USW reaches sellout deal, moves to shut down oil workers’ strike

Jerry White

The United Steelworkers (USW) union announced Thursday that it had reached a tentative agreement with lead bargainer Royal Dutch Shell that would be the basis for a four-year labor agreement covering 30,000 workers in the US oil industry.

The deal was reached as the selective strike by 6,500 workers in seven states nears the end of its sixth week. The USW says picketing will continue until local union members ratify agreements presented to them by the rest of the industry.

Any agreement reached by the USW under the circumstances in which the strike has been waged can only be a miserable betrayal. The union has blocked the full mobilization of all oil workers, allowing the energy giants to maintain production while threatening to replace strikers with “relief workers.” It was not the companies that backed down, but the union that decided a rapid agreement was necessary to prevent the strike from getting out of control.

Predictably, the USW praised the agreement as a “victory,” with USW International President Leo W. Gerard saying, “There was no way we would have won vast improvements in safety and staffing” without the “solidarity of our membership.”

This is nothing but a crude lie. Workers struck and sacrificed weeks of pay and health insurance to end the impossibly long and unsafe work schedules in the dangerous industry and to recoup lost income from years of inadequate pay raises and huge out-of-pocket health costs. Workers fought for full-time jobs for the next generation and to reverse the industry’s drive to transform the workforce into causal at-will laborers, with no guaranteed hours, medical insurance or pensions.

None of this is achieved in the agreement. Instead it calls for “the immediate review of staffing and workload assessments, with USW safety personnel involved at every facility,” according to a statement by the union. It also calls for “joint review on the local level of future, craft worker staffing-needs,” USW International Vice President Tom Conway said, and for “hiring plans to be developed in conjunction with recruitment and training programs.”

In other words, the “vast improvements in safety and staffing” turn out to be the proliferation of even more joint labor-management committees common in the auto, steel and other industries. These committees are dedicated to boosting the profits and “competitiveness” of the corporations, not protecting the safety and livelihoods of workers.

The corporatist committees established by the USW did nothing to stop disasters at BP’s Texas City and Tesoro’s Anacortes, Washington refineries in 2005 and 2010, or the daily subordination of workers’ safety and health to the profits of the oil bosses.

Instead, these committees are lucrative career paths for union executives.

“It’s a game that I’ve seen for decades in the union refinery business,” an oil worker at ExxonMobil’s Beaumont, Texas refinery told the World Socialist Web Site. “There are all kinds of joint health and safety committees, for auditing, operating and other things. It’s one acronym after another, and it’s all BS. Many of the union officials on the local level join these committees to make their own way.”

Adding insult to injury, the USW reportedly agreed to an meager 12 percent wage increase over four years, barely in line with inflation. Workers would receive a 2.5 raise in the first year, three percent in years two and three and 3.5 in the fourth year. It also gives the green light for the companies to continue to force workers to pay at least 20 percent of their health care expenses.

This is from an industry whose top five oil companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips—made $90 billion last year and continues to pour billions into executive compensation and dividends and stock buybacks for its richest investors.

As details of the agreement emerge, there is little doubt that more concessions and accommodations are included.

From the very beginning, the USW apparatus was negotiating for its own interests, not those of rank-and-file workers. It only called the strike in an effort to dissipate widespread opposition to years of union-backed concessions, which led to the erosion of living standards and safety and work conditions. The union restricted the strike to only a small fraction of the workers in organizes in the industry, and then joined management’s efforts to starve workers into submission, refusing to provide any significant aid from its $350 million strike fund.

“On January 30, we figured it was going to be all 30,000 workers on strike, but the union only called out a few refineries,” the Beaumont oil refinery worker said.

The USW rushed to reach a settlement—which has not even been confirmed by Shell as of this writing—because of increasing opposition from rank-and-file workers and growing demands for a nationwide walkout. The preparation of the sellout was signaled by the increasing campaign of harassment the USW directed against the World Socialist Web Site, which has fought for the expansion of the strike and for the broader mobilization of the working class in the US and internationally in defense of the oil workers.

The USW, which has intimate relations with the corporations and the Obama administration, is determined to wrap up the strike before it becomes the catalyst for a broader movement by the working class. Under conditions of booming corporate profits and stock markets, a breakthrough by oil workers would inspire the five million other workers facing contract renewals this year, including dockworkers, teachers, auto workers, telecommunication workers, US Post Office and others.

Such a movement could rapidly escalate into a political confrontation with the Obama administration, whose central economic policy has been to work with the trade unions to slash wages, health care and pensions costs.

The USW—whose president Leo Gerard sits on Obama’s corporate competitiveness board—was determined to prevent such a confrontation at all costs.

The USW will now pressure workers in local bargaining units to ratify the deal by making it clear that any local that fails to do so will be left alone to confront the full strength of the oil companies.

If the sacrifice and struggle of oil workers is not to lead to a miserable sellout, rank-and-file workers must begin now to organize a campaign to defeat the contracts on the local level and extend the strike nationally. Workers should elect action committees, controlled by the rank-and-file and completely independent of the pro-company stooges in the USW, take control of the conduct of the struggle and to appeal to the widest sections of workers for support.

The industrial mobilization of the working class must be combined with the building of a political movement to defend the social rights of the workers—for decent, well-paid and safe jobs, for health care, education and culture—against the predatory policies of the ruling class and its political representatives in both big business parties. In opposition to social inequality created by capitalism, the working class must champion the socialist reorganization of the economy, including the nationalization of the oil monopolies under the democratic control of working people.

US presidential election season begins

Patrick Martin

More than a year and a half before the 2016 US presidential elections, the political establishment and media are already beginning to shift their focus to the vast exercise in influence-peddling and insider dealing that is the American electoral process.

The WSWS has often noted the stark contradiction between the size and diversity of the United States, a country of 320 million people and 50 states stretching across an entire continent, and a political system that offers only two parties with virtually indistinguishable right-wing programs. Lending the upcoming election an added element of farce is the fact that the contest could well be between a Bush and a Clinton, offering the American people a “choice” of candidates from two families that have occupied the presidency or vice-presidency for 28 of the past 34 years.

On the Democratic Party side, the presumptive nominee is Hillary Clinton, a right-wing and militarist scion of the political establishment. Indeed, the eruption of the media scandal over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account during her four years as US secretary of state marks the semi-official beginning of the 2016 presidential campaign. Clinton is expected to formally announce her candidacy sometime next month.

Clinton’s press conference Tuesday has left many unanswered questions, both about her conduct at the State Department, and about the performance of her presidential campaign team, which has been assembled over the past several months. Clinton has recruited virtually all available Democratic Party operatives and has monopolized major sources of fundraising.

Growing concerns in the Democratic Party wing of the political establishment found expression in articles Thursday in three leading US daily newspapers, all noting the stumbling character of Clinton’s response to the attacks over her use of private email and the absence of any alternative presidential candidate for the Democrats if her campaign should self-destruct.

The Washington Post, in a news analysis headlined, “Absence of 2016 competition for Clinton raises stakes for Democrats,” observed, “Clinton has been such a dominant front-runner that she has smothered most potential competition. Who rightly thinks they can seriously compete with her for money or institutional support?”

The Wall Street Journal, in a report headlined, “Some Democrats See the Risk of Having Single Candidate,” said the email controversy “is providing fresh ammunition not just to Republican adversaries but people in her own party who are concerned she could win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination without being challenged in a primary contest.”

The New York Times, under the headline, “Democrats See No Choice but Hillary Clinton in 2016,” made the most scathing assessment of the condition of a Democratic Party without Clinton heading the ticket. Calling Clinton “too big to fail,” the newspaper noted, “Her star power … has helped obscure a vexing reality for the post-Obama Democratic Party: As much as it advertises itself as the party of a rising generation, the Democrats’ farm team is severely understaffed, and many of its leading lights are eligible for Social Security.”

