just commentary february 2014

Vol 14, No.02 February 2014

Turn to next page

ARTICLES

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARRIBEAN

DECLARED AS A ZONE OF PEACE

. THE PROBLEM WITH ROUHANI-GORBACHEV

ANALOGIES

BY GHONCHEH TAZMINI.........................................P 4

By Countercurrents

.FROM WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM TO THE WORLD

SOCIAL FORUM

BYPRAHLAD SHEKHAWAT......................................P 7

.ISRAELI FACTOR IN SYRIAN CONFLICT UNVEILED

BY NICOLA NASSER...................................................P 2

. U.S. ARTIC AMBITIONS AND THE MILITARIZATION

OF THE HIGH NORTH

BY DANA GABRIEL.................................................P 5

Latin American and Caribbean heads of state

adopted a landmark agreement pledging to

make the region a “zone of peace.”

Leaders from the 33-nation Community of

Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac)

signed the Havana Declaration, promising

not to intervene in other countries’ internal

affairs and resolve disputes peacefully.

The agreement followed the two-day Celac

summit and recognised “the inalienable right

of every state to choose its political,

economic, social and cultural system.”

It put in writing the need to resolve

differences “through dialogue and

negotiation or other forms of peaceful

settlement established in international law.”

The declaration also reiterated the need for

total global nuclear disarmament and

highlighted the ongoing importance of the

1967 Tlatelolco Treaty, which established

the region as a nuclear-free zone.

And it emphasised the need to work for

food security, literacy, education, the

development of agriculture and the

achievement of universal public health

services.

The brainchild of late Venezuelan president

Hugo Chavez, Celac was set up in 2011 to

counter the US-dominated Organisation of

American States, which expelled Cuba in

1962 in retaliation for its rejection of

imperialism.

The Declaration: Original signed by the

Heads of State and Governmenent of the

Community of Latin American and

Caribbeans States

The Heads of State and Government of

the Community of Latin American and

Caribbean States (CELAC) gathered in

Havana, Cuba on January 28 and 29, 2014

at the Second Summit, on behalf of their

peoples and faithfully interpreting their

hopes and aspirations,

Reaffirming the commitment of member

countries with the Purposes and Principles

enshrined in the United Nations Charter and

International Law, and aware of the fact

that prosperity and stability in the region

contribute to international peace and security,

Mindful that peace is a supreme asset and a

legitimate aspiration of all peoples and that

preserving peace is a substantial element of

Latin America and Caribbean integration and

a principle and common value of the

Community of Latin American and

Caribbean States (CELAC),

Reaffirming that integration consolidates the

vision of a fair International order based on

the right to peace and a culture of peace,

which excludes the use of force and non-

legitimate means of defense, such as

weapons of mass destruction and nuclear

weapons in particular,

Highlighting the relevance of the Tlatelolco

Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear

Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean

establishing the first nuclear weapon free

zone in a densely populated area, this being

. FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS

BY KATHY KELLY...................................................P 8

. UK ORDERED DESTRUCTION OF ‘EMBARRASING’

COLONIAL PAPERS

BY RUSSIA TODAY...............................................P 9

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

2

continued next page

continued from page 1

L E A D A R T I C L E

a contribution to peace and to regional and

international security,

Reiterating the urgent need of General and

Complete Nuclear Disarmament, as well as

the commitment with the Strategic Agenda

of the Organization for the Prohibition of

Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the

Caribbean (OPANAL), adopted by the 33

Member States of the Organization in the

General Conference held in Buenos Aires in

August, 2013.

Recalling the principles of peace,

democracy, development and freedom

underlying the actions of countries

members of SICA,

Recalling the decision of UNASUR Heads

of State of consolidating South America as

a Zone of Peace and Cooperation,

Recalling the establishment, in 1986, of the

Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South

Atlantic,

Recalling also our commitment, agreed in

the Declaration of the Summit of Unity of

Latin America and the Caribbean, on 23

February 2010, to promote the

implementation of our own mechanisms

for the for peaceful conflict resolution,

Reiterating our commitment to consolidate

Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone

of Peace, in which differences between

nations are peacefully settled through

dialogue and negotiations or other means,

fully consistent with International Law,

Cognizant also of the catastrophic global

and long-term humanitarian impact of the

use of nuclear weapons and other weapons

of mass destruction, and the ongoing

discussions on this issue,

Declare:

1. Latin America and the Caribbean as a

Zone of Peace based on respect for the

principles and rules of International Law,

including the international instruments to

which Member States are a party to, the

Principles and Purposes of the United

Nations Charter;

2. Our permanent commitment to solve

disputes through peaceful means with the

aim of uprooting forever threat or use of

force in our region;

3. The commitment of the States of the

region with their strict obligation not to

intervene, directly or indirectly, in the internal

affairs of any other State and observe the

principles of national sovereignty, equal

rights and self-determination of peoples;

4. The commitment of the peoples of Latin

American and Caribbean to foster

cooperation and friendly relations among

themselves and with other nations

irrespective of differences in their political,

economic, and social systems or

development levels; to practice tolerance

and live together in peace with one another

as good neighbors;

5. The commitment of the Latin American

and Caribbean States to fully respect for

the inalienable right of every State to choose

its political, economic, social, and cultural

system, as an essential conditions to ensure

peaceful coexistence among nations;

6. The promotion in the region of a culture

of peace based, inter alia, on the principles

of the United Nations Declaration on a

Culture of Peace;

7. The commitment of the States in the

region to guide themselves by this

Declaration in their International behavior;

8. The commitment of the States of the

region to continue promoting nuclear

disarmament as a priority objective and to

contribute with general and complete

disarmament, to foster the strengthening

of confidence among nations;

We urge all Member States of the

International Community to fully

respect this Declaration in their

relations with CELAC Member States.

