4 Sept 2018

The burning down of Brazil’s national museum: A capitalist crime against the heritage of humanity

Bill Van Auken 

Brazil’s National Museum in Rio de Janeiro was gutted Sunday night by a massive fire that consumed not only the historic 19tth century palace that housed the institution, but a vast and irreplaceable collection of what was by far the largest natural history and anthropology museum in Latin America. The majority of the 20 million items it contained were destroyed.
While the immediate cause of the blaze is still unknown, this catastrophe and the irreparable loss to human culture were the product of policies of austerity and the diversion of vast social resources to feed the profits of international finance capital and a rapacious and culturally backward Brazilian capitalist ruling class.
Starved for resources by the Brazilian government, the museum was a disaster waiting to happen. Firefighters who arrived to fight the blaze were ill-prepared thanks to relentless budget cuts, lacking necessary ladders and other equipment. They found that hydrants near the museum had no water and they were forced to try to pump water from a badly polluted lake nearby.
Museum workers and scientific researchers rushed into the burning building in a desperate attempt to save what little they could. Local residents brought water to the scene and did what they could to help. Many workers, devastated by the scene of destruction, were in tears and embracing each other.
Luiz Duarte, one of the museum’s vice-directors, told TV Globo: “It is an unbearable catastrophe. It is 200 years of this country’s heritage. It is 200 years of memory. It is 200 years of science. It is 200 years of culture, of education.”
Destroyed by the fire was the oldest ancient Egyptian collection anywhere in the Americas, along with Greek artifacts and Roman frescoes that had survived the volcanic destruction of Pompeii.
The blaze also consumed what were the oldest human remains discovered in Latin America, those of “Luzia”, known as “the first Brazilian,” estimated at between 12,500 and 13,000 years old. Likewise destroyed was the 44-foot reconstructed skeleton of a Maxakalisaurus, a plant-eating dinosaur that lived in what is now Brazil 80 million years ago.
The museum also housed a priceless collection of some 100,000 pre-Columbian artifacts from Brazil and elsewhere in the Americas, including Andean mummies, textiles and ceramics.
Also contained in the museum were historic documents chronicling two centuries of Brazilian history. Burned remnants of these priceless papers were found as far as 3 kilometers from the museum after the fire.
The building that housed the museum, the São Cristóvão palace, is one of the most historic structures in Brazil. It became the residence of the royal family of Portugal, which had fled the invasion of Napoleon’s armies for Brazil. It was in the palace that Brazilian independence was declared in 1822, and in which the first Constituent Assembly of the Brazilian Republic convened in 1890, marking the end of the rule of the Portuguese emperor.
Under the management of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro since 1946, the museum was also a research facility in which Brazilian anthropologists conducted studies that derived from human remains evidence of migration from Polynesia to what is now Brazil. The museum also contained vast collections of flora and fauna specimens, including from extinct species.
The museum was also engaged in training scientists for an expedition to Antarctica to study fossils on the continent.
Professor Paulo Buckup, an expert in fish science at the museum, told the BBC that he was able to rescue a “tiny” part of the museum’s collection of thousands of specimens of mollusks.
“I don’t know how many tens of thousands of insects and crustaceans were lost,” he said. “I feel very sorry for my colleagues, some of whom have worked here for 30 or 40 years. Now all evidence of their work is lost, their lives have lost meaning, too.”
Demonstrators, most of them students from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, forced their way onto the site of the destroyed museum on Monday to protest the Brazilian government’s protracted cuts to funding for science and education that found their disastrous expression in the burning down of the museum. Police attacked the students with pepper spray, tear gas and stun grenades.
The burning down of a museum that contained a significant share of the heritage of humanity in the Americas and worldwide was the entirely predictable and preventable outcome of the policies pursued by Brazil’s governments in the face of the onset of the country’s economic crisis in 2014, both under the Workers Party (PT) administration of President Dilma Rousseff and, following her 2016 impeachment on trumped-up charges of budgetary malfeasance, her former right-wing vice president and successor, Michel Temer.
The museum went from receiving a budget of $310,000 in 2013 to just $132,000 in 2014. However, over the last three years it has received 60 percent or less of this amount. The cuts were first imposed under Rousseff’s PT government and then intensified under Temer.
The museum had submitted a report in 2015 saying that it needed 150 million reais (US$36 million) to repair the building, which lacked a sprinkler system and even any basic electrical wiring diagram for the centuries-old structure.
In 2015, the museum was forced to close its doors entirely because it lacked even the funding to pay staff or for minimum service from contractors. The closure had a lasting impact on attendance, which remained at record lows.
The museum marked its bicentenary in June under conditions in which massive budget cuts inflicted by successive governments had left it in a state of advanced decay, with a third of its exhibition halls closed, including some of its most popular, like the one containing the largest dinosaur discovered on Brazilian soil, its base having been eaten away by termites.
In an article on the bicentenary published by Folha de S. Paulo, the reporter noted that “the physical decay of the building that houses the museum ... is visible to visitors, who pay 8 reais [less than US$2] for a full-priced ticket. Many of its walls are peeling, there are electrical wires exposed and generalized poor maintenance.”
In the absence of even the most minimal budgetary allocations from the Brazilian government, the museum had launched an internet crowd-funding campaign to raise enough money to reopen its main exhibition hall.
Even as it starved the national museum for funding, the Brazilian government poured millions into structures for the World Cup and the Olympics, which generated lucrative contracts and kickbacks for the ruling PT and other sections of the ruling establishment.
The burning down of Brazil’s national museum and the obliteration of a significant share of the heritage of humanity stands as an indictment of a world capitalist system and a Brazilian national bourgeoisie that subordinates all questions of social policy to the imperative that a handful of individuals continues to accumulate immense riches.
In a country where the wealth of six men is equivalent to that of 50 percent the population, the destruction of culture is an inevitable byproduct of social inequality. Brazil’s super-rich have no interest in anything other than what they can own, pouring their money into helicopters that fly them over the country’s favelas to their offices in Rio and Sao Paulo and into Miami real estate and the global stock markets.
The destruction of the Brazilian National Museum stands as a stark warning to working people in Brazil and throughout the world. The defense of culture, history and the entire legacy of humanity depends upon the building of a mass movement of the international working class directed at putting an end to the irrational, destructive and selfish system of the capitalist ruling class.