The Democrats may call forward some other candidates—the “independent” Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or the like—with the aim of in some way dressing up the tired and reactionary party with a progressive gloss while giving the various pseudo-left organizations that orbit around it something to sell. Their campaigns are not considered “serious,” least of all by the potential candidates themselves.

While unmentioned in the press critiques of the Democrats, the Republican Party is in no better shape in terms of presidential candidates. Its current front-runner is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, brother of the man who left the White House in 2009 as the most hated American president since Herbert Hoover. Vying with Bush are assorted reactionaries, Christian fundamentalist demagogues and semi-fascists.

The potentially dynastic character of the 2016 election only testifies to the extreme narrowness of the existing political system and the emergence of the aristocratic principle as the dominant feature in American society. The enormous growth of economic inequality is the most pervasive social reality of the past three decades. It inevitably finds expression in political life as well.

Candidates become viable, not because of character or political ideas, but because they can raise sufficient amounts of money to be “competitive.” In order to do this, they must ingratiate themselves with the Wall Street financial oligarchy. Just as importantly, they must pass muster with the Pentagon, CIA, NSA and FBI, the vast military-intelligence apparatus that defends the interests of corporate America both at home and abroad—and has what amounts to a veto over who is selected as “Commander-in-Chief.”

In such an environment, the ruling elite seeks to limit political debate to its own circles, and to argue over what tactics will best serve its interests, excluding any political views that would threaten the existing social structure and division of wealth and income. There are sharp tactical divisions within the ruling class, including over foreign policy, but these are generally fought out through backroom methods of scandal-mongering and media leaks.

The extraordinarily insular character of the parties is a reflection of the narrow social foundations upon which they rest. In addition to support from the financial aristocracy and the military intelligence apparatus, the Democrats mobilize sections of the privileged upper middle class, including layers of academia, professionals, Hollywood and the trade union apparatus. Identity politics is a major component of their appeal, although the experience of the Obama administration has dealt a devastating blow to the popular illusions raised by the election of the first African-American president. Nonetheless, the Democrats seek a reprise with a campaign focusing on Clinton becoming the first female president.

The Republicans mobilize openly reactionary sections of the population, on the basis of attacks on the poor and racial minorities and appeals to religious bigotry. They also make an increasingly open appeal to the military apparatus itself, as demonstrated in the suggestion by one potential Republican candidate, Lindsey Graham, that if elected, he would urge the military to force Congress to increase the Pentagon budget.

This protracted political process, extending over many decades, is something of a double-edged sword for the ruling elite. The great majority of the American people have zero influence over the selection of candidates by the two corporate-controlled parties between whom they will be given a “choice” on November 8, 2016.

Bourgeois politics in America has reached a certain point of exhaustion, particularly following the experience of Obama, the “transformative” candidate of “change.” The widespread disillusionment emerged in the last elections, the midterm contest in 2014, which saw a sharp fall in voter turnout. Outside of the top 10 percent or so of the population, the vast majority of the population is hostile and angry.

While this sentiment has not yet found direct political expression, it will—and as it does, it will take on an ever more insurrectionary and revolutionary form.

The ‘President’ Of Egalitarian India

Aishik Chanda

Mumbai: Dressed in blue full-sleeve shirt and grey trousers, Sachin Prabhakar Sawant, excitedly explains his roadmap for an egalitarian India. An engineer by education, the Mira Road resident who is sitting on a dharna for over a year at Azad Maidan in south Bombay, declared himself the President of India on March 23, 2014. Since then, he has made a corner at Azad Maidan his home, demanding implementation of the constitution ‘religiously’. Sawant, the President of Independent Candidates’ Party (ICP), says he wants to establish Buddhist system in the country and destroy all forms of casteism, sectarianism and communalism from their roots.

He has laid out a set of promises that he would provide in the India of which he is the President. And by India, he speaks of Akhand Bharat or United India of which Pakistan and Bangladesh are part. With a budget of Rs 1 lakh crores, Sawant envisages one business, one private job and one government job for every person, Rs 50 lakh allotted for every single citizen and free food and education for all.

The 40-something former businessman who claims the support of several MLAs and top bureaucrats by his side says that the provisions laid down by Dr B.R. Ambedkar are not being implemented properly. “Constitution has given equality to all but the powerful have extracted most of the benefits. The marginalized and economically poor Dalits are still treated like slaves, and are not getting the benefits of reservation. Most is being cornered by the creamy layer that has emerged over the years.” The ICP President stood in the elections for the post of Kandivali corporator in 2007 as an independent candidate and lost.

When asked why he chose to declare himself the President and not the Prime Minister, Sawant explains, “The PM may be the most powerful person in the country but he is still a government servant. On the other hand, the President is not only the nominal head but can be the head of the state once s/he declares the President Rule and imposes the radical changes that one intends to bring in the country.” Hence, Sawant has declared “President’s rule” in India from July 9, 2014 up to December 31, 2017.

The “President” has written letters to several government officials, MLAs, MPs, Chief Ministers, Governors of different states and even the President of India Pranab Mukherjee, asking them to implement the programmes that he envisages for making India truly egalitarian. Sawant said the letters to the senders have been received and that after his letter, the Legislature of Maharashtra has reportedly said that President’s rule may indeed be declared for speedy and rigorous implementation of social and economic transformation of the country.

“Buddha is not a god but a human being whose life must be followed and replicated by all mankind,” says Sawant, thus pricking at the age-old controversy between Mahayana and Hinayana schools of thought of Buddhism. Sawant said he is giving psychological medication to casteism-ridden people in the country.

While his fight is for establishing an egalitarian society in India based on Buddhist principles, Sawant says he also wants that every Indian should get the basic amenities they are entitled to. After travelling throughout the country, he realized that money is not important at all. “Money is just a medium to momentary happiness but not a long-term solution to the woes,” he said.

“I got whatever materialistic pleasures I wanted after Class 10. Then I started my business of selling fruit juice, after which I ventured into Chinese fast food centre and then worked as a dabbawala (tiffin courier) between Vasai and Andheri, all while pursuing engineering education. I worked at day and studied at night and invested the profit from my business on education,” said Sawant, who has decided to remain a bachelor as he thinks marriage will be an obstacle to his movement. It has been seven years since he left his house at Mira Road and has no contacts with his family. “I have sold my possessions including car, bike and other valuables to people and since then live a frugal life. The money from the sale is being spent on imparting IAS training to aspirants,” said the ICP President.

Despite claiming support of thousands, Sawant says anyone associated with the movement must work alone. This, he says will change the herd-mentality that democracy has bestowed upon Indian people.

For furthering his cause, Sawant used to hold a placard and move around Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, urging people to join his movement. Those who came forward to listen him and paid some obeisance, which Sawant has set as Rs 10, were given a receipt of the same. The donation, however, is not just a donation but also a membership fee for his ICP. The donor is made the President of the ICP along with him and also the President of the party of a particular area, say Chembur or Ghatkopar. S/he is issued a letterhead of the ICP bearing the name and post of the donor and has to work single-handedly to spread the movement in his/her area. The ICP President has to then work for the people of the area and use the letterhead as a show of authority in any police case against people they are fighting for. “When the police see the letterhead of a President of a party, some importance is given to the person and his/her case. However, the ICP member should always abide by the law,” said Sawant. The ICP President claims his party has a membership of some 400-500 people all over India.

When told that his tenet of fighting alone is against Ambedkar’s call to educate, organize and agitate on a mass-level, Sawant coldly shrugs, “Ambedkar’s times and present days are very different. Dalits are fighting unitedly but in different directions and all are wrong directions.”

“If you have not taught a man/woman, your education is a waste. Crores of Dalits are uneducated and exploited even 68 years after independence. You organized on a mass level, formed parties, but did Dalits remain united? The Republican Party of India has broken into so many splinters. The Dalits agitated on mass levels but the agitations were never forceful and unidirectional. What has the agitations served to the Dalits? Did they bring about any radical change that transformed their lives,” questions Sawant.

