolution in 1991 and the establishment of the Russian Federation in its place. History, Grade 8, 2017–18, pp. 99–100”

Actually, if I could, if I were to be allowed to, I’d love my publishing house (Badak Merah) to publish the Syrian curriculum, or at least its part on history and politics, for everyone outside Syria to read.

What the Israeli “IMPACT-se” sees as alarming or negative, most of people all over the world and particularly in the Arab region, would definitely perceive as truthful, optimistic and worth fighting for.

Are the experts from “IMPACT-se” so naïve that they do not realize it? Or is there something else going on? Perhaps we will never find out.

No matter what: thank you for reminding us of the great Syrian curriculum! It clearly shows how great a nation Syria is!

UN And Battle Over Kashmir

 Z.G.Muhammad

For the past seventy years the war of words, on the floor of the United Nation’s Security Council on the Kashmir Dispute, has been a routine with India and Pakistan. It, in fact, began, on 30 December 1947, when New Delhi sent a cable to the Security Council, through its representative at UN. The cable, making a complaint under Article 35 of UN charter was delivered on January 1, 1948. On that day the international community became seized of the Kashmir Dispute, which was born 73 days after the birth of India and Pakistan.In the long winding duel of words, that lasted as many as thirteen hours; the two countries created a history of sorts on debates held on the floor of the Security Council.

The marathon debates resulted in the birth of  resolutions that recognized the right to self-determination for people of Jammu and Kashmir.  This was not something new that the UN Security said, in fact, in its complaint, India had explicitly mentioned “that the people of Jammu and Kashmir would be free to decide their future by recognized democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartially, might be held under international auspices.” New Delhi told this to the United Nation, despite, mentioning that it had sent its troops to Kashmir on the ‘requests made by Hari Singh  Maharaja of the State and National Conference of Sheikh Abdullah.’’ (Letter S/628 January 1, 1948).

Of the many resolution passed by the Security Council after hearing the representatives of the two countries in its January 5, 1949 resolution the Council provided an elaborate mechanism for holding of the plebiscite. Despite, India and Pakistan accepting these resolutions and these becoming international agreement, the plebiscite was not held. The, why tagged to it not happening, has many an answers which are hard to encapsulate in this column. Despite, the non-resolution of the Kashmir Dispute causing three wars, couple of military standoffs the leadership of the two countries instead of constructively engaging with the United Nationsfor the resolution of the dispute  used this forum for exchanging of harsh words against each other. Moreover, the first prime minister of India, who had enthusiastically taken it to the United Nations instead of addressing the issue, adopted the policy of procrastination – this policy of deferments afterward became the Kashmir policy for the successor governments.

On 29 August 2018,  the United Nations UN Security Council under the Agenda item Maintenance of International Peace and Security was debating on meditation and settlement. India and Pakistan that have bagful of disputes hingedto the ‘lead dispute,’ instead of contributing positively to the debate that possibly could have suggested some positive pointers for ending animosity between two South Asian nuclear powers, once again engaged in the war of words. India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin while partaking in the debate rightly ‘observed both in the Covenant of the League of Nations and under the Charter of the United Nations, members assumed a larger obligation than   heretofore   to   settle   their   disputes   in   a   peaceful   manner.’ Stating that ‘there are numerous actors and many forms of pacific settlement that may be better suited to address different issues’ he tried making a case against the United Nations indulging in mediations. To quote him, “It is important, however, not to charge the United   Nations   with   responsibilities   that   it   maybe   ill-suited   to   perform. Mediation, in every circumstance, is one such task, it is not geared to fulfill.”

The statement had come in response to the statement made by permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN Maleeha Lodhi. Lodhi giving  examples of the successful mediations in Colombia and between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had state that “the international community cannot succeed if the SC’s own resolutions are held in abeyance,and the long-standing dispute over Kashmir remains on the Council’s agenda.’ Tacitly calling for international body for meditation, in the debate she ‘urged the Security Council to make frequent use of the secretary-general’s good offices and other possibilities for mediation and reconciliation.’