In witness of the undersigned having

duly signed this Proclamation in

Havana, on the 29th day of the month

of January of 2014, in a copy written

in the Spanish, English, French and

Portuguese languages.

31 January, 2014

Source: Countercurrents.org

More than two and a half years on,

Israel’s purported neutrality in the

Syrian conflict and the United States

fanfare rhetoric urging a “regime

change” in Damascus were abruptly

cut short to unveil that the Israeli factor

has been all throughout the conflict the

main concern of both countries.

All their media and political focus on

“democracy versus dictatorship” and

on the intervention of the

international community on the basis

of a “responsibility to protect” to

avert the exacerbating “humanitarian

crisis” in Syria was merely a focus

intended to divert the attention of the

world public opinion away from their

real goal, i.e. to safeguard the security

of Israel.

Their “Plan A” was to enforce a change

in the Syrian regime as their “big prize”

and replace it by another less

threatening and more willing to strike

a “peace deal” with Israel and in case

of failure, which is the case as

developed now, their “Plan B” was to

pursue a “lesser prize” by disarming

Syria of its chemical weapons to

ISRAELI FACTOR IN SYRIAN CONFLICT UNVEILEDBy Nicola Nasser


3


continued next page

deprive it of its strategic defensive

deterrence against the Israeli

overwhelming arsenal of nuclear,

chemical and biological weapons of

mass destruction. Their “Plan A”

proved a failure, but their “Plan B” was

a success.

However, the fact that the Syrian

humanitarian crisis continues unabated

with the raging non – stop fighting while

the United States is gradually coming

to terms with Syria’s major allies in

Russia and Iran as a prelude to

recognizing the “legitimacy” of the

status quo in Syria is a fact that shutters

whatever remains of U.S. credibility in

the conflict.

President Barak Obama, addressing the

UN General Assembly on last

September 24, had this justification:

“Let us remember that this is not a zero-

sum endeavor. We are no longer in a

Cold War. There’s no Great Game to

be won, nor does America have any

interest in Syria beyond the well-being

of its people, the stability of its

neighbors, the elimination of chemical

weapons, and ensuring it does not

become a safe-haven for terrorists. I

welcome the influence of all nations that

can help bring about a peaceful

resolution.”

This U – turn shift by the U.S. dispels

any remaining doubts that the U.S. ever

cared about the Syrian people and what

Obama called their “well being.”

The U.S. pronounced commitment to

a “political solution” through co-

sponsoring with Russia the convening

of a “Geneva – 2” conference is

compromised by its purported inability

to unite even the “opposition” that was

created and sponsored by the U.S. itself

and the “friends of Syria” it leads and

to rein in the continued fueling of the

armed conflict with arms, money and

logistics by its regional Turkish and

Gulf Arabs allies, which undermines

any political solution and render the

very convening of a “Geneva – 2”

conference a guess of anybody.

Israeli “Punishment”

Meanwhile, Israel’s neutrality was

shuttered by none other than its

President Shimon Peres.

Speaking at the 40th commemoration

of some three thousand Israeli soldiers

who were killed in the 1973 war with

Syria and Egypt, Peres revealed

unarguably that his state has been the

major beneficiary of the Syrian

conflict.

Peres said: “Today” the Syrian

President Basher al-Assad “is punished

for his refusal to compromise” with

Israel and “the Syrian people pay for

it.”

When it became stark clear by the

latest developments that there will be

no “regime change” in Syria nor there

will be a post- Assad “Day After” and

that the U.S. major guarantor of

Israel’s survival has made, or is about

to make, a “U-turn” in its policy vis-à-

vis the Syrian conflict to exclude the

military solution as “unacceptable,” in

the words of Secretary of State John

Kerry on this October 6, Israel got

impatient and could not hide anymore

the Israeli factor in the conflict.

On last September 17, major news

wires headlined their reports, “In public

shift, Israel calls for Assad’s fall,” citing

a report published by the Israeli daily

the Jerusalem Post, which quoted

Israel’s ambassador to the United

States, Michael Oren, as saying: “We

always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we

always preferred the bad guys who

weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys

who were backed by Iran.”

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the

strategic arc that extends from Tehran,

to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw

the Assad regime as the keystone in

that arc,” Oren added.

And that’s really the crux of the Syrian

conflict: Dismantling this “arc” has

been all throughout the conflict the

pronounced strategy of the U.S.-led

so-called “Friends of Syria,” who are

themselves the friends of Israel.