Elections are also held in the ‘parallel government’ that Sawant leads. The members of the ICP vote in the MLA and MP elections that is held among the candidates from the ICP party members only and representatives are elected. However, Sawant knows all ICP members are not committed change-bringers. “Many people who know they will never get a chance to be an MLA or MP join ICP to fulfill their long-cherished fantasy. ICP gives them this platform. However, not all are ‘such corrupt people’ and some really strive hard to make the ICP dream a reality.”

Though his ideas and roadmap may seem hazy to many, Sawant says he is clear about what he wants. “People have even dismissed me as a lunatic and beaten me up. But I know what I want and how to bring it about,” he said. When asked to share his clear roadmap with the masses, Sawant points at his temple and says, “Everything is in my brain and I would not give out my plan about how to go about in the movement.” Dismissing lack of transparency in ICP and his dictatorship in the party, Sawant says he has established ICP from scratch and built it brick-by-brick. “People need not hear my words or see my plan, they will see my action,” he said.

Holy Cow-Beef And Indian Political Games

Ram Puniyani 

Can the dietary practices, the animal which is worshipped as a mother by section of population, be brought in on the political arena? While all this sounds surreal, its true as far as the role of cow is there in Indian political firmament. Recently Maharashtra Government got the Presidents assent to the bill “Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill 1995 which will now ban the slaughter of bulls and bullocks as well. The defaulters will face a prison term of five years and a fine of Rs. 10000. When I first read ‘Animal Preservation’ part of the title of the bill, I thought this is some bill related to all the animals which are used for human consumption or deals with the use of animals for different purposes by the society. Contrary to that it turned out that this applies only to Cow and its progeny. A decade ago I was shocked to read that one of the outstanding scholars of ancient Indian History Professor Dwijendra Nath Jha received regular threats on phone telling him not to publish his book, ‘Holy Cow Beef in Indian Dietary tradition’. This scholarly work traces the place of beef in Indian diet from centuries.

The idea is to target the minorities for beef eating, and cow slaughter. One recalls that one of the slogans which rent the air in the run up the 2014 General elections was "Modi ko matdan, gai ko jeevadan [Vote for Modi, give life to the cow], BJP ka sandesh, bachegi gai, bachega desh [BJP’s message, the cow will be saved, the country will be saved]". This slogan was propped up ‘Cow Development Cell’ of BJP.

As such emotive-identity issues are the hall mark of the politics in the name of religion. BJP built itself up on another identity issue, that of Ram Temple. The cow has always been accompanying and a parallel issue for political mobilization by RSS-BJP. It has also been the point of triggering violence in many cases all through. With the formation of VHP by RSS in 1964, cow issue has been systematically propped up time and over again. Many a misconceptions about cow, beef eating have been constructed. Building of misconceptions has also been extended to the dietary habits of the ‘Muslim’ community in particular. The profession of section of Muslims, Kasai (butcher), those in the trade of beef selling has been brought in to the ‘Hate other’, ‘social common sense’ in particular. The result being that it is perceived at broad layers of society as if beef eating is compulsory for Muslims. The notion which has been popularized is that Cow is Holy for Hindus: Muslims kill her! The perception is that the Muslim invaders brought beef eating into India. These misconceptions are by now the part of ‘social common sense’ of the large number of people in the society.

All the components of this are myths and stereotypes have been constructed over a period of time. Time and over again one hears about some small communal violence, killing of dalits and traders of cows leading to communal polarization. Many a dalits dealing with cow hide have been killed in places like Gohana in Hariyana and the VHP leaders had justified such acts.

Contrary to this the beef eating and sacrifice of cows was prevalent here from Vedic period. The sacrifice of cows in the Yagnas (ritual around fire) is extensively mentioned in the scriptures. There is mention about beef eating in various books. There is a phrase in Taitreya Brahmin which states ‘Atho Annam Via Gau’ (Cow is in veritably food) Different gods are mentioned to be having their choices for particular type of cow flesh. Prof D. N. Jha quotes innumerable examples of this in his masterpiece.

The preaching of non violence in India came with the rise of agricultural society. Jainism called for total non violence, while Buddhism talked non-violence; preventing of wasteful animal sacrifice in particular. It was much later that Brahmanism picked up cow as a symbol for Brahmanism in response and as a reaction to non-violence of these religions. Since Brahmanism has asserted itself to be the Hinduism it projects as if Cow is holy for Hindus overall. The matter of fact is that many sections of society, more particularly Dalits and Tribal have been eating beef all through. It is another matter that lately with the rising assertion of Hindutva, many a communities which are dependent on beef as a rich and cheap source of protein are gradually being forced to either give it up or do a rethink on that.

In contrast to what is being asserted by BJP and company, Swami Vivekanand had a different take on the issue. He points out speaking to a large gathering in USA said: “You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.”

[Vivekananda speaking at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, USA (2 February 1900) on the theme of ‘Buddhistic India’, cited in Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol 3 (Calcutta: Advaita Ashram, 1997), p. 536.]
This is corroborated by other research works sponsored by the Ramakrishna Mission established by Swami Vivekananda himself. One of these reads: “The Vedic Aryans, including the Brahmanas, ate fish, meat and even beef. A distinguished guest was honoured with beef served at a meal. Although the Vedic Aryans ate beef, milch cows were not killed. One of the words that designated cow was aghnya (what shall not be killed). But a guest was a goghna (one for whom a cow is killed). It is only bulls, barren cows and calves that were killed.”[C. Kunhan Raja, ‘Vedic Culture’, cited in the series, Suniti Kumar Chatterji and others (eds.), The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol 1 (Calcutta: The Ramakrishna Mission, 1993), 217.]

In response to this bill thousands of workers of Devnar abattoir (Mumbai), who will be losing their jobs came on the streets to protest against this move of the government (March 11). Many traders, from different religion also came to Azad Maidan in Mumbai to protest this communal act of the Maharashtra Government. In a PIL filed in the Bombay High Court the petitioner argues that this ban on beef infringes on the fundamental right of citizens to choose meat of their choice is fundamental. The hope is that the society overcomes such abuse of ‘identity issues’ for political goals and lets the people have their own choices in matters of food habits, and let those who are making their living from this trade do so peacefully.

Kashmir's Polite, Mad Revolutionary, India's Bogeyman

Radha Surya

https://www.youtube.com/watch

It's worth accessing youtube videos of Mr. Masrat Alam Bhat, Muslim League chairman and general secretary of Hurriyat Conference. You can watch him for instance in a riveting Kashmir Monitor video. The pro-freedom leader sits amidst a circle of friends. It is less than 24 hours since his release after five years of incarceration. The newly liberated leader appears relaxed. The fearful "terrorist" speaks to the media with a certain urgency. His tone of voice is soft, even gentle. Don't watch these videos if you are looking for impassioned denunciation of Indian rule in Kashmir. Although Mr. Masrat Alam wears a bushy beard, this one time science graduate of Sri Pratap College, Srinagar, has no interest in Hafiz Saeed style fulminations against India. The Kashmiri leader tells the media he is thankful to God for the ongoing commotion in the Indian Parliament (and ensuing publicity). A humorous twinkle lights up his eyes.

In another video the so-called threat to the unity and integrity of India throws back his head and laughs uproariously. He appears to be greatly amused by the brouhaha over his release in New Delhi and in India. He asks why make such a big deal out of the freeing of one person when thousands of political prisoners languish in detention. He has been in and out of prison since the age of 21. Arrested in 1991 for joining the armed struggle against Indian rule he spent much of the decade in jail. Since then there have been many periods of incarceration. With political parties and putative deshbakts in India baying for his blood, he confronts the looming prospect of yet another prison term with stoicism. After all he says he has only been transferred from a small prison to a larger one. The large prison of which he speaks is Kashmir.