Lodhi in stating, while the Council could refer disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion if not a legal decision or adjudication, it should also utilize its mandatory enforcement authority under Chapter VII of the Charter to refer a dispute to the ICJ whose determination would thereafter be binding on the parties, irrespective of whether or not they had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court’ subtly suggested taking of Kashmir to the ICJ.  Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin denounced the statement of Pakistan envoy as “a failed approach, which has long been rejected.’

Ostensibly, it seems that Kashmir will once again echo at the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA 73) that will open on 18 September. India will be represented by the Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj and Pakistan by her counterpart Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi. Like many other previous annual session, this session will also be marked by the traditional blame game and war of words between the two countries.Nevertheless, there is streak of hope that there will be a thaw in the relations between the two countries. News reports suggest that the foreign ministers of the two countries will meet on the sidelines of the meet.But, there is big question marks, if the meet translates into a sustained, constructive and result-oriented dialogue for the resolution of the dispute and the problems between the two.

Historically, every dialogue between the two countries has ended in the impasse- these impasse at times have caused a military standoffs and clashes along the LOC. It was for of the mediation by some countries that some ceasefireshad happened and some wars between the two countries were prevented. In his opening remarks at the ‘ debate on meditation and settlement,’UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterreswas right in stating that the United Nations must be “bold and creative” in harnessing the avenues and capacities available for mediation. The India-Pakistan dispute that has emerged as a nuclear flashpoint in South-Asia, for ensuring peace in the region has been calling for the mediation that Antonio Guterres talked about in the debate. Even, the article 34 under chapter VI of the UN charter, ‘Pacific Settlement of Disputes’ that Akbaruddin mentioned in his statement empowers the SC to investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction….’. It is time for Guterres to be “bold and creative” and for“bringing together the avenues and capacities available for mediation” to see India and Pakistan resolve their disputes and live in peace.

Internet Surveillance

Farooque Chowdhury

“Learn about the dangers of the Internet before you start using it!”

“Anyone who thinks their computer or smartphone is not installed with government software is a child.
We are all on the grid and we are all traceable to someone.”

These are only two comments from many on an Associated Press report headlined “Lawsuit lays bare Israel-made hack tools in Mideast, Mexico”.

The report datelined Paris, September 1, 2018, began with the following description:

“One day late last year, Qatari newspaper editor Abdullah Al-Athbah came home, removed the SIM card from his iPhone 7 and smashed it to pieces with a hammer.

“A source had just handed Al-Athbah a cache of emails suggesting that his phone had been targeted by hacking software made by Israel’s NSO Group. He told The Associated Press he considered the phone compromised.

“‘I feared that someone could get back into it,’ he said in an interview Friday. ‘I needed to protect my sources.’

“Al-Athbah, who edits Qatar’s Al-Arab newspaper, now has a new phone, a new SIM card and a new approach to email attachments and links. He says he never opens anything, ‘even from the most trusted circles in my life.’”

The AP report informs:

“Al-Athbah’s discovery touched off a process that has led, months later, to parallel lawsuits filed in Israel and Cyprus — and provided a behind-the-scenes look at how government-grade spyware is used to eavesdrop on everyone from Mexican reporters to Arab royalty.”

The AP story rolls on:

“The first lawsuit, filed in a Tel Aviv court on Thursday, carries a claim from five Mexican journalists and activists who allege they were spied on using NSO Group software. The second, filed in Cyprus, adds Al-Athbah to the list of plaintiffs.

“Both draw heavily on the leaked material handed to the editor several months ago. Portions of the material — which appears to have been carefully picked and exhaustively annotated by an unknown party — appear to show officials in the United Arab Emirates discussing whether to hack into the phones of senior figures in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, including members of the Qatari royal family.

“Al-Athbah declined to identify his source and the AP was not immediately able to verify the authenticity of the material, some of which has already been entered into evidence in the Israeli case, according to Mazen Masri, a member of Al-Athbah’s legal team. But The New York Times, which first reported on the lawsuits earlier Friday, indicated that it had verified some of the cache, including a reference to an intercepted telephone conversation involving senior Arab journalist Abdulaziz Alkhamis. The Times said Alkhamis confirmed having had the conversation and said he was unaware that he was under surveillance.