3 Sept 2018

Korean Government Scholarship Programme (Bachelors, Masters & PhD) for Developing Countries 2019/2020

Application Deadline: Applicants submit their applications either to the Korean Embassies around the world or to the partnering universities in Korea.

Applications (Embassy, University) are expected from:
  • Undergraduate: September 2018 to October 2018 (To open in September 2018)
  • Graduate: February 2019 to  March 2019 (To open in February 2019)
Offered annually? Yes

Accepted Subject Areas: Courses offered at one of the 60 participating Korean higher institutions

Eligible Countries: The Korean Government Scholarship is open to students from the following countries:
China, Japan, Russia, Cambodia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Chinese Taipei, Uzbekistan, Turkey, USA, Ethiopia, Colombia, Nepal, Senegal, Bangladesh, Ukraine, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Morocco, Azerbaijan, El Salvador, Egypt, Tanzania, Germany, France, Dominica, Chile, Iran, Canada, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Pakistan, Gabon, Romania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Czech, Guatemala, Ecuador, Algeria, Yemen, Uganda, Belize, Honduras, Italy, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Poland, Ghana, Georgia, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Republic of South Africa, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, Rwanda, Libya, Lithuania, Moldavia, Bahrain, Barbados, Bahamas, Venezuela, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Brunei, Serbia, Seychelles, Sudan, Sweden, Slovenia, Armenia, Argentina, Haïti, Ireland, Afghanistan, Angola, Oman, Austria, Uruguay, Iraq, Israel, Zambia, Cameroon, Qatar, Kenya, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Panama, Paraguay, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Fiji, Hungary, Australia, Jordan

About Scholarship: The Korean Government Scholarship Program (KGSP) is offered to international students who want to pursue Bachelors, Masters and PhD degrees in Korean Universities. The scholarship is aimed to provide international students with an opportunity to conduct advanced studies at higher educational institutions in Korea, to develop global leaders and strengthen Korea-friendly networks worldwide.