The political storm that raged in New Delhi on March 9-10 presented a sharp contrast to the calm and steadfast dedication of the pro-freedom Kashmiri leader: "Movement is always there irrespective of whether I am in or out" (Greater Kashmir). The ruling BJP came under fire from both the Opposition and BJP allies. The Lok Sabha witnessed an uproar on two consecutive days. PM Modi was called on to react to the actions of Jammu and Kashmir's newly sworn in Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, the BJP's coalition partner in the J&K government. In recent months the PM became famous for observing a 'main chup rahoonga' (I'll keep silence) policy as the forces of hindu chauvinism and hyper national bigotry ran rampant--spewing anti-minority hate speech, launching anti-minority campaigns, vandalizing Christian places of worship and crediting path breaking inventions to the science and technology of premodern India. But on Monday March 9 he wasted no time in adding his august voice to the so-called aakrosh welling up from the heart of India at the Kashmiri leader's release from illegal incarceration. Momentarily the ruling party and the opposition came together as a single unified entity. Nothing brings about political amity as speedily as real or imagined threats to national security. For political parties of every persuasion it's truly uplifting to hoist the tricolor and rally around the national flag.

India's mainstream news media has not covered itself with glory in its reporting on Mr. Masrat Alam. He is commonly designated as the hardline Hurriyat leader and thereby relegated to the realm of political untouchability. Other instances of loaded language used by the media include "dreaded separatist" and "Hurriyat hawk." In an otherwise sane and commendable editorial on the discharge of Mr. Alam the Hindu has called him a Hurriyat hardliner who showed no remorse. There is really no reason why Mr.Alam should be called on to exhibit remorse. True, the Hurriyat leader spearheaded the pro-azaadi protests of summer 2010. This has been brought out by innumerable news articles that have appeared since March 8. But these articles have omitted to mention that the security forces responded to the protests with disproportionate force and killed over a hundred Kashmiri youngsters. For all purposes the brutality of the security forces has disappeared into the memory hole. By journalistic sleight of hand responsibility for the killings is made to rest with the Hurriyat leader. Here's an example from the Indian Express of March 9, 2015:...he had shot into limelight after he issued calenders for stonepelters resulting in the death of 112 people in 2010. A simple google search will yield tens of articles demonstrating the identical sleight of hand.

There is a further dimension to this story. Strangely enough in the course of the recent furor no one seems to have mentioned just why the "dreaded" Mr. Masrat Alam was spearheading the protests of 2010. Yet another crucial fact has been made to disappear into the memory hole. Consequently the protests end up appearing senseless and motiveless. For all intent and purposes the Kashmiri youngsters were out there protesting for the heck of it. Little wonder the public remains uninformed when the mainstream media does such a shoddy job of presenting the full story. To set the record straight it is worth noting that mass protests began in reaction to the Macchil fake encounter staged in April 2010. The fake encounter entailed the cold blooded murder of three Kashmiri civilians by Army officers and jawans. The victims were passed off as foreign infiltrators. The perpetrators of the heinous deed obtained cash rewards for eliminating foreign militants. The story unraveled a month later when the bodies were exhumed and identified by the parents of the murdered men. The Macchil fake encounter deaths became notorious but there have been innumerable violations of human rights that go unacknowledged. Is it then surprising if there is political alienation among Kashmiris and the aspiration for self-rule?

In a fast changing news environment it was initially thought that the Hurriyat leader's release had been ordered by Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed. Later it was found that the release had been approved by the Central Government in the interim period when Jammu and Kashmir came under Governor's rule. With this discovery the crisis in BJP-PDP relations seems to have been defused. Under heavy pressure from the BJP, the PDP has stated that no further release of political prisoners will take place. It's now back to business as usual. It appears that political prisoners who have served their term will remain in captivity. Two cheers for the rule of law and due process. Two cheers for Indian democracy. For now the dust has settled. The Kashmir issue has dropped from the headlines of the Indian news media. The politicians and the deshbakts can return to the self-serving pretence about the decline of pro-azaadi sentiment in Kashmir. It's now back to believing that Kashmir is identical to every other Indian state and that its problems have to do with governance and development. No need to confront the troublesome fact that divided Kashmir lies at the heart of an international dispute.

Meanwhile in Srinagar Mr. Masrat Alam Bhat maintains his composure. He told the Hindu that he plans to return to "normal" life outside prison--resistance politics. In this he is true to character. Back in 2010 an officer of the Counter Insurgency Cell of the Kashmir police told Tehelka that "as soon as Alam is released, he starts from where he had left off. I haven’t seen a separatist leader so completely obsessed as he is" (http://www.tehelka.com/is-this-man-the-heir-to-geelanis-mantle-how-masarat-alam-makes-young-kashmiris-dance/2/).

The Tehelka story (August 14, 2010, Issue 32 Volume 7) shows that the Kashmiri leader joined the political movement at the age of 16. He was a supporter of the Muslim United Front (MUF) which challenged the New Delhi backed National Conference (NC) party. As is well known to observers of Kashmir's history and politics, the elections of 1987 became notable in the annals of infamy because of egregious rigging of the results by New Delhi. The victorious candidates of the MUF were set aside in favor of NC candidates. Foiled in the effort to bring about social and political change via the ballot box, erstwhile MUF candidates and their supporters took to armed struggle. It's unnecessary here to go into details of the brutal counterinsurgency operation launched by India and resultant killing of tens of thousands of Kashmiris. Enough to note that Mr. Masrat Alam joined the militant movement as a commander of Hezbollah. He was in prison through much of the nineties. Perhaps he was set free under the amnesty program of the 2002-2008 PDP-Congress coalition government. At some point in the nineties or oughties he seems to have embraced the politics of peaceful, nonviolent resistance. He has been forged in the red-hot crucible of Kashmir's politics. He has been part of every phase of Kashmir's pro-azaadi movement since the late eighties. He has seen it all. He has witnessed the torture centers run by the Indian army and somehow survived the slaughter in which so many young people of his generation perished in tragic circumstances. Perhaps the trauma of earlier periods of his life explains the moving and impressive calm with which the 44 year old pro-azaadi leader awaits the utmost punishment that India can inflict in the name of national security and national integrity. In the meantime the polite, mad revolutionary (Tehelka) will busy himself with working to release Kashmir from ghulami.

Sleepwalking Into World War Three? Why The Independent Media Is Vital

Colin Todhunter

NATO countries are to all intents and purposes at war with Russia. The US knows it and Russia knows it too. Unfortunately, most of those living in NATO countries remain blissfully ignorant of this fact.

The US initiated economic sanctions on Russia, has attacked its currency and has manipulated oil prices to devastate the Russian economy. It was behind the coup in Ukraine and is now escalating tensions by placing troops in Europe and supporting a bunch of neo-fascists that it brought to power. Yet the bought and paid for corporate media in the West keeps the majority of the Western public in ignorance by depicting Russia as the aggressor.

If the current situation continues, the outcome could be a devastating nuclear conflict. Washington poured five billion dollars into Ukraine with the aim of eventually instigating a coup on Russia’s doorstep. Washington and NATO are supporting proxy forces on the ground to kill and drive out those who are demanding autonomy from the US puppet regime in Kiev. Hundreds of thousands having fled across the border into Russia.

Yet it is Washington that accuses Moscow of invading Ukraine, of having had a hand in the downing of a commercial airliner and of ‘invading’ Ukraine based on no evidence at all – trial by media courtesy of Washington’s PR machine. As a result of this Russian ‘aggression’, Washington has slapped sanctions on Moscow.

The ultimate aim is to de-link Europe’s economy from Russia and weaken Russia's energy dependent economy by denying it export markets. The ultimate aim is to also ensure Europe remains integrated with/dependent on Washington, not least via the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and in the long term via US gas and Middle East oil (sold in dollars, thereby boosting the strength of the currency upon which US global hegemony rests).

The mainstream corporate media in the West parrots the accusations against Moscow as fact, despite Washington having cooked up evidence or invented baseless pretexts. As with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and other ‘interventions’ that have left a trail of death and devastation in their wake, the Western corporate media’s role is to act as cheerleader for official policies and US-led wars of terror.