“The parallel lawsuits underline the growing notoriety of the NSO Group, which is owned by US private equity firm Francisco Partners.

“One of the Mexican plaintiffs, childhood anti-obesity campaigner Alejandro Calvillo, drew global attention last year when he was revealed to have been targeted using the Israeli company’s spyware. The NSO Group’s programs have since been implicated in a massive espionage scandal in Panama. A month ago, respected human rights organization Amnesty International accused the company of having crafted the digital tools used to target one of its staffers.

“The five Mexican plaintiffs, who were advised by Mexico City-based digital activism group widely known by its acronym R3D, are seeking 2.5 million Israeli shekels ($693,000) in compensation and an injunction to prevent the NSO Group from helping anyone spy on them.

“Al-Athbah said he wanted the case to go even further and spawn restrictions on the trade in hacking tools.

“‘I hope selling such technology should be stopped very soon,’ he said.”

Other media reports including a report by The Telegraph, UK, said on the first day of September 2018:

UAE used Israeli spyware to hack Saudi, Qatari and Lebanese rivals.

The UAE had asked an Israeli spyware company it had contracted to surveil dissidents to tap the phone calls of the prime minister of Lebanon and other Arab officials.

The Emirati government reportedly sought help from the NSO Group to hack the phones of a number of politicians. The Arab country’s leaders were particularly interested in spying on a Saudi prince, the leader of rival Qatar, and Lebanese Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri — though it was not clear whether those officials were actually hacked.

The UAE rulers had been using Israeli spyware for more than a year, secretly turning the smartphones of dissidents at home or rivals abroad into surveillance devices.

The NSO Group has insisted in the past that it sells its software to clients on the condition that it be used only against crime and terrorism, and has shirked responsibility in cases where it was allegedly used for civil rights abuses.

But two new lawsuits being brought against the company have uncovered documents that assert the company and its affiliates have actively engaged in illegal activities for clients.

The New York Times based its report on leaked emails submitted in lawsuits against the spyware’s maker, the NSO Group.

The NSO Group told The Times it would not comment until it had a chance to review the documents.

A lawsuit filed in Tel Aviv is laying bare the details of how Israeli spyware is allegedly being used in the Middle East and Mexico.

It’s the latest sign of how cyber espionage is increasingly permeating everything from Latin American health campaigns to intrastate conflicts in the Arab world.

The suit is being brought by five Mexican journalists and activists who allege they were spied on using software designed by the NSO.

The case draws on leaked emails obtained by senior Qatari journalist Abdullah Al-Athbah and also includes details of NSO’s alleged activities in the Gulf.

So, it’s found:

Brethren are not spared from surveillance.

Business/trading companys have no creed.

Interests don’t care any identity including color and creed other than concerned interests’ identity, although the fact is regularly ignored by the mainstream scholars propagating color- and creed-identity above interests, which is basically economic; and economic interests get manifested into politics. These scholars fan up false propaganda of identity above economic interests. To them, all of color “C” belongs to the same camp named “C”, and the same with the creed-camp. It’s done only to confuse victims of powerful interests although powerful interests are fully aware of its interests cutting across color- and creed-line. Even, factional interest within the same class interest doesn’t spare another competing factional interest having the same color- or creed-identity.

In today’s world, admitting this fact – economists interests, neither color nor creed, determine ultimate politics and organization. Admitting this fact today, a century after the proletariat in Russia achieved victory by trampling all divisive politics, is essential and imperative. Admitting this fact is not only essential and imperative, but urgent also as many well-intentioned progressives regularly raise functional issues on the basis of color. Creed has no color. But, strangely, many creeds are presented as divided on the basis of color; and the mainstream fans up the practice. And, strangely, even those creeds don’t oppose that color-based sectarian approach. Even, funerals, in many cases, fail to cross the sectarian approach of color. The group of progressives sympathetic to the color-based weaker section never says or they dare not say: Discard the color-line; it’s sectarian, it’s divisive, it hurts the common interests of the exploited everywhere. A shameful “cautious” approach by the progressive group! This happens not only in the case of color. This happens in other areas also. Thus, the mainstream’s divisive approach gets fuel, and the common approach of the exploited gets hurt.