The goal of this strategy has been all

throughout the conflict to change the

regime of what Oren called the Syrian

“keystone in that arc,” which is

supported by a pro-Iran government

in Iraq as well as by the Palestinian

liberation movements resisting the

more than six decades of Israeli

military occupation, or otherwise to

deplete Syria’s resources,

infrastructure and power until it has

no choice other than the option of

yielding unconditionally to the Israeli

terms and conditions of what Peres

called a “compromise” with Israel as

a precondition for the return of the

Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

Syria the Odd Number

This strategic goal was smoke-

screened by portraying the conflict first

as one of a popular uprising turned into

an armed rebellion against a

dictatorship, then as a sectarian “civil

war,” third as a proxy war in an Arab-

A R T I C L E S


4

continued next page

. “R

C

BS T A T E M E N T


Iranian and a Sunni-Shiite historical

divide, fourth as a battle ground of

conflicting regional and international

geopolitics, but the Israeli factor has been

all throughout the core of the conflict.

Otherwise why should the U.S.-led

“Friends of Syria & Israel” care about

the ruling regime in a country that is not

abundant in oil and gas, the “free” flow

of which was repeatedly pronounced a

“vital” interest of the United States, or

one of what Obama in his UN speech

called his country’s “core interests;” the

security of Israel is another “vital” or

“core” interest, which, in his words,

“The United States of America is

prepared to use all elements of our power,

including military force, to secure.”

The end of the Cold War opened a

“window of opportunities” to build on

the Egyptian – Israel peace treaty,

according to a study by the University

of Oslo in 1997. A peace agreement

was signed between the Palestine

Liberation Organization (PLO) and the

Hebrew state in 1993 followed by an

Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty the year

after. During its invasion of Lebanon

in 1982 Israel tried unsuccessfully to

impose on the country a similar treaty

had it not been for the Syrian

“influence,” which aborted and

prevented any such development ever

since.

Syria remains the odd number in the

Arab peace - making belt around Israel;

no comprehensive peace is possible

without Syria; Damascus holds the key

even to the survival of the Palestinian,

Jordanian and Egyptian peace accords

with Israel. Syria will not hand over

THE PROBLEM WITH ROUHANI-GORBACHEV ANALOGIES

this key without the withdrawal of the

Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) from

Syrian and other Arab lands and a “just”

solution of the “Palestinian question.”

This has been a Syrian national strategy

long before the Pan-Arab Baath party

and the al-Assad dynasty came to

power.

Therefore, the U.S. and Israeli “Plan

A” will remain on both countries’

agendas, pending a more forthcoming

geopolitical environment.

14 October, 2013

Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab

journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank

of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian

territories.


By Ghoncheh TazminiA plethora of analyses have surfaced

making wild assumptions about President

Rouhani’s diplomatic manoeuvres,

translating his diplomatic overtures as

reminiscent of Gorbachev’s era of

Perestroika and Glasnost. Is Rouhani an

Iranian Gorbachev? asks Jochen Bittner

of Die Zeit. The Wall Street Journal asks

the same question, featuring an article

titled, ‘Is Rouhani the New Gorbachev?’

Meanwhile, Stephen Kotkin writes about

‘Rouhani’s Gorbachev Moment’ in

Foreign Affairs.

Such analogies shed very little light on

the direction of Iran’s political evolution.

While Rouhani is comparable to

Gorbachev in the sense that he too, is an

agent of change, the exercise of

reforming Iran presents a more complex

picture. Not only are such comparisons

gratuitously redundant (when

Mohammad Khatami launched his reform

programme, numerous works sprung up

comparing the reformer with the former

Soviet leader), they are often dangerously

subjective in nature.

In ‘Why the Democratic Party is

Doomed’, for example, Richard Miniter

compares President Barak Obama to

Gorbachev in an effort to betray a

conviction that the U.S. is in a state of

decline under a leader who is

accelerating that trajectory through his

efforts at reform. Walter Russell Mead

raises a similar concern in ‘The End of

History Ends’, in American Interest, in

which he warns of Obama’s Gorbachev-

like attempt to correct the country’s

past. Mead argues that Obama’s

attempts to disengage from the over-

commitments of the George W. Bush

presidency have emboldened what he

calls the Central Powers: Russia, China

and Iran. With the U.S. in seeming retreat,

these rivals ‘think they have found a way

to challenge and ultimately to change the

way global politics work’.

Analogies with Gorbachev are often

carried out disparagingly and are very

much pejorative. After all, although

Gorbachev was attempting to change an

outmoded, outdated system, the country

over which he ruled disintegrated. The

fact is that Gorbachev remains in the

mind of his compatriots a tragic figure

whom some deify and others hate; some

see him as a great reformer, others as a

perfidious destroyer. For many Russians,

Gorbachev’s legacy was national

humiliation, or what President Vladimir

Putin has called the ‘greatest geopolitical

catastrophe of the century’.