The reality is that the US has around 800 military bases in over 100 countries and military personnel in almost 150 countries. US spending on its military dwarfs what the rest of the world spends together. It outspends China by a ratio of 6:1.

What does the corporate media say about this? That the US is a ‘force for good’ and constitutes the ‘world’s policeman’ - not a calculating empire underpinned by militarism.

By the 1980s, Washington’s wars, death squads and covert operations were responsible for six million deaths in the ‘developing’ world. An updated figure suggests that figure is closer to ten million.

Breaking previous agreements made with Russia/the USSR, over the past two decades the US and NATO has moved into Eastern Europe and continues to encircle Russia and install missile systems aimed at it. It has also surrounded Iran with military bases. It is destabilising Pakistan and ‘intervening’ in countries across Africa to weaken Chinese trade and investment links and influence. It intends to eventually militarily ‘pivot’ towards Asia to encircle China.

William Blum has presented a long list of Washington’s crimes across the planet since 1945 in terms of its numerous bombings of countries, assassinations of elected leaders and destabilisations. No other country comes close to matching the scale of such criminality. Under the smokescreen of exporting ‘freedom and democracy’, the US has deemed it necessary to ignore international laws and carry out atrocities to further its geo-political interests across the globe.

Writing on AlterNet.org, Nicolas JS Davies says of William Blum’s book Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II: if you're looking for historical context for what you are reading or watching on TV about the coup in Ukraine, ‘Killing Hope’ will provide it.

Davies argues that the title has never been more apt as we watch the hopes of people from all regions of Ukraine being sacrificed on the same altar as those of people in Iran (1953); Guatemala(1954); Thailand (1957); Laos (1958-60); the Congo (1960); Turkey (1960, 1971 & 1980); Ecuador (1961 & 1963); South Vietnam (1963); Brazil (1964); the Dominican Republic (1963); Argentina (1963); Honduras (1963 & 2009); Iraq (1963 & 2003); Bolivia (1964, 1971 & 1980); Indonesia (1965); Ghana (1966); Greece (1967); Panama (1968 & 1989); Cambodia (1970); Chile (1973); Bangladesh (1975); Pakistan (1977); Grenada (1983); Mauritania (1984); Guinea (1984); Burkina Faso (1987); Paraguay (1989); Haiti (1991 & 2004); Russia (1993); Uganda (1996);and Libya (2011).

Davies goes on to say that the list above does not include a roughly equal number of failed coups, nor coups in Africa and elsewhere in which a US role is suspected but unproven.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a recipe for more of the same. The ultimate goal, based on the ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine, is to prevent any rival emerging to challenge Washington’s global hegemony and to secure dominance over the entire planet. Washington’s game plan for Russia is to destroy is as a functioning state or to permanently weaken it so it submits to US hegemony. While the mainstream media in the West set out to revive the Cold War mentality and demonise Russia, Washington believes it can actually win a nuclear conflict with Russia. It no longer regards nuclear weapons as a last resort but part of a convention theatre of war and is willing to use them for pre-emptive strikes.

Washington is accusing Russia of violating Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, while the US has its military, mercenary and intelligence personnel inside Ukraine. It is moreover putting troops in Poland, engaging in ‘war games’ close to Russia and has pushed through a ‘Russian anti-aggression’ act that portrays Russia as an aggressor in order to give Ukraine de facto membership of NATO and thus full military support, advice and assistance.

Washington presses ahead regardless as Russia begins to undermine dollar hegemony by trading oil and gas and goods in rubles and other currencies. History shows that whenever a country threatens the dollar, the US does not idly stand by.

Unfortunately, most members of the Western public believe the lies being fed to them. This results from the corporate media amounting to little more than an extension of Washington’s propaganda arm. The PNAC, under the pretext of some bogus ‘war on terror’, is partly built on gullible, easily led public opinion, which is fanned by emotive outbursts from politicians and the media. We have a Pavlov’s dog public and media, which respond on cue to the moralistic bleating of politicians who rely on the public’s ignorance to facilitate war and conflict.

Former US Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst has spoken about the merits of the Kiev coup and the installation of an illegitimate government in Ukraine. Last year, he called the violent removal of Ukraine’s democratically elected government as enhancing democracy. Herbst displayed all of the arrogance associated with the ideology of US ‘exceptionalism’. He also displayed complete contempt for the public by spouting falsehoods and misleading claims about events taking place in Ukraine.

And now in Britain, the public is being subjected to the same kind of propaganda by the likes of Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond with his made-for-media sound bites about Russia being threat toworld peace:

"We are now faced with a Russian leader bent not on joining the international rules-based system which keeps the peace between nations, but on subverting it… We are in familiar territory for anyone over the age of about 50, with Russia's aggressive behaviour a stark reminder it has the potential to pose the single greatest threat to our security... Russia's aggressive behaviour a stark reminder it has the potential to pose the single greatest threat to our security."

In a speech that could have come straight from the pen of some war mongering US neocon, the US’s toy monkey Hammond beat on cue the drum that signals Britain’s willingness to fall in line and verbally attack Putin for not acquiescing to US global hegemonic aims.

The anti-Russia propaganda in Britain is gathering pace. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said that Putin could repeat the tactics used to destabilise Ukraine in the Baltic states. He said that NATO must be ready for Russian aggression in “whatever form it takes.” He added that Russia is a “real and present danger.” Prior to this, PM David Cameron called on Europe to make clear to Russia that it faces economic and financial consequences for “many years to come” if it does not stop destabilising Ukraine.

Members of the current administration are clearly on board with US policy and are towing the line, as did Blair before. And we know that his policy on Iraq was based on a pack of lies too.

If Putin is reacting in a certain way, it is worth wondering what the US response would be if Russia had put its missiles in Canada near the US border, had destabilised Mexico and was talking of putting missiles there too. To top it off, imagine if Russia were applying sanctions on the US for all of this ‘aggression’.

What Russia is really guilty of is calling for a multi-polar world, not of one dominated by the US. It’s a goal that most of humanity is guilty of. It is a world the US will not tolerate.

Herbst and his ilk would do well to contemplate their country’s record of wars and destabilisations, its global surveillance network that illegally spies on individuals and governments alike and its ongoing plundering of resources and countries supported by militarism, ‘free trade’ or the outright manipulation of every major market. Hammond, Fallon and Cameron would do well to remember this too. But like their US masters, their role is to feign amnesia and twist reality.

The media is dutifully playing its part well by keeping the public ignorant and misinformed. A public that is encouraged to regard what is happening in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya, etc, as a confusing, disconnected array of events in need of Western intervention based on bogus notions of ‘humanitarianism’ or a ‘war on terror’, rather than the planned machinations of empire which includes a global energy war and the associated preservation and strengthening of the petro-dollar system.

Eric Zuesse has been writing extensively on events in Ukraine for the last year. His articles have been published on various sites like Countercurrents, Global Research and RINF, but despite his attempts to get his numerous informative and well-researched pieces published in the mainstream media, he has by and large hit a brick wall (he describes this here).

This is because the corporate media have a narrative and the truth does not fit into it. If this tells us anything it is that sites like the one you are reading this particular article on are essential for informing the public about the reality of the aggression that could be sleepwalking the world towards humanity’s final war. And while the mainstream media might still be 'main', in as much as that is where most people still turn to for information, there is nothing to keep the alternative web-based media from becoming 'mainstream'.

Whether it involves Eric's virtually daily pieces or articles by other writers, the strategy must be to tweet, share and repost! Or as Binu Mathew from the India-based Countercurrents website says:

"It is for those who want to nurture these alternative communication channels to spread the word to tell the world about these avenues. 'Each one reach one, each one teach one' can be a good way to sum up."