Australian government rushes to deport Vietnamese refugees

Max Newman 

Australia’s brutal treatment of asylum seekers was again thrown into the spotlight on August 26 when a small fishing vessel, carrying 17 Vietnamese men, ran aground in northern Queensland.

The passengers waded to shore and ran into the dangerous Daintree rainforest in an effort to escape capture. The Queensland police launched a widespread manhunt for the men, establishing roadblocks. After initially arresting 12 of the men, police captured all 17 by August 31.

The rounding up of the men occurred in the same week as the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out a workplace raid in North Texas, arresting 160 immigrant workers. Across the globe, immigrants and refugees are being treated as criminals.

Australia’s Department of Home Affairs has refused to provide any information about the detained Vietnamese men or their fate, in line with the wall of secrecy erected around the militarised “Operation Sovereign Borders” to repel all refugee boats.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton vowed to ensure swift deportation of the group. This violates the international Refugees Convention, which gives refugees the right to apply for asylum and prohibits their return to face persecution in the country they fled.

“We have been very clear that we won’t allow people who arrive illegally into our country to settle in this country,” Dutton told reporters on August 27. “People will be deported from our country at the first available opportunity.”

Dutton refused to provide any details, saying it was “an operational matter.” He declared that the men would be deported, regardless of any “processes” required to do so. “People who seek to come by boat will never settle here permanently and we’re going through the processes now and we will make sure that that’s the outcome,” he stated.

The Liberal-National Coalition government’s rush to deport the men, which was echoed throughout the corporate media, was in stark contrast to the sympathy shown by local fishermen and other residents.

Two of the refugees were found in the crocodile-invested mangroves by fishermen, who picked them up on their boat. Justin Ward and Barry Preston told reporters they gave the men a tour and took them crab fishing because this was their “last chance at freedom.”

Eventually the two fishermen reluctantly handed the men over to the authorities. Ward recounted: “We got back to the boat ramp and they were like ‘which way’ and we said ‘sorry.’ I was genuinely very sorry but there was not much I can do or I’d get into trouble.”

The refugees were quickly flown to Christmas Island, an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean, some 4,300 kilometres away. The island contains one of Australia’s most notorious immigration detention centres, from where refugees and other people denied visas are deported or sent to Australia’s prison camps on Nauru or Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.

Immediate deportation was the fate of a similar Vietnamese vessel that the Australian Navy seized in April 2015. Its 46 passengers were forcibly transported by a naval vessel to a Vietnamese port. As in the current case, all information about the refugees and their deportation was hidden from public view.

In 2015, Human Rights Watch (HRW) later reported that the group of 46 faced persecution or imprisonment in Vietnam. Four of them fled a second time, before UN authorities in Indonesia granted them refugee status. The latest 17 refugees are likely to face a similar fate.

Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and his party are accelerating economic “reforms,” turning Vietnam into a cheap labour platform for foreign investors. The pro-market doi moi policy, which has been pursued since 1986, has turned Vietnam into one of the most unequal countries in the world. A tiny layer at the top enjoys most of the country’s wealth, while the majority of the country’s 93 million population live in poverty. The average annual income in the country is just $US2,200.

Australia’s treatment of Vietnamese asylum seekers also involves geo-strategic calculations, bound up with US preparations for war against China. Successive Australian governments have committed to backing the escalating American confrontation with Beijing, which now includes trade war measures by the Trump administration.

In 2015, Dutton indicated that a “very strong bilateral” relationship with Vietnam led to a deal for Hanoi to accept the return of refugees. In recent years, Vietnam has been drawn into the US conflict with China. Washington has encouraged Vietnam, together with the Philippines, to aggressively pursue territorial claims against Beijing in the South China Sea.

Australia’s military repulsion of refugees is a policy supported by the opposition Labor Party. In fact, Queensland’s Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk attacked the Liberal-National government from the right. She called for a full investigation into how the fishing vessel breached border security. Palaszczuk accused Dutton of “taking his eye off the ball” during his bid to replace Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister.