The other problem with such comparisons

is the element of wishful thinking. For the

West, Gorbachev was the visionary leader

who tackled the economic and political

failings of the Soviet Union’s authoritarian

system, introducing an era that ended

Communist oppression, brought down the

Berlin Wall, ended the Cold War and

expanded Europe’s community of

democracies. Mainstream media and Iran

bashers and detractors often make these


5

continued next page


A R T I C L E S

dubious analogies in the hope that some

Gorbachev-esque character will suddenly

turn up to unravel the Islamic Republic at

the hems. Others make cynically

protestations, contending that in fact,

Rouhani is No Gorbachev! And that he is

really is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, cut from

the same cloth as the conservative,

traditional establishment and is therefore,

alas, unlikely to bring the country to

disintegration!

This short expository underscores the

problem with Gorbachev-analogies. Either

way you look at it comparisons with

Gorbachev are bound to be riddled with

bias and partiality. Iran’s pathway to reform

is far more complex and variegated. Since

the revolution, the political inclination of

Iranian heads of state has been very much

determined by the prioritisation,

instrumentalisation or sometimes the

interplay of these four principles: (1)

Republicanism: This element was

central to Mohammad Khatami whose

reform movement symbolised an effort

to consolidate the rule of law and to

stimulate civic activism; (2)

Development: This was the

cornerstone of Akbar Hashemi-

Rafsanjani’s presidency, which focussed

on reviving the post-war economy; (3)

Justice: The pursuit of justice was one

of the main pillars of Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad’s political platform, which

was founded on tackling poverty and

corruption, and redistributing wealth; and

(4) Independence: The emphasis is on

resistance of foreign encroachment. This

was the goal of the father of the Islamic

Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini with the

revolutionary slogan – ‘Esteghlal

(independence), Azadi (freedom),

Jomhouri Islami (Islamic Republic)’.

Iran stands at the intersection of multiple

factors that shape its political reality.

President Rouhani’s challenge is to strike a

balance between these factors and to achieve

a balance point or the ‘nokhteh taadol’. If

we are to understand Iran’s transformation,

we need a solid understanding of ideational

factors and historical legacy rather than

simplistic and platitudinous analogies made

by so-called serious analysts. The task ahead

of the President means finding a balance

between continuity and change - this is a

challenge Gorbachev never lived up to, love

him or loathe him.

11 January, 2014

Dr. Ghoncheh Tazmini is a postdoctoral

visiting fellow at the London Middle East

Institute, School of Oriental and African

Studies (SOAS), London. She is also a Just

member.

U.S. ARCTIC AMBIIONS AND THE MILITARIZATION OF THE HIGH

NORTH

By Dana Gabriel

Canada recently took over the

leadership of the Arctic Council and

will be succeeded by the U.S. in 2015.

With back-to-back chairmanships, it

gives both countries an opportunity to

increase cooperation on initiatives that

could enhance the development of a

shared North American vision for the

Arctic. The U.S. has significant

geopolitical and economic interests in

the high north and have released a new

national strategy which seeks to

advance their Arctic ambitions. While

the region has thus far been peaceful,

stable and free of conflict, there is a

danger of the militarization of the Arctic.

It has the potential to become a front

whereby the U.S. and other NATO

members are pitted against Russia or

even China. In an effort to prevent any

misunderstandings, there are calls for

the Arctic Council to move beyond

environmental issues and become a

forum to address defense and security

matters.

In May, Canada assumed the

chairmanship of the Arctic Council

where they will push for responsible

resource development, safe shipping

and sustainable circumpolar

communities. The Arctic Council is the

leading multilateral forum in the region

and also includes the U.S., Denmark,

Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and

Russia. During the recent meetings,

members signed an Agreement on

Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution

Preparedness and Response in the

Arctic which seeks to improve

coordination and planning to better

cope with any such accidents. In

addition, China, India, Japan,

Singapore, South Korea, along with

Italy were granted permanent observer

status in the Arctic Council. With the

move, China has gained more

influence in the region. The potential

for new trade routes that could open

up would significantly reduce the time

needed to transport goods between

Europe and Asia. The Arctic is an

important part of China’s global vision,

as a place for economic activity and a

possible future mission for its navy. In

order to better reflect the realities of

politics in the high north, there are calls

to expand the Arctic Council’s mandate

to also include security and military

issues.

Writing for the National Post, Rob

Huebert of the Canadian Defence &

Foreign Affairs Institute explained that,

“One issue that has not received much

attention is the need to discuss the

growing militarization of the Arctic.

While the Arctic Council is formally

forbidden from discussing military

security in the Arctic, the time has

arrived to rethink this policy.” He went

on to say, “The militaries of most Arctic

states are taking on new and expanded

roles in the region that go beyond their

traditional responsibilities, which may


6

continued next page


A R T I C L E S

create friction in the region.” Huebert

also stressed that, “These new

developments need to be discussed to

ensure that all Arctic Council member

states understand why they are

occurring, and increase the confidence

of members that these new

developments are not about a conflict

in the Arctic, but about the defence of

core strategic interests.” He further

added, “It is easy to see how both the

Americans and Russians will become

increasingly concerned about the

security steps that the other is taking.

But now is the time for all to openly

discuss these developments so that old

suspicions and distrusts do not

resurface.”

As part of efforts to strengthen Arctic

security cooperation, in June, the

Northern Chiefs of Defence Meeting

was held in Greenland. It brought

together representatives from the U.S.,

Canada, Denmark, Russia, Sweden,

Norway, Finland and Iceland. Gen.