Arab World: Political Disintegration And Search For Reason

Mahboob A. Khawaja

Terror is the engine of war. And terror is what all sides in this conflict produce in overabundance …….We torture hostages in our black sites and choke them to death by stuffing rags down their throats. They torture hostages in squalid hovels and behead them. We organize Shiite death squads to kill Sunnis. They organize Sunni death squads to kill Shiites. We produce high-budget films such as “American Sniper” to glorify our war crimes. They produce inspirational videos to glorify their twisted version of jihad. The barbarism we condemn is the barbarism we commit. The line that separates us from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is technological, not moral. We are those we fight. …..“From violence, only violence is born,” Primo Levi wrote, “following a pendular action that, as time goes by, rather than dying down, becomes more frenzied.” (Chris Hedges, “The Terror We Give Is the Terror We Get” Truthdig: 2/08/2015)

Arab masses live in a matrix of lies and delusion. While the oil exporting economic prosperity glitters from distance, the Arab world is fast becoming worst than being useless entity in global affairs. West Europeans used several million Arabs to fight their nationalistic Two World Wars and to build the shaky empires. But the contemporary Europeans view them as liability in their own social construct and subservient neighborhoods. Nothing appears normal if at all normal could be defined rationally. Good many parts of the Arab world are engulfed in chaos and political disintegration. Looking critically, nothing seems accidental but planned and well orchestrated strategies to dismember the neo-colonial States, national boundaries, tribal landmarks and national identities. The 2003 American-led war and occupation have incapacitated the Arabian geo-political culture. Rational thinking is absent but deaths and destructions are daily affairs under various titles and captions. Baghdad was known to be the hub of the ancient civilizations. But planned sectarian killings and destruction are the order of the day. Syrian history was evolved over many centuries, yet it is in complete ruin of the human civilizations because authoritarianism will not heed to voices of reason. The Arab heartlands are on fire and its ripple effects have endangered the integrity and future of the whole region. Inventive rhetoric and vicious exaggeration is leading the war of unknown consequences. All are fighting against all, not knowing how and where would they end-up in time and history? Political incapacity multiplied by deceitful complacency, the egoistic leaders are happy that their palaces are operational and protected by foreign mercenaries. There are no Arab proactive leaders to think and move forward with a sustainable imagination for tangible navigational change. The phenomenon of people-led political change remains aloof but a culture of authoritarian tyranny and continuing disintegration persists.

Arab Culture and Terrorism are Incompatible

Arab world is at the threshold of another catastrophic disaster- the willing coalition of the few complacent in US-led sectarian bloodbath with no ending in sight. The ego turned into cancer consuming all positive energies and time and spreading volatile animosities and insecurity across the Arab heartland. The leaders and people breathe oxygen in conflicting time zones being unaware of the Laws of God – what future holds for their complacency in another war against the masses. After the 9/11, the terrorism myth was super-imposed on the Arab-Muslim culture. Western mythologists used the news media as a weapon to enlarge the political nature and scope of the 9/11 attacks against the Muslim people. The real aims were to wage the bogus wars and to occupy the natural resources of the Muslim world. Ironically, few Arab leaders are complacent in supporting the American-led war on terrorism. The Arab masses are the net victims of all of the tragic and inhuman impulses pursued by the self-centered tribal agents of influence. The Arab world does not appear to enjoin any new vision or political imagination for a navigational change out of the absurdity of foreign imposed wars and sectarian divides raging across the Arab Middle East. Islam sought unity in its system of governance; Arab nationalism continues to enrage division, sectarian animosities and daily bloodbath. Across Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and other neighboring Arab states, people are fighting for money and influence, and not for Islam or a genuine cause to protect national freedom and human dignity.

Truth is one and indivisible. Terrorism myth has overtaken the rationality of critical thinking. The 9/11 attacks in the US were carried out by individuals and not inspired or supported by the religion of Islam or Muslims. Some hourly paid intellectuals turned guardian of the approved truth, allege that Islam breeds terrorism. Living without roots and reason, Islam enriched the Arabs to become global leaders of a progressive civilization lasting 800 hundred years in Al-Andalusia (Spain). But the oil enhanced prosperity transformed them into ‘camel jockeys’ and object of hallow laughters across the Western culture. Money cannot buy wisdom, honor and human integrity. The bogus “war on terrorism” could not have happened if the Arab leaders - the front line bogyman of the US Empire had critical mind, intellectual capacity and integrity to challenge the most irrational and cruel act in human history. The Western mass media complements the self crafted notion to poison the public thinking and perceptions and source of judgments against the Arabs and Muslims as “terrorists” making the treacherous claim as if Islam was at the threshold of the paradigm. The perception of ‘radical Islam’ was invented and enhanced by the ‘fear’ of terrorism as if Arabs and Muslims were born in the eye of the storm and terrorism was an exclusive domain of the Islamic religious tenets. Throughout the oil exporting Arab world, the contemporary rulers have turned out to be complacent in the US –Israeli strategic plans for the future of the Middle East. The current crises and fighting in Iraq-Syria and ISIL are all aimed at remaking the future of the Arab world and to undermine the freedom of Palestine.

In Search of Reason

The culture of success as a whore prevails throughout the Arab Middle East. Nobody cares for truth and rational thinking to be the guidelines in policy practices and decision-making. Foreigners enjoy unique merits in political governance and setting the policy agenda in many of the oil-producing Arab states.

Across the Arabian Peninsula, a culture of political delusion and mismanagement persists. Most Arabian people seem distracted from reality and lost. Many conscientious Arab thinkers believe that change is ticking like a time bomb. But Arab rulers are the stumbling block to stop the process of political change and people’s oriented system of governance. There are strong emotional crutches embedded into these perceptual values, and the authoritarian Arab leaders will fight to defend the lies and deception that they believe-in. The rulers live in palaces and people live in distant muddy huts and tribal locations. There are varied cultures and time zones involved in-between the Arabian ruling elite and the people they claim to govern. The laws and public institutions date back to the European imperial time and order. The Arab rulers occupying the political powerhouses for over half a century would have difficulty to face the mirror. Now, worst is happening by sectarian rivalries and killings in Iraq and Syria. Al-Qaeda and ISIL had no presence in Iraq until the US and Britain destroyed its civic, economic and political infrastructures. Paul Craig Roberts (“Muslims are their own Worst Enemy”: Global Research), offers the following candid observation:

“Muslims are numerous but powerless. Divisions among Muslims, especially between Sunni and Shiites, have consigned the Muslim Middle East to almost a century of Western control….Muslim disunity has made it possible for Israel to dispossess the Palestinians, for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and for the U.S. to rule much of the region…”

How to Face the Reality Challenge?

The critical issues call for thoughtful analysis and change and new ideas to phase-out the old and obsolete thinking and obsessed values flourishing across the Arabian Peninsula. But the ruling elite failed to build new public institutions to plan change and to view the imperatives of new trends for policy in security, peace and conflict resolution and human progress in a global community of nations. Global politics is not fixed but a constantly changing phenomenon of life. Arab leaders do not comprehend the imperatives of political change. But reality will not diminish because nobody is conscious of its existence. After more than sixty years of freedom from the European imperialism, societal development remained a primitive mode of tribal folklore and storytelling. The Arab Middle East faces many critical crises. None of the crises are tackled in their proper context. There are no independent public institutions to analyze the political problems and find workable solutions. No proactive thinking exists in any Arab quarter to strive for political unity and to have coherent leadership. Leaders who cannot think intelligently or understand the nature of the current crises, how could they lead to any strategic direction? Few sectarian scholars and leaders are engulfed in self-geared madness to ensure their survival. The sectarian madness appears to have gone out of control to imagine a sense of purpose and rationality. Complacent Arab leaders will sabotage the peaceful endeavors for crisis management just to escape the challenges of facing reality. It serves the strategic interest of the US-led war in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Libya and soon to Saudi Arabia, dismantling of the Arabs by their own hands, guns and bullets. There are no Arab armies and no Arab Generals to console the masses and to provide sense of moral and intellectual security. One wonders, why do the oil enriched Arab leaders are buying billions of dollars worth of military hardware from America or Europe? How and where would it be used and against whom? If Iraq, Syria, Libya and Egypt are any example, the militarization is meant to quell the public interest and aspirations for political change and future-building. Imagine, if the Arab world had competent armed forces and leadership on the one hand, and were open to common sense diplomacy and dialogue on the other, could peace and normalcy have not been restored in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya?