Dutton vowed to step up military operations along the country’s northeastern coast. “Clearly there’s been a failing when surveillance has not worked as it should in identifying this vessel or allowing this vessel to get as close to the coastline as it has, but we’ll work through all of that,” he said.

Dutton repeated the government’s claim to have “stopped the boats.” He insisted this was “the first vessel; the first people-smuggling venture in over 1,400 days.” The term “people-smugglers” has been used to justify the criminal “border protection” regime of successive Australian governments, Coalition and Labor alike.

In reality, “people-smugglers” are typically poor Indonesian, Vietnamese or Sri Lankan fisherman whose passengers are forced to resort to their services in order to seek asylum because of Australia’s illegal shutting of its borders to refugees.

As for “stopping the boats,” an unknown number of vessels has been intercepted or sunk over the past decade. Asylum seekers have been seized by the Australian navy and sent back to sea, in some cases without enough food and fuel to reach their destination.

After the Coalition government took office in 2013, Immigration and Border Protection Minister Scott Morrison, who is now the prime minister, launched Operation Sovereign Borders, combining military force with military secrecy.

Far from opposing this regime, the Labor Party has claimed credit for “stopping the boats,” pointing to its decision in 2012, when it was last in government, to reopen the Nauru and Manus camps, where thousands of refugees have been incarcerated indefinitely.

IMF pushes for more social cuts in Ukraine

Jason Melanovski

The Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko is facing a serious economic crisis as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is demanding ever greater social cuts.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the various oligarchic bourgeois regimes that have ruled the country have accepted IMF funding in exchange for carrying out a series of “reforms,” such as the privatization of state-owned industries and elimination of government subsidies, all carried out at the expense of the working class.

The current IMF program, under which Ukraine has received only $8.7 billion of a potential $17.5 billion, is scheduled to expire in March of next year. The IMF has not released any funds to the country since April 2017.

The current sticking point is the elimination of household gas subsidies. Any rise in consumer prices would be correctly seen by Ukraine’s working class as an even further lowering of their already precarious living standards.

After initially agreeing to raise household gas prices, Poroshenko has repeatedly continued a freeze on consumer gas prices and most recently set a new deadline of September 1 for continued government subsidies.

The government argues that without an injection of funds from the IMF, the government may start defaulting on paychecks for government workers. As of July, the country had already begun delaying pension payments to retirees causing widespread dissatisfaction.

Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman blamed the delays on the incompetence of the country’s pension fund managers, rather than any critical drop in the stability of the Poroshenko regime, and promised an investigation.

A significant percentage of Ukraine’s elderly population relies on monthly pension payments to survive. One of the IMF’s other demands is that the country increase the retirement age, which currently stands at 60 for men and 58 for women. Any scheme to cut pensions or adjust the retirement age would be a disaster for the over 8 million pensioners in Ukraine who live on less than $50 a month and millions more preparing to retire.

In October of last year the government attempted to appease the IMF and passed a pension “reform” bill. The bill cut back on early retirements and increased the number of years workers must contribute to the pension system in order to qualify, but stopped short of raising the retirement age or cutting payments. The move was apparently not enough for the IMF as it nevertheless refused to release any more funds to the country.

The ongoing war in the Donbass the region of the country has already given the government an excuse to cut the pensions of residents in Donbass or to make it extremely difficult for refugees to obtain their payments while living elsewhere in the country. In September of last year, the Norwegian Refugee Council reported that up to 600,000 Ukrainians had lost their pensions since December 2014, most of them elderly residents in areas in eastern Ukraine not controlled by Kiev.

There is also anxiety in Kiev that Russia’s construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline will cut out its position as middle-man in the transit of gas between Russia and Western Europe and deprive it of needed foreign cash. The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline will connect Russia directly to Germany through the Baltic Sea and is scheduled to be completed in 2019.

Naftogaz, the state-owned gas and oil company of Ukraine, is in large part only profitable thanks to the transit fees it receives from Russia as it sends gas to European countries such as Germany, which obtains 70 percent of its gas from Russia. The current transit arrangement between Russia’s Gazprom and Naftogaz is set to expire January 1, 2020, just as Nord Stream 2 is to launch.