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Korean Government Scholarship:

Citizenship
  • Candidates and their parents must hold non-Korean citizenship.
Age
  • KGSP-G: under 40
  • KGSP-U: under 25
Health
  • Candidates must be physically and mentally healthy for their studies in Korea.
Degree Requirements
  • KGSP-G: Bachelor’s or Master’s degree
  • KGSP-U: High school diploma
Grades
  • The cumulative grade point average (CGPA) must be 80% or higher; or
  • The CGPA must be 2.64/ 4.0, 2.80/ 4.3, 2.91/ 4.5, or 3.23/ 5.0 or higher.
Number of Scholarships
  • KGSP Undergraduate: around 170 grantees will be awarded annually
  • KGSP Graduate: around 800 grantees will be awarded annually
Scholarship Benefits: Flight | Tuition | Stipend | Medical Insurance | Settlement Allowance | Completion Grants

Selection Procedure:

1st Selection: Applicants submit their applications either to the Korean Embassies around the world or to the partering universities in Korea. The embassies and universities select the successful candidates among the applicants in the 1st round of selection. The applicants of the successful candidates will then be forwarded to NIIED

2nd Selection: The NIIED selection committee selects the successful candidates among those who passed the 1st round.

3rd Selection: Among the successful candidates who have passed the 2nd round, the applications of those who applied through the Korean Embassies will be reviewed by universities for admission. Successful candidates must get admission from at least one of the universities.

Duration:
  • 1 year Korean language course +2 year Associate degree
  • 1 year Korean language course + 4 year Bachelors degree
  • 1 year Korean language course+ 2 years of Master’s degree
  • 1 year Korean language course + 3 years of Doctoral degree
To be taken at: Korean Universities.

How to Apply: Applicants can only apply for the Korean Government Scholarship through the Korean Embassy in their home country or a participating Korean University.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details about this scholarship. Also check here

Sponsors: The Korean Government, National Institute for International Education (NIIED)

250 Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme for International Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 1st December 2018 at Hong Kong Time 12:00:00

Offered Annually? Yes

About the Award: The Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme (HKPFS), established in 2009 by the Research Grants Council (RGC), aims at attracting the best and brightest students in the world to pursue their PhD programmes in Hong Kong’s institutions. About 250 PhD Fellowships will be awarded this academic year. For awardees who need more than three years to complete the PhD degree, additional support may be provided by the chosen institutions. The financial aid is available for any field of study.

Fellowship Worth: The Fellowship provides an annual stipend of HK$301,200 (approximately US$38,600) and a conference and research-related travel allowance of HK$12,600 (approximately US$1,600) per year for each awardee for a period up to three years. For awardees who need more than three years to complete the PhD degree, additional support may be provided by the chosen universities. For details, please contact the universities concerned directly.

Eligibility: Candidates who are seeking admission as new full time PhD students in the following eight institutions, irrespective of their country of origin, prior work experience, and ethnic background, should be eligible to apply.
  • City University of Hong Kong
  • Hong Kong Baptist University
  • Lingnan University
  • The Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • The Education University of Hong Kong
  • The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
  • The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
  • The University of Hong Kong
Applicants should demonstrate outstanding qualities of academic performance, research ability / potential, communication and interpersonal skills, and leadership abilities.