Charles Jacoby, Commander of North

American Aerospace Defense

Command (NORAD) and U.S.

Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)

also attended the event. The second

annual gathering was used as an,

“opportunity for direct multilateral and

bilateral discussions focused on

Northern issues. Topics discussed

included the sharing of knowledge and

expertise about regional operational

challenges; responsible stewardship of

the North; and the role Northern

militaries can play in support of their

respective civil authorities.” The

Northern Chiefs of Defence meeting

has become an essential forum to

address common Arctic safety and

security concerns.

Ahead of Secretary of State John

Kerry’s trip to attend the Arctic Council

Ministerial Session in May, the White

House unveiled a National Strategy for

the Arctic Region. It outlined strategic

priorities including advancing U.S.

security interests, pursuing responsible

stewardship and strengthening

international cooperation. The

document acknowledged competing

environmental and economic goals, but

in the end sets an aggressive agenda

for the exploitation of Arctic oil, gas

and mineral reserves. In addition, the

strategy recommended enhancing

national defense, law enforcement,

navigation systems, environmental

response, as well as search-and-rescue

capabilities in the Arctic. It also builds

on National Security Presidential

Directive-66 issued by the Bush

administration in 2009. In coordination

with the new plan, the U.S. Coast

Guard has released their Vision for

Operating in the Arctic Region which

will work towards improving

awareness, modernizing governance

and broadening partnerships. According

to James Holmes, professor of strategy

at the U.S. Naval War College, the

Coast Guard and Air Force could

become the military’s odd couple in

defending America’s Arctic front.

Several months back, Congressman

Don Young testified in front of Armed

Services Committee in support of

Alaska national defense priorities. He

proclaimed, “We must be able to project

power into the Arctic environment and

extensive Arctic training is needed to

do that.” Some have pointed out that

the true nature surrounding U.S. plans

to shift additional missile interceptors

to Alaska is not to protect against a

North Korean threat, but is instead

aimed at control over Arctic resources.

Meanwhile, there have also been

renewed discussions about Canadian

participation in the U.S. anti-ballistic

missile shield, a move that could

damage relations with Russia and

China. In order to enhance its presence

and security in the Arctic, the U.S. is

increasing cooperation with Canada.

This includes expanding joint military

exercises and intelligence gathering

operations in the region. Professor

Michel Chossudovsky of Global

Research has described Washington’s

militarization of the Arctic as part of

the process of North American

integration.

In December 2012, the U.S. and

Canada signed the Tri-Command

Framework for Arctic Cooperation

which is part of efforts to further

merge USNORTHCOM, Canadian

Joint Operations Command (CJOC)

and NORAD. A press release explained

that the framework is designed to,

“promote enhanced military

cooperation in the Arctic and identify

specific areas of potential Tri-

Command cooperation in the

preparation for and conduct of safety,

security and defense operations.”

USNORTHCOM, CJOC and NORAD

have also pledged to work closer

together with regards to planning,

domain awareness, information-

sharing, training and exercises,

capability development, as well as in

the field of science and technology. In

the coming years, the Arctic will

become an even more important part

of North American perimeter security.

While the Arctic remains a region of

strategic interest to the alliance,

Secretary General Anders Fogh

Rasmussen recently rejected a direct

NATO presence. For a number of

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S

7


continued next page

FROM WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM TO THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM

By Prahlad Shekhawat

The Davos World Economic Forum is

an exclusive or excluding club where

the rich and mighty proponents of the

neo-liberal economic model and

corporate bosses converge to celebrate

their self fulfilling prophecy. In a year

of a huge economic downturn they

cannot get away with their splendid

complacency. The World Social

Forum has emerged as a significant

counterpoint to the World Economic

Forum. After the collapse of the

movement for the New International

Economic Order in the eighties and

after the disillusionment with ritualism

of the UN sponsored summits and

conclaves, the World Social Forum

claims to provide a silver lining for

struggling societies particularly in poor

countries. The peace, environmental,

women and human rights movements

are especially able to converge at the

Social Forum.

The World Social Forum (WSF)

characterises itself as not an

organisation, not a united front, but an

open meeting place for thinking,

democratic debate of ideas,

formulation of proposals and inter-

linking for action through groups and

movements of civil society. It is

opposed to neo-liberalism and

domination of the world by capital or

any form of imperialism. It is

committed to building planetary society

directed towards furthering relations

among mankind and between it and the

earth.

The forum is particularly opposed to

militarism, racism, casteism, religious

fanaticism, sectarian violence and

patriarchy. It stands for universal

human rights, justice, real participatory

democracy, equality, solidarity among

people and genders and planetary

citizenship to build a new world. Its

fight for peace and collective security

implies confronting poverty,

discriminations, domination and the

creation of an alternative sustainable

society. The Social Forum has laudable

achievements beginning with the

incipient rallying call against the World

Economic Forum and the maturing into

a huge global movement with inspiring

ideals beginning with the World Social

Forums in Porto Allegre in Brazil . Some

regional Social Forums have been held

in different parts of the world.