Any losses from such transit fees would be taken out of the pockets of Ukrainian workers in the form of a rapid hike of gas prices.

Other EU members and most notably the Trump administration have criticized Germany for moving forward with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the midst of their confrontation with Moscow.

Further exacerbating Ukraine’s fiscal situation is the fact that the Ukrainian government will be facing $15 billion in foreign debt repayments between 2018 and 2020. Even if Ukraine complies with the orders of the IMF, the scheduled influx of $2 billion will simply go to paying off foreign debt rather than into pensions and the paychecks of government workers.

In addition to the demands to ramp up attacks on the working class, the IMF and Western governments constantly harangue Kiev over “corruption.” A campaign in recent months in the bourgeois press, especially in the US and Germany, has attacked the Poroshenko regime over the pervasive corruption in Ukraine—a phenomenon that has characterized the oligarchy there, as in all countries of the former Soviet Union, ever since the destruction of the USSR.

In August, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that Ukraine loses $4.8 billion a year due to corruption. The country regularly ranks near the bottom in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index.

In response to the criticism, Kiev in July expanded the powers of a recently created sham “anti-corruption” court, which Poroshenko himself initially opposed but then embraced when IMF cash was not forthcoming. The IMF praised the “anti-corruption” efforts but flatly refused to budge on releasing any more cash until gas prices are raised to “market levels.”

Behind the bogus “anti-corruption” campaign is the concern that the obvious corruption among the Ukrainian oligarchs and their control over much of the Ukrainian economy impede US and German business interests in the country. At the same time, the imperialist powers and the IMF are using the issue to push for further attacks on the already abysmally low living standards of the Ukrainian working class.

The Poroshenko regime’s hesitancy in fully implementing the IMF demands is rooted in its fear of an uncontrollable explosion of working class anger. In July, miners from Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine struck over the government failure to pay out more than $107 million promised to support the country's troubled coal mines.

Miners at the mine “Kapital’naya” went on strike, demanding that they be paid their salaries from May and June. According to Life.Ru, as of mid-July the government owed the miners over $41.6 million in salary payments. Protests and demonstrations by miners also took place in the Lviv region in West Ukraine and in the capital in Kiev.

In May, workers struck at the western Ukrainian metallurgical factory ArselorMittal Krivoi Rog, which produces railroad tracks, demanding better working conditions and wages. The average monthly salary in Ukraine is currently around $300. There exists a vast chasm between the country’s ruling oligarchic elite (as of 2015, Poroshenko had a net worth of $720 million) and the Ukrainian working class.

Under these socially explosive conditions, Poroshenko is well aware that his government’s obvious servitude to the IMF would likely result in the elimination of his already slim chances for reelection in next year’s presidential elections.

US and Japan increase efforts to undercut Chinese influence in Sri Lanka

Rohantha De Silva

The US and Japan are stepping up their attempts to draw Sri Lanka more closely into their geo-political and military manoeuvres against Chinese influence in the Indian and Pacific ocean regions. Last month, two senior Japanese government ministers made official visits to Sri Lanka and a US naval squad conducted joint exercises with its Sri Lankan counterparts.

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera arrived on August 20 for a three-day visit, holding discussions with President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Minister of Defence Ruwan Wijewardene. It was the first time a Japanese defence minister had visited Sri Lanka.

Onodera’s tour followed his trip to India where he held talks with Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman about boosting military ties. Tokyo and New Delhi both want Colombo more closely integrated into the US-led strategic partnership against China.

While Japan is already aligned with the US against China, Tokyo has its own imperialist interests and ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region and is deepening its relations with South Asian countries, especially Inida.

All three countries—the US, Japan and India—continue to publicly voice their concerns over Colombo’s relations with Beijing, and in particular the 99-year leasing Hambantota Port to China. Washington, Tokyo and New Delhi all claim that Beijing could use the port as a naval base, despite Colombo’s repeated assurances that the deal does not allow its use for military purposes.