The challenge is how to bridge the gap in thinking and actions that the old and dormant neo-colonial Arab rulers could be phased-out or sidelined in a ceremonial role and the new and more educated and competent young generations of the citizens could be phased-in to assume the much needed political leadership and to ensure that future will happen and it will be safe, secure and sustainable for peace and change in the Middle East. The prosperity fantasy bubble is fast approaching to an end with the peak oil forecasts as a visual reality in- waiting. Power, prosperity and poverty are all trials in human affairs and transitory phenomenon. Was the discovery of oil a conspiracy (“fitna”) for the Arabs to change the originality of their thinking, beliefs, values and passion for Islam as successful system of human life?

Do the Arab leaders expect America, Britain or France to come and stop the on-going sectarian killings, death squads and resulting destruction? But they are responsible for transforming Iraq, Syria, Libya and Egypt into failure states and unworkable political governance. They are all part of the problem, how could they be part of the solution. The solution must come out of new thinking and new vision for change, dialogue between the sectarian divides and competent leadership to achieve the stated goals. Many Arab leaders pretend like actors and have no understanding of Islam and its primary values to deal with others. None appear serious about their own intentions and beliefs. What if they were organized as morally and intellectually conscientious people and knew the complex nature of global politics and had proactive thought and freedom to think and act and communicate with moral strength to the enemies within the Arab societies. Don’t you think, they could have accomplished something better, something durable in dealing with some of the emotionally charged issues? In the 21st century of New World of Hope and optimism, men who are universally hated and feared can be approached, communicated and can be imagined to be sitting in front of the table to discuss the on-going problems. That is, if there are enlightened and competent leaders of vision and moral integrity to use moral and intellectual strength and are flexible to listen and learn to the other side. Many if not all man-made problems could be resolved peacefully and without resorting to bloodshed and committing crimes against the innocent humanity.

The Arab masses long for political change and a promising future based on peaceful co-existence with others. In view of the unstoppable cycle of sectarian killings and daily bloodbaths in so many Arab states - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and spill-over to other oil producing Arab nations - and reactionary militancy against the authoritarian rule and dismantling of the socio-economic infrastructures - is the Arab world coming to its own end? The Arab rulers and the masses live and breathe in conflicting time zones being unable to see the rationality of people-oriented governance - the essence of Islamic system of governance. The worst is yet to come as the wars continue, surrender to foreign forces as there are no leaders to think of the future, no Arab armies to defend the people and no sustainable socio-economic infrastructures intact to support the masses.

Which Party Do You View Iran Through?

David Swanson

Most people in the United States have little contact with Iran or its culture. Iran comes up as a scary threat in the speeches of demagogues. A range of debate is offered between obliterate it and pressure it into compliance with our civilized norms, or at least the civilized norms of some other country that doesn't obliterate or pressure people.

So how do Americans view Iran? Many view it, like all governmental matters, through the lens of either the Democratic or the Republican Party. The Democratic President has come to be seen as on the side of preventing a war with Iran. The Republican Congress has come to be seen as pushing for that war. In this framework, something remarkable happens. Democrats begin recognizing all of the arguments against war that ought to be applied to every war.

Liberals and progressives are full of talk about respecting their president and their commander in chief and following his course to tame the Iranian threat, and so forth. But they are also pointing out that war is optional, that it is not a justifiable last resort because there are always other choices. They are pointing out the undesirability of war, the horrors of war, and the preferability of a diplomatic resolution, indeed the generation of friendly and cooperative relations -- albeit in some cases as a means to fighting another war with Iran as an ally. (This seems to be Obama's scheme for using war to fix the disaster left by a past war.)

Online activist organizations that identify with the Democratic Party are actually doing remarkably well at arguing against a war with Iran. They've largely dropped the President's own rhetoric that baselessly claims Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, preferring to rail against the danger of Republican warmongering. That's a reality-based position held by neither Party -- the Republicans don't claim they're starting a war and the White House doesn't generally focus on accusing them of it. Yes, these groups are still pushing the idea that Republicans disrespecting their president is an even bigger deal than starting a war, but when they turn to the topic of war they truly sound like they oppose it and understand why we always all should.

If you see Iran through that left-Democratic lens, that is if you are opposed to Republican efforts to start yet another unnecessary catastrophic war, this one with Iran, I have a few ideas I'd like to run by you.

1. What if President Obama were opposed to efforts to undermine and overthrow the government of Venezuela? What if Republicans in Congress were ridiculously claiming that Venezuela was a threat to the United States? What if the Republicans were writing letters of encouragement to the leaders of coup attempts in Venezuela to let them know that they had U.S. backing regardless of what the State Department might say? Would you oppose the overthrow of the Venezuelan government?

2. What if Congress had sent a delegation to instigate a violent coup in Kiev, behind the back of the State Department and the White House? What if pressure was building toward a war with nuclear Russia, and Republican leaders of Congress were eagerly fanning the flames while the White House pursued the alternatives of diplomacy, demilitarization, ceasefires, negotiations, aid, and the international rule of law? Would you oppose U.S. Congressional support for the rightwing coup government in Ukraine and its antagonization of Russia?

3. What if President Obama gave an eloquent speech acknowledging that not only is there "no military solution" in Iraq or Syria but that it's wrong to keep saying that while pursuing a military solution? What if he pulled U.S. troops out of that region and out of Afghanistan and asked Congress to fund a Marshall Plan of aid and restitution, at a much lower price tag than the troop presence of course? And what if Republicans introduced a bill to put all the troops back in? Would you oppose that bill?

4. What if the Congressional armed "services" committees set up panels to review kill lists and ordered men, women, and children targeted and murdered with drone strikes, along with anyone too close to them and anyone with a suspicious profile? What if President Obama accused Congress of violating national laws on murder, the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Kellogg Briand Pact, the Ten Commandments, and the lessons of the past that show such reckless actions to generate more enemies than they kill? Would you protest drone kills and demand the elimination of armed drones?

Here's what worries me. There are some positive signs right now and were some in late 2013 and at moments since. But the anti-Republican-war movement of 2002-2007 may not be matched again until the U.S. President is again a Republican (if that ever again happens). And by then, President George W. Bush's wars will have long passed without any penalties for those responsible. And President Obama will have increased military spending and foreign presence and privatization, given the CIA the power to wage wars, eliminated the practice of gaining UN approval for wars, ended the custom of gaining Congressional sanction for wars, established the practice of murdering people with missiles anywhere on earth (and armed half the earth's nations with similar ability), while continuing to spread violence and weaponry through Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and on and on.

One last question: If you had a chance to oppose things you dislike, even though they're the result of bipartisanship, would you?

Roots Of Modern Terrorism And Religious Fundamentalism

G. Asgar Mitha

- Anyone who attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with Church dogma must be burned without pity - Pope Benedict III - Pope from 855 - 858 AD.

- Fear is the basis of the whole - fear of the mysterious, of defeat and death. Fear is the parent of cruelty and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand - Bertrand Russell

I've quoted Bertrand Russell after reading his rather interesting essays titled Why I'm Not a Christian delivered on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch and that inspired me to write this article.