If the total interest is calculated the

external debt of the countries of the

South has been repaid several times

over. Illegitimate, unjust and fraudulent,

debt functions as an instrument of

domination, depriving people of their

fundamental human rights with the sole

aim of increasing international usury.

The Social Forum demands

unconditional cancellation of debt and

the reparation of historical, social and

ecological debts. The countries

demanding repayment of debt have

engaged in exploitation of the natural

resources and knowledge systems of

the South.

Water, land, food, forests, seeds,

culture and people’s identities are

common assets of humanity for

present and future generations. It is

essential to preserve biodiversity.

People have the rights to safe and

permanent food free from genetically

modified organisms. Food sovereignty

at the national, regional and local level

is a basic human right; in this regard

democratic land reforms and peasant’s

access to land are fundamental

requirements.

The Social Forum points out that the

United States government, in its efforts

to protect the interests of big

corporations, arrogantly walked away

from negotiations on global warming,

the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the

Convention on Biodiversity, the UN

conference on racism and intolerance

years, Norway has been pushing for

NATO to increase its focus in the Arctic

and has called for more joint northern

exercises. Even though NATO has yet

to truly define its role in the area, Arctic

member countries are stepping up

military and naval operations in the high

north. In the future, NATO’s mandate

could include economic infrastructure

and maritime security. It could also

serve as a forum for discussing Arctic

military issues. Expanding NATO

activity in the region might signal the

militarization of the Arctic which could

raise tensions with both Russia and

China.

There are fears that the Arctic could

become an arena for political and

military competition. With potential new

shipping routes and countries further

staking their claims to the vast

untapped natural resources, defending

strategic and economic interests may

lead to rivalries in the region. There is

also the possibility that conflicts which

originate in other parts of the world

could spillover and affect the stability

of the Arctic.

23 July, 2013

Dana Gabriel is an activist and

independent researcher. He writes about

trade, globalization, sovereignty,

security, as well as other issues.

Source: Be Your Own Leader

A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

8

continued next page


and the talks to reduce the supply of

small arms, proving once again that US

unilateralism undermines attempts to

find multilateral solutions to global

problems.

All this is happening in the context of a

global recession. The neo-liberal

economic model feeds the greed of the

corporations and is destroying the

rights, living conditions and livelihoods

of people. Using every means to protect

their ‘share value’, multinational

companies lay off workers; slash

wages and close factories, squeezing

the last dollar from workers.

Governments faced with this

economic crisis respond by cutting

social sector expenditures and

permanently reducing worker’s rights.

This recession exposes the fact that the

neo-liberal promise of growth and

prosperity is not true.

Two leading figures of the global civil

society, Vandana Shiva and Helena

Norberg-Hodge, advocate a de-linking

from world markets and focusing on

local sustainable self-reliant economies.

They say, ‘WTO should only be

responsible for preventing dumping of

goods by rich countries in poor

countries while Oxfam and other

groups seek better terms of trade to

reform the global economy.’

Some of the proposals for an alternative

world order that have been proposed

at the WSF, are: 1 A tax on international

speculative equity finance such as the

Tobin tax to fund the social sector in

poor countries and close tax havens. 2

Humanise and democratise institutions

like WTO,World Bank, IMF and make

multinational corporations more

accountable and socially responsible

under a global democratic regime. 3

Minimise agriculture subsides in rich

countries. 4 Emphasise the UN Human

Development Agenda over narrow

economic growth. 5 Strengthen and

implement agreement reached at Rio

Earth Summit, other environment

summits and Kyoto Protocol 6

Planetary citizenship should lead to a

world parliament of people. 7 Move

from national security and power

towards human and environmental

security agenda. 7 Situate internet

search engines outside the United States

who should not be allowed to get away

from reducing democratic globalisation

to global illegal spying breaching

privacy and liberty

The forum epitomises two related

tendencies. First, it is the shift from

national and international security to

human and global environmental

security. The second is the shift from

international state treaties and

conventions to trans-national people’s

alliances. At the Mumbai WSF, there

emerged a tension between two

strategies. The first emphasised a

unified party model seeking a cohesive

strategy. The second view which

prevailed, stressed a multiplicity model

seeking plurality of approaches with

no intention of merging view points.

The forum’s deliberations have three

aspects; denunciation of neo-liberal

globalisation, share and express ideals

and ideas, formulate proposals for the

alternative.

The limitations of the World Economic

Forum and its idea of progress have

been well revealed. It remains to be

seen if the World Social Forum runs

the risk of being relegated to the realm

of utopian idealism in this cruel, unfair

world of political realism. Can bridges

be built between the two extremes:

mainstream neo-liberal model and the

alternative movement signified by the

Social Forum so that a common

middle ground can be found for the

sake of our common humanity? Is

another world possible?

30 January, 2014


FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLSBy Kathy Kelly

“Our only hope today lies in our ability

to recapture the revolutionary spirit and

go out into a sometimes hostile world

declaring eternal hostility to poverty,

racism, and militarism. ... A genuine

revolution of values means in the final

analysis that our loyalties must become

ecumenical rather than sectional. Every

nation must now develop an overriding

loyalty to mankind as a whole in order

to preserve the best in their individual

societies. –”A Time to Break Silence

(Beyond Vietnam)” Dr. Martin Luther

King, April 4, 1967

This month, from Atlanta, GA, the King

Center announced its “Choose

Nonviolence” campaign, a call on

people to incorporate the symbolism of

bell-ringing into their Martin Luther

King Holiday observance, as a means

of showing their commitment to Dr.