On August 22, Onodera travelled to Trincomalee harbour where Sri Lanka’s Eastern Naval Command Headquarters is located and inspected Sri Lanka’s special naval forces there. A Japanese naval warship was anchored in the natural deep water port during the defence minister’s visit. A total of 66 Japanese naval ships have visited Sri Lanka since 2008 underscoring the growing military relations.

Following his Trincomalee tour, Onodera inspected Hambantota harbour, telling Japan’s NHK television that the port “should not be used for military purposes”—another indication of Tokyo’s concerns about the lease with China.

Five days after Onodera left Sri Lanka, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Kazuyuki Nakane arrived for a three-day visit. He met with Wickremesinghe and participated in a commissioning ceremony of two patrol vessels donated to the Sri Lankan Coast Guard by Japan.

The Japanese embassy said that the boats, which cost $11 million, could be used for search and rescue, pollution control and oil spill management, and “maritime security boarding” operations. Constructed in Japan, they are part of a $16.5 million Japanese-Sri Lankan “Maritime Safety Capability Improvement” project.

On August 23, a US naval ship—the USS Anchorage—and a Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived in Trincomalee. The 25,000-tonne, 208-metre long and 32-metre wide, amphibious docking vessel carries 600 naval personnel and is designed to transport troops into war zones.

The massive vessel participated in joint US-Sri Lankan search and seizure, and security force reaction exercises on August 30 off the eastern coast near Trincomalee. USS Anchorage Captain Denis Jacko and other US military officers also held discussions with Rear Admiral Sumith Weerasinghe, commander of Sri Lanka’s Eastern Naval Area.

A statement issued by Robert Hilton, the US embassy’s chargé d’affaires, declared, “We’re also excited to try out the air logistics hub concept that utilizes Sri Lanka’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean to ensure the quick availability of relief supplies, equipment and other material when needed by the US and partner militaries and humanitarian organizations.” The “air logistics hub” is part of Colombo’s increasing integration with the US military.

A statement by Cmdr. Deborah K. McIvy, assistant chief of staff for US Expeditionary Strike Group 7, said: “Successfully leveraging local logistics support services will help standardize the process for future operations, to include supplying mission-critical supplies for HADR [] efforts.”

Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations are constantly used by the US, Japan and other imperialist powers for large-scale military mobilisation and as logistical dry-runs against rival powers.

Between June and August, a 25-member Sri Lankan navy team participated for the first time in the US-led “Rim of the Pacific” exercises, in Hawaii and Southern California between June and August. The biennial event is the world’s largest international maritime warfare exercise and involves the US Navy’s Pacific Fleet, the Marine Corps and number of other units. US quadrilateral partners, India, Japan and Australia, participated in the exercises along with a number of other countries, including Israel and Vietnam. China was a notable exclusion.

India is deepening its economic and defence ties with Sri Lanka. New Delhi wants a leasing agreement with Colombo for the southern Mattala International Airport, near Hambantota harbour, and is also seeking a strategic foothold at Trincomalee.

While an India-Sri Lanka Defence Dialogue was established in 2012, it did not become fully operational until after Maithripala Sirisena became Sri Lankan president following a US orchestrated regime-change operation to remove then President Mahinda Rajapakse. Washington, with backing from New Delhi, demanded Rajapakse distance Colombo from Beijing as part of US President Obama’s anti-China “pivot to Asia.” After coming to power in 2015, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government began implementing a pro-US, pro-Indian foreign policy.

Faced with the serious financial problems, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, however, has turned to Beijing for financial support and investment. China paid $US1.1billion to lease the Hambantota port and is currently the island’s leading investor. Last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping offered Sri Lanka a $295 million grant as part of its plans to increase its influence on the island.

To counter Washington’s increasingly aggressive political and military moves, Beijing has developed its Belt and Road Initiative, which includes establishing port facilities in countries like Sri Lanka to secure sea lanes to the Middle East and Africa. The massive infrastructure project aims to link the Eurasian region, as well as Africa, by land and sea.

The expansion of US and Japanese military activities in Sri Lanka will only intensify geo-political tensions as the Trump administration ratchets up its trade war measures with China and prepares for military confrontation.