Selection Criteria: While candidates’ academic excellence is the primary consideration, the Selection Panels will take into account factors as follows:
  • Academic excellence;
  • Research ability and potential;
  • Communication and interpersonal skills; and
  • Leadership abilities.
Number of Scholarships: 250

Selection Panel: Shortlisted applications, subject to their areas of studies, will be reviewed by one of the following two Selection Panels comprising experts in the relevant board areas:
  • sciences, medicine, engineering and technology
  • humanities, social sciences and business studies
Application Process:
  • Eligible candidates should first make an Initial Application online through the Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme Electronic System (HKPFSES) to obtain an HKPFS Reference Number by 1 December 2018 at Hong Kong Time 12:00:00 before submitting applications for PhD admission to their desired universities.
  • Applicants may choose up to two programmes / departments at one or two universities for PhD study under HKPFS 2019/20. They should comply with the admission requirements of their selected universities and programmes.
  • As the deadlines for applications to some of the universities may immediately follow that of the Initial Application, candidates should submit initial applications as early as possible to ensure that they have sufficient time to submit applications to universities.
Visit Scholarship webpage for more details

Commonwealth Short Story Prize for Commonwealth Countries 2019

Application Deadline: 1st November, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries (See below for list of countries)

About the Award: The Prize is awarded for the best piece of unpublished short fiction (2,000–5,000 words) in English written by a citizen of a Commonwealth country. Short stories translated into English from other languages are also eligible, and we invite writers from Mozambique who write in Portuguese, and writers who write in Samoan, Swahili and Bengali, and who do not have an English translation of their story, to submit their stories in the original language.

Offered Since: 2012

Type: Contest

Eligibility: To be eligible, candidates must:
  • have an unpublished short fiction (2,000–5,000 words)
  • be a member of a Commonwealth country
  • For regional purposes, entries will be judged by country of citizenship. Where the writer has dual citizenship, the entry will be judged in the region where the writer is permanently resident.
  •  must be aged 18 years or over on 1 November 2018.
  • There is no requirement for the writer to have current residence in a Commonwealth country, providing she/he is a citizen of a Commonwealth country.
All entries will be accepted at the discretion of the Commonwealth Foundation which will exercise its judgement, in consultation with the prize chair as necessary, in ruling on questions of eligibility. The ruling of the chair on questions of eligibility is final, and no further correspondence will be entered into.

Selection Criteria: The international judging panel comprises one judge from each of the five regions – Africa, Asia, Canada and Europe, the Caribbean and the Pacific. While the entries will be judged regionally, all judges will read and deliberate on entries from all regions.

Number of Awardees: 5

Value of Contest: Regional winners receive £2,500 and the overall winner receives £5,000.

Eligible Countries: 
Countries in Africa include:
  • Botswana, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia. Overseas Territories: St Helena, Tristan Da Cunha, Ascension Island.
Other countries:
  • Asia: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, India, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka.
  • Canada and Europe: Canada, Cyprus, Malta, United Kingdom. Overseas Territories: Gibraltar, Falkland Islands.
  • Caribbean : Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago. Overseas Territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands.
  • Pacific: Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. Overseas Territory: Pitcairn.
How to Apply: Before you enter your story, do make sure you read the eligibility and entry guidelines. Then apply here

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: Commonwealth Foundation

Australia Awards Scholarships (Masters and Short Courses) for 1,000 African Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: for Masters: 3rd December 2018 | Application for Short Courses closes 15th January 2019.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroun, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo(Republic of), Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia etc
In addition to the above, the following countries are eligible for Short Course Awards (SCAs)
Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mauritania, Niger, North Sudan, Republic of Guinea, South Sudan

About the Award: There are two categories of Award: Australian Awards Scholarships, to undertake higher degree studies in Australia at Masters level. And Australia Awards Short Courses, to undertake short-term, targeted professional training courses, in Australia and/or in Africa, in a range of development-focused sectors.

To be taken at: African or Australian Universities.

Priority Fields (varies by African country)
  • Agriculture/Food Security
  • Education
  • Health
  • Public Policy (including public sector management, public sector reform, trade, international diplomacy)
  • Environmental Management
  • Natural Resource Management (including mining related subjects)
  • Technical and Vocational Education & Training (available for Short Courses only)
  • Energy (including Natural Gas and Oil Technology)
  • Infrastructure
  • Natural Resource Management
  • Transport (including Ports, Roads and Airports Management)
About the Award: Australia Awards, a cornerstone of the Australian Government’s development assistance program for Africa, provide access to postgraduate education, training and professional development opportunities for suitably qualified Africans from eligible countries. On their return to the workplace, Australia Awards Alumni are expected to contribute actively to development in their home countries.