The horrors of the Catholic Church are well documented while even today the modernists, historians and politicians are turned off to discuss those horrors and are involved in discussing the horrors of a Muslim civilization. No civilization has been without its dark ages. Europe and America burnt people alive by tying them to stakes after accusations of witchcraft. Ancient Egypt used to cut off the limbs of their citizens from opposite ends and then crucify them. Rome too crucified their citizens. All kinds of horrors have been recorded in history books. One of the best movies I'd seen was The Name of the Rose starring Sean Connery regarding the Holy Inquisition involving the Church. The procedures of the Holy Inquisition involved examination of charges of heresy by the Church. Even those innocent were not spared by trumped up charges. Such was the terrorism due to religious fundamentalism within the European religious system that the Church reaped wealth, mainly from the poor and destitute while protecting the wealthy aristocrats. The Church was not only a religious entity but it also embodied politics.

The Spanish Inquisitions from 1474-1834 AD were held under Pope Sixtus IV mainly against the Jews and Muslims but also against Christian heretics. Those refusing to take up Catholic faith were led to the stake to be burnt alive in a ceremony known as auto-de-fe (act of failth) and their properties confiscated to the Church.

The horrors of the Catholic Church are provided in brief in the above paragraphs. However the roots of current situation of Muslim terrorism and fundamentalism need to be examined. The basis of all terrorism and fundamentalism is not religion (as correctly postulated by Karen Armstrong) which condemns both but rests in politics and powers of the state and the religious authorities. Both politicians and clergy have used religion to consolidate their power over the weakest of their audience condemning them as heretics and kafirs (heathen unbelievers).

While I was growing up in Pakistan until 1968, there was harmony and religious tolerance among the Shia and Sunni sects. Christians and Hindus too were accepted and tolerated and there were no Islamic laws that discriminated them. Hotels used to serve alcohol and advertise striptease shows of women from many countries. After having completed my education in the US, I returned to Pakistan in 1977 under the martial law rule of President Zia-ul-Haq only to find a Pakistani society devoid of all tolerance and one of extreme religious fundamentalism but not yet of visible terrorism. It was in the germinating stages. Zia was a diehard Saudi supporter who closely held the Wahhabist-Salfist belief of forcibly imposing religion upon the people. In exchange Zia received large Saudi monetary aid to breed religious extremism among the Taliban (students) in madressas (religious schools) operated as seminaries to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. The Saudis in turn received the political support from the US. The students were not taught true Islamic values which are based on knowledge and free learning that benefits mankind. The Wahhabist teachings are instead based on fear aptly described by Bertrand Russell.

The other Wahhabist-Salafist fundamentalist Saudi citizen, Osama bin Laden, led the Afghan Mujahideen (holy warriors) and Taliban against the Soviets under the umbrella of Al-Qaeda (the base). He was supposedly killed in Pakistan in May 2011 by the Americans. The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted over nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. Zia died in August 1988 in a mysterious plane crash. He'd served his masters well and the Americans and Saudis rewarded him with a plea to God to open the doors of Heaven for him and for the houris (female angels) to entertain him. Unfortunately I perceive the same fates for other current Pakistani leaders who are serving their masters.

IS (Islamic States), for example, has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with fear, cruelty, politics and religious intolerance. IS does not represent Islamic moderation, tolerance, respect and knowledge. The IS Jihadists being recruited from Europe and N. America are most likely not mainstream Muslims but lunatics and converts in a society they hate. They could well have been victims of political and extremist religious brainwashing similar to the Taliban. Just like al-Qaeda and Taliban were recruited against the Soviets, the IS may have been created to plunder the Arab countries. The IS is conducting inquisitions against everyone regardless of their minority (Christians and Yezidis) or sectarian beliefs (Shias and Sunnis) and their methods of torture and murder (beheadings and burning) are as horrifying as was practiced by the European Churches.

Following the war's end, Afghanistan was in ruins and those same political parties (the seven party Jihadists) that had allied against the Soviets engaged in trivial disputes and fighting among themselves. America abandoned Afghanistan and Pakistan only to return in 2001 with a war against the former and military threats and promises of monetary aid for the latter. The Taliban returned victorious to Pakistan after having defeated the Soviet infidels. They now believed they were God's chosen people and like Zia, it was their bounden duty to forcibly impose Wahhabism upon a nation. Terrorism and fear became their instruments and many of these Taliban also infiltrated the political parties in Pakistan in order to gain power and wealth similar to the norms of the Christian Church of the dark ages. America watched and learnt how hyenas fight over a carcass. Pakistan and Afghanistan were ushering in the dark ages. The lessons were going to be applied throughout the Muslim world with the objectives of once again gaining not only power but control of the precious black gold resource.

Saudi Arabia and other Monarchist Arab Wahhabist countries have been natural economic allies of America and its European vassals as they are weak and in need of protection. America continues to support the Saudis in exporting their perverted religious dogma across the Muslim countries in order to breed religious intolerance, cruelty and terrorism. Some of the countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Palestine have been war victims, others like Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt have survived upon American and Saudi aids. Iran is the only Muslim country where America and the Saudi monarchy have failed for exporting terrorism and religious extremism and both fear it as a regional power. Iran has adopted values of democracy, tolerance, moderation, justice, knowledge and learning - the hallmarks of Islam. The roots of Wahhabism are based on an extremist form of Islam, of intolerance of all religions, injustice and implementation of fear by their religious police known as mutawwas supported by the monarchies which the west supports. The one thing common among the Arab monarchies and the western 'democracy' is deep hypocrisy.

Avigdor Lieberman, ISIS, And The Saudi Regime

Ludwig Watzal

What have Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, ISIS and the Saudi regime in common? The two last ones have been beheading people on a daily basis. Avigdor Lieberman, "the Jewish Islamic State", as Ahmad Tibi, a Member of the Israeli Knesset, calls him, has invoked the beheading of Israeli Palestinians in a speech at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center.

"Whoever is with us should get everything. Whoever is against us, there's nothing else to do. We have to life (t) up an axe and remove his head. Otherwise, we won't survive here."

Lieberman is one of the most outspoken racists within the current Israeli government. He is a shame for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. With his radicalism and racist rhetoric he even out-did Ariel Sharon not to speak of Netanyahu. The Palestinians harbored a self-deception saying that Lieberman would show Israel's true face. So far, Lieberman's racism did no harm to the country. On the contrary, Lieberman is welcomed and received by all his colleagues around the world, although he calls for an Israel free of Arabs.

He are some of Lieberman's racist and below the belt statements: He sees the Israeli Palestinians as second class citizens and want them transferred into a future Palestinian "State". According to him, there is “nothing undemocratic about transfer” because they pose a threat to the "Jewish identity" and the "ethnic purity" of Israel. He wanted also to drown the Palestinians in the Dead Sea or executing those who talk to Hamas. In May 2004, he stated that 90 percent of Israel’s 1.2 million Palestinian citizens would “have to find a new Arab entity” in which to live beyond Israel’s borders. “They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost.” For those who want to stay he demanded a "loyalty oath". This statement is especially galling considering that Lieberman immigrated in 1978 from Moldova to Israel.

In 2006. he called for the killing of Arab members of Knesset who meet with members of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. After the Israel massacre during the so-called Operation Protective Edge in July 2014, Lieberman called for a boycott of Arab businesses, which shut their doors over the protest of the Israeli massacre. The daily "Haaretz" called this "another act of dangerous and cynical incitement". And about the former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak he said that he either visits Israel or "go to hell". Several years ago, he called for the bombing of the Aswan Dam in Egypt, the Presidential palace in Damascus and Iran's nuclear facilities. Sometimes it seems as if Lieberman forgets that he is the Foreign Minister of the State of Israel and not a political rascal.

According to the daily "Jerusalem Post", some former high-ranking Israeli diplomats criticized Lieberman's saying: "Israel's number-one diplomat is waving an axe over the heads of citizens of the country that he represents, and in the same breath, he preaches to the whole world about fighting anti-Semitism."

A country pretending to share the same "values" as the U. S. and the other Western democracies allows itself a Foreign Minister who calls for the beheading of its own Palestinian citizens! In 2014, the Saudi Arabian regime beheaded 83 people. The beheadings of ISIS exceeds 100, while the dark figure may be much higher. Will the Israel government follow the advice of its foreign minister, and who will do the job?