King’s value of nonviolence in resolving

terrible issues of inequality,

discrimination and poverty here at

home. The call was heard in Kabul,

Afghanistan.

On the same day they learned of the

King Center’s call, the young members

of the Afghan Peace Volunteers, in a

home I was sharing with them in

Kabul, were grieving the fresh news

of seven Afghan children and their

mother, killed in the night during a

U.S. aerial attack - part of a battle in

the Siahgird district of the Parwan

province. The outrage, grief, loss and


9


pain felt in Siahgird were echoed,

horribly, in other parts of Afghanistan

during a very violent week.

My young friends, ever inspired by Dr.

King’s message, prepared a Dr. King

Day observance as they shared bread

and tea for breakfast.They talked about

the futility of war and the predictable

cycles of revenge that are caused every

time someone is killed. Then they made

a poster listing each of the killings they

had learned of in the previous seven

days.

They didn’t have a bell, and they didn’t

have the money to buy one. So

Zekerullah set to work with a bucket,

a spoon and a rope, and made

something approximating a bell. In the

APV courtyard, an enlarged vinyl

poster of Dr. King covers half of one

wall, opposite another poster of Gandhi

and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the

“Muslim Gandhi” who ledPathan tribes

in the nonviolent Khudai Khidmatgar

colonial independence movement to

resist the British Empire.Zekerullah’s

makeshift “bell’ was suspended next

to King’s poster. Several dozen friends

joined the APVs as we listened to rattles

rather than pealing bells. The poster

listing the week’s death toll was held

aloft and read aloud.

It read:

“January 15, 2014: 7 children, one

woman, Siahgird district of Parwan,

killed by the U.S./NATO. January 15,

2014, 16 Taliban militants, killed by

Afghan police, army and intelligence

operatives across seven regions,

Parwan, Baghlan, Kunduz, Kandahar,

Zabul, Logar, and Paktiya. January 12,

2014: 1 police academy student and

one academy staff member, killed by a

Taliban suicide bomber in Kabul on the

road to Jalalabad. Jan 9, 2014: 1 four

year old boy killed in Helmand, by

NATO. Jan 9, 2014: 7 people, several

of them police, killed in Helmand by

unknown suicide bombers. January 7,

2014: 16 militants killed by Afghan

security forces in Nangarhar, Logar,

Ghanzi, Pakitya, Heart and Nimroz.”

We couldn’t know, then, that within

two days news would come, with a

Taliban announcement claiming

responsibility, for 21 people, 13

foreigners and eight Afghans, killed

while dining in, or guarding, a Kabul

restaurant. The Taliban said that the

attack was in retaliation for the seven

children killed in the airstrike in Parwan.

Week after bloody week, the chart of

killings lengthens. And in Afghanistan,

while war rages, a million children are

estimated to suffer from acute

malnourishment as the country faces

a worsening hunger crisis.

This Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, we

can and should remember the dream

Dr. King announced before the Lincoln

Memorial, the dream he did so much

to accomplish, remembering his call

(as the King Center asks) for

nonviolent solutions to desperate

concerns of discrimination and

inequality within the U.S. But we

shouldn’t let ourselves forget the full

extent of Dr. King’s vision, the urgent

tasks he urgently set us to fulfill on his

behalf, so many of them left unfinished

nearly forty-six years after he was

taken from us. One year to the day

before his assassination, he said:

... A true revolution of values will soon

look uneasily on the glaring contrast

of poverty and wealth. With righteous

indignation, it will look across the seas

and see individual capitalists of the West

investing huge sums of money in Asia,

Africa, and South America, only to take

the profits out with no concern for the

social betterment of the countries, and

say, “This is not just.”... The Western

arrogance of feeling that it has

everything to teach others and nothing

to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay

hand on the world order and say of

war, “This way of settling differences

is not just.” This business of burning

human beings with napalm, of filling

our nation’s homes with orphans and

widows, of injecting poisonous drugs

of hate into the veins of peoples

normally humane, of sending men

home from dark and bloody battlefields

physically handicapped and

psychologically deranged, cannot be

reconciled with wisdom, justice, and

love. A nation that continues year after

year to spend more money on military

defense than on programs of social

uplift is approaching spiritual death.

We must never forget the full range of

Dr. King’s vision, nor the full tragedy

of the world he sought to heal, nor the

revolutionary spirit which he saw as

our only hope of achieving his vision -

making do with everything we have to

try to keep freedom ringing, despite

the pervasiveness of the evils that beset

us, and a world that needs vigorous

effort to save it from addictions to

tyranny and violence practiced by

reckless elites.

“America, the richest and most

powerful nation in the world, can well

lead the way in this revolution of

values. There is nothing except a tragic

death wish to prevent us from

reordering our priorities so that the

pursuit of peace will take precedence

over the pursuit of war.”