Offered Since: 1980

Type: Masters taught degrees and short courses

Eligibility: To be considered for a masters scholarship or short course award, applicants must meet their country’s eligibility requirements. In general, the following requirements apply
  • Citizen of an eligible African country
  • Minimum academic requirement: Bachelor’s degree or equivalent
  • Mid-level to senior-level professional, currently employed in a relevant field
  • Meet relevant post-graduate work experience requirements
  • Demonstrate a clear vision of how the knowledge gained through the scholarship will be used to improve policy, practice or reform in their home country
  • Satisfactory English proficiency to enable full participation in a training course delivered in English
  • Satisfy all requirements of the Australian Government for the appropriate student visa (subclass 500).
Target Group
  • You are a national of an African country. See country list below
  • You are an early or mid-career professional working in the Public Sector, the Private Sector or a Non-Government Organisation (Civil Society) in one of the listed priority fields of study.
  • You wish to undertake a Masters degree in Australia in one of the listed priority fields of study. You cannot study a Masters of Business Administration.
  • You have a clear vision for how you will use the knowledge gained through the Masters degree to improve policy, practice or education in the proposed field of study.
  • Gender Equality: Australia Awards target equal participation by women and men. Applications from women are strongly encouraged, and mechanisms are in place to support women applicants and Awardees.
  • Disability Inclusion: Australia Awards aim to ensure that people with a disability are given fair and equal opportunity to compete for and obtain a scholarship. Applications from people with a disability are strongly encouraged. Mechanisms are in place to support applicants and Awardees requiring specific assistance.
Number of Scholarships: Up to 1,000

Value of Scholarships: This is a Full government sponsored scholarship

Duration of Scholarship: For the duration of candidate’s programme

How to Apply: Apply by selecting country and course HERE

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Sponsors: Australia Awards in Africa (AAA) is an initiative of the Australian Government.

DAAD Masters in Tropical and International Forestry Scholarship for Developing Countries 2018 – Germany

Application Deadline: 30th October 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

About the Award: The Georg-August-Universität Göttingen offers the MSc programme Tropical and International Forestry with the international degree Master of Science (M.Sc.). The programme is for students interested in pursuing an international career in forestry, nature conservation, ecosystem research or in development organisations.
Students are admitted to the MSc programme on the condition that they obtain a scholarship or bring their own financial support. The DAAD Scholarship Program is offered to students from Developing Countries.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To be considered for the DAAD scholarship:
  • Applicants work at either a public authority or a state or private company in a developing country
  • Holds a Bachelor’s degree (4 years) in a related subject (Forestry, Biology, Agriculture, Ecology, Geography, etc.)
  • Will have completed an academic degree far above average (at least 2nd class upper division) and at least two years of related professional experience
  • Is no older than 36; his/her respective academic degrees should normally not be more than 6 years old
  • Has an internationally recognized English test score: IELTS (minimum: band 6.0) certificate or TOEFL (minimum score: 550 paper based, 213 computer based, 80 internet based)
To be considered for the programme, applicants must have:
  • BSc degree (or equivalent) in Forestry or a related field (e.g. Agriculture, Biology, Ecology, Geography) with very good to good results conferred by an institute of higher learning or a similar qualification
  • proven proficiency in English (TOEFL 80 points/ibt, IELTS 6 points at least)
  • Professional experience is also welcome
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarship covers living costs, study fees, health insurance, travel costs and German language courses for the whole course (24 months). The monthly allowance is about € 750 plus additional payments.

Duration of Program: 24 months

How to Apply: Interested applicants should go through all application instructions before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

The Carnival of Homelessness: How the Filthy Rich React

Binoy Kampmark 

An aggressive sign of an affluent society can usually be gauged by its invidious misuse of its privilege.  Poverty is deemed necessary, and the rich must try to understand it.  To be privileged is to be guilty, a tickling of the conscience as the pennies pile up and the assets grow; and from that premise, efforts must be made to give shape to the forgotten, and, in most cases, the invisible.
To be guilty is a spur for works that supposedly highlight those nagging reasons for feeling guilty.  You might supply donations.  You can become a philanthropist.  You can join a charity.  Obscenely, you can become a creature of mocking persuasion, a person of pantomime: you can assume the position of a poor person, a homeless person, and pretend to be him.  And let it be filmed.
“When I was given the opportunity to spend 10 days experiencing different forms of homelessness for an SBS documentary, I jumped at the chance to understand more about a crisis that now sees more than 116,000 Australians homeless on any given night.” So go the words of veteran thespian Cameron Daddo, a person who never explains how understanding Sydney’s poverty leads to results, other than spending time on the screen and proving rather awkward to boot.
The individuals involved in the tawdry Australian spectacle Filthy Rich & Homeless have various reasons for participating.  They have a chance, not merely to appear before the cameras, but to explore another part of Sydney.  What matters for Skye Leckie is the anger of authenticity.  Socialite that she is, she does not believe that her participation in the venture is “poverty porn” despite being the very same creature who benefits from having a good quotient of poor around.  “Those who say it’s stunt TV are being totally ignorant to the homeless situation out there.”  This is a delicious way of self-justification, a positioned blow to excuse how her exploitation of a social condition is entirely justified by a mysterious, holy insight.  Her pantomime, in other words, is heralded as genuine.
Benjamin Law, author and very much an identity beacon (those things help these days), played the cool cat.  In such ensembles, it’s always good to have the confidently composed, the person who won’t fall for the pathos of the show.  “I went to Filthy Rich and Homeless being adamant that it was only 10 days, and that I wasn’t going to cry – I felt it’d almost be insulting to people who were actually homeless.”  So goes his justification for actually participating in the project: he would hold firm, stay calm, keep his tear ducts dry. “But when it’s demonstrated that this could easily be a family member, and someone you love, I couldn’t not be affected.”
The show is sugary fodder for social media masturbation, an ever so prodding tease for those who feel pangs of stirring guilt. Nonsense about “genuine compassion” and “empathy” whirl through the chattersphere, with a disconcerting gurgle of approval at the program.  The implication is clear: like true porn, it produces a release, an orgiastic sensation. The poor are sociological wank fodder. In the aftermath is the little death, or should be.  Such programs float on the froth of sentiment, and last longer than they should.
There are shades of the carnivalesque, as Mikhail Bakhtin called it, in this exercise. The tradition of the carnival, he explained, suggested alternate worlds, inverted ones where social orders might, just temporarily, be suspended.  The performer, and the audience, would become one.  Communal dialogue might emerge.  But the participants will eventually go home; the nobility will revert to their high standing, and the poor will undress and return to their squalid, putrid existence.
Feudalism and tribalism may have made their official exit in the historical textbooks, but we still find stirrings of old custom in the media industry.  The poor are there to be mocked; the vulnerable are there to be, in some form, exploited.  Gone is the exaggerated chivalric code, as meagre as it was (keeping people in place), and the presumption of charity.  In its place is the clawing, scraping urge of the media moguls and networks keen to capitalise upon a condition, a disability, a drawback. Poverty is visual and lucrative for all – except the impoverished.
An obvious flaw in this project – several wealthy members of society burying themselves in the poor underbelly – is contrived anonymity. The monarchs supposedly travel incognito amongst the slums. The participants supposedly become unknown for a time.  The King and Queen scrap around the hovels.  But who recognises them?  Presumably everybody.  Not having a home, or living in indigence, doesn’t mean not having access to the saturation coverage called the World Wide Web.  The camera crews might be a giveaway, the very reality of which produces distortions in the interviews.
The grotesque scene uncovers itself, and the tears, spilling on cue, supply catharsis.  “Most interesting,” noted the Sydney Morning Herald, “is just how little time on the street it takes for them to be reduced to tears.”  To be fair, they only had ten days, so the performance clock was ticking.  The filthy rich feel justified – they acknowledged pain and desperation.  The poor, their role achieved, can simply go on living.

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.