Kathy Kelly ([email protected]) co-

coordinates Voices for Creative

Nonviolence (vcnv.org)

22 January, 2014



10

By Russia Today

U.K ORDERED DESTRUCTION OF ‘EMBARRASING’ COLONIAL PAPERS

Britain systematically destroyed

documents in colonies that were about

to gain independence, declassified

Foreign Office files reveal. ‘Operation

Legacy’ saw sensitive documents

secretly burnt or dumped to cover up

traces of British activities.

The latest National Archives publication

made from a collection of 8,800 colonial-

era files held by the Foreign Office for

decades revealed deliberate document

elimination by British authorities in

former colonies.

The secret program dubbed ‘Operation

Legacy’ was in force throughout the

1950s and 1960s, in at least 23 countries

and territories under British rule that

eventually gained independence after

WWII. Among others these countries

included: Belize, British Guiana, Jamaica,

Kenya, Malaysia and Singapore, Northern

Rhodesia (today Zambia and Zimbabwe),

Tanzania, and Uganda.

In a telegram from the UK Colonial Office

dispatched to British embassies on May

3, 1961, colonial secretary Iain Macleod

instructed diplomats to withhold official

documents from newly elected

independent governments in those

countries, and presented general

guidance on what to do.

British diplomats were briefed on how

exactly they were supposed to get rid of

documents that “might embarrass

members of the police, military forces,

public servants (such as police agents

or informers)” or “might compromise

sources of intelligence”, or could be put

to ‘wrong’ use by incoming national

authorities.

‘Operation Legacy’ also called for the

destruction or removal of “all papers

which are likely to be interpreted, either

reasonably or by malice, as indicating

racial prejudice or bias”.

The newly declassified files revealed that

the Royal Navy base in Singapore was

turned into the Asian region’s primary

document destruction center. A special

facility called a “splendid incinerator” was

used to burn “lorry loads of files”,

Agence France-Presse reported.

The “central incinerator” in Singapore

was necessary to avoid a situation similar

to that in India in 1947, when a “pall of

smoke” from British officials burning

their papers in Delhi, ahead of India

proclaiming independence, filled the local

press with critical reports. That

diplomatic oversight was taken into

account, as ‘Operation Legacy’

operatives were strictly instructed not to

burn documents openly.

But not all the doomed archives could be

shipped to Singapore. In some cases

documents were eliminated on site,

sometimes being dumped in the sea “at

the maximum practicable distance from

shore” and in deep, current-free areas,

the National Archives publication claims.

The newly published collection of

documents reveals that the British

cleared out Kenyan intelligence files

that contained information about abuse

and torture of Kenyans during the Mau

Mau uprising against British colonial

rule in the 1950s. A special committee

formed in 1961 coordinated document

elimination in Kenya. Yet some files

were spared simply when an estimated

307 boxes of documents were

evacuated to Britain, just months ahead

of the country gaining independence

in December 1963.

The existence of some remaining Mau

Mau legal case documents was revealed

in January 2011.

Even after eliminating important

evidence half a century ago, earlier in

2013 the British government was forced

to pay 23 million dollars in compensation

to over 5,200 elderly Kenyans, who had

suffered from Britain’s punitive measures

during the Mau Mau uprising.

In another documented occasion, in April

1957, five lorries delivered tons of

documents from the British High

Commission in Kuala Lumpur to the

Royal Navy base in Singapore. Files were

incinerated there; these contained details

about British rule in Malaya, such as a

massacre of 24 rubber plantation

workers at the Malayan village of Batang

Kali in 1948, who had allegedly been

murdered by British soldiers.

Despite the mass document elimination,

Britain’s Foreign Office still has some

1.2 million unpublished documents on

British colonial policy, David Anderson,

professor of African history at the

University of Warwick, told AFP.

So Her Majesty’s government might still

publish more valuable material that can

shed more light on how one of the biggest

empires in human history used to be

governed. Overall, Britain had total

control over 50 colonies including

Canada, India, Australia, Nigeria, and

Jamaica. Currently, there are 14 British

Overseas Territories that remain under

British rule, though most of them are self-

governing and all have leaderships of

their own.

02 December 2013

Source: RT.com

INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTFOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)P.O BOX 288Jalan Sultan46730 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMALAYSIAwww.just-international.org

Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid

Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur

MalaysiaNo. WP 1385

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque

addressed to:

International Movement for a Just World

P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

or direct to our bank account:Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya Main

Branch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan,MALAYSIA

Account No. 5141 6917 0716

Donations from outside Malaysia should be made

by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$

The International Movement for a Just World isa nonprofit international citizens’ organisationwhich seeks to create public awareness aboutinjustices within the existing global system.It a lso attempts to develop a deeperunderstanding of the struggle for social justiceand human dignity at the global level, guided byuniversal spiritual and moral values.

In furtherance of these objectives, JUST hasundertaken a number of activities includingconducting research, publishing books andmonographs, organising conferences andseminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.

JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed to

similar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if you

could share this copy of the JUST Com-

mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-

ter still invite him/her to write to JUST

so that we can put his/her name on our

Commentary mailing list.

TERBITAN BERKALA

just commentary february 2014

Documents