just commentary may 2011

Vol 11, No. 5 May 2011

ARTICLES

STATEMENT

THE COLLAPSEOF THE OLD OIL ORDER

Turn to next page

POSADA : PROTECTING A TERRORIST....

On the 8th of April 2011, a Court in El Paso, Texas acquitted

the notorious terrorist................................... Page 4

By Michael T. Klare

.THE SPRATLY SITUATION IN THE SOUTH

CHINA SEA ....................................................P 4

.WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE ARAB

UPRISING? ......................................................P 8

Whatever the outcome of the

protests, uprisings, and

rebellions now sweeping the Middle

East, one thing is guaranteed: the world

of oil will be permanently transformed.

Consider everything that’s now

happening as just the first tremor of an

oilquake that will shake our world to

its core.

For a century stretching back to the

discovery of oil in southwestern Persia

before World War I, Western powers

have repeatedly intervened in the Middle

East to ensure the survival of

authoritarian governments devoted to

producing petroleum. Without such

interventions, the expansion of Western

economies after World War II and the

current affluence of industrialized

societies would be inconceivable.

Here, however, is the news that

should be on the front pages of

newspapers everywhere: That the old

oil order is dying, and with its demise

we will see the end of cheap and readily

accessible petroleum — forever.

ENDING THE PETROLEUM AGE

Let’s try to take the measure of what

exactly is at risk in the current tumult.

As a start, there is almost no way to

give full justice to the critical role played

by Middle Eastern oil in the world’s

energy equation. Although cheap coal

fueled the original Industrial

Revolution, powering railroads,

steamships, and factories, cheap oil

has made possible the automobile, the

aviation industry, suburbia, mechanized

agriculture, and an explosion of

economic globalization. And while a

handful of major oil-producing areas

launched the Petroleum Age — the

United States, Mexico, Venezuela,

Romania, the area around Baku (in

what was then the Czarist Russian

empire), and the Dutch East Indies —

it’s been the Middle East that has

quenched the world’s thirst for oil

since World War II.

In 2009, the most recent year for

which such data is available, BP

reported that suppliers in the Middle

East and North Africa jointly produced

29 million barrels per day, or 36% of

the world’s total oil supply — and even

this doesn’t begin to suggest the

region’s importance to the petroleum

economy. More than any other area,

the Middle East has funneled its

production into export markets to

satisfy the energy cravings of oil-

importing powers like the United

States, China, Japan, and the European

Union (EU). We’re talking 20 million

barrels funneled into export markets

every day. Compare that to Russia, the

world’s top individual producer, at

seven million barrels in exportable oil,

the continent of Africa at six million,

and South America at a mere one

million.

As it happens, Middle Eastern

producers will be even more important

in the years to come because they

possess an estimated two-thirds of

remaining untapped petroleum reserves.

According to recent projections by the

U.S. Department of Energy, the Middle

East and North Africa will jointly

.U.S. SECRETLY BACKED SYRIAN OPPOSITION

GROUP.............................................................P 6

ARTICLES

.STAYING HUMAN : THE HEROIC LEGACY OF

VITTORIO ARRIGONI .......................................P 10

L E A D A R T I C L EI 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 from page 1

continued next page

provide approximately 43% of the

world’s crude petroleum supply by

2035 (up from 37% in 2007), and will

produce an even greater share of the

world’s exportable oil.

To put the matter baldly: The world

economy requires an increasing supply

of affordable petroleum. The Middle

East alone can provide that supply.

That’s why Western governments have

long supported “stable” authoritarian

regimes throughout the region,

regularly supplying and training their

security forces. Now, this stultifying,

petrified order, whose greatest success

was producing oil for the world

economy, is disintegrating. Don’t count

on any new order (or disorder) to

deliver enough cheap oil to preserve the

Petroleum Age.

To appreciate why this will be so, a

little history lesson is in order.

THE IRANIAN COUP

After the Anglo-Persian Oil

Company (APOC) discovered oil in

Iran (then known as Persia) in 1908,

the British government sought to

exercise imperial control over the

Persian state. A chief architect of this

drive was First Lord of the Admiralty

Winston Churchill. Having ordered the

conversion of British warships from

coal to oil before World War I and

determined to put a significant source

of oil under London’s control,

Churchill orchestrated the

nationalization of APOC in 1914. On

the eve of World War II, then-Prime

Minister Churchill oversaw the removal

of Persia’s pro-German ruler, Shah

Reza Pahlavi, and the ascendancy of

his 21-year-old son, Mohammed Reza

Pahlavi.

Though prone to extolling his

(mythical) ties to past Persian empires,

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was a willing

tool of the British. His subjects,

however, proved ever less willing to

tolerate subservience to imperial

overlords in London. In 1951,

democratically elected Prime Minister

Mohammed Mossadeq won

parliamentary support for the

nationalization of APOC, by then

renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil

Company (AIOC). The move was

wildly popular in Iran but caused panic

in London. In 1953, to save this great

prize, British leaders infamously

conspired with President Dwight

Eisenhower‘s administration in

Washington and the CIA to engineer a

coup d’état that deposed Mossadeq and

brought Shah Pahlavi back from exile

in Rome, a story recently told with

great panache by Stephen Kinzer in All

the Shah’s Men.

Until he was overthrown in 1979,

the Shah exercised ruthless and

dictatorial control over Iranian society,

thanks in part to lavish U.S. military

and police assistance. First he crushed

the secular left, the allies of Mossadeq,

and then the religious opposition,

headed from exile by the Ayatollah

Ruhollah Khomeini. Given their brutal

exposure to police and prison gear

supplied by the United States, the

Shah’s opponents came to loathe his

monarchy and Washington in equal

measure. In 1979, of course, the

Iranian people took to the streets, the

Shah was overthrown, and Ayatollah

Khomeini came to power.

Much can be learned from these

events that led to the current impasse

in U.S.-Iranian relations. The key point

to grasp, however, is that Iranian oil

production never recovered from the

revolution of 1979-1980.

Between 1973 and 1979, Iran had

achieved an output of nearly six million

barrels of oil per day, one of the highest

in the world. After the revolution, AIOC

(rechristened British Petroleum, or later

simply BP) was nationalized for a

second time, and Iranian managers

again took over the company’s

operations. To punish Iran’s new

leaders, Washington imposed tough

trade sanctions, hindering the state oil

company’s efforts to obtain foreign

technology and assistance. Iranian

output plunged to two million barrels

per day and, even three decades later,

has made it back to only slightly more

than four million barrels per day, even

though the country possesses the

world’s second largest oil reserves

after Saudi Arabia.

DREAMS OF THE INVADER

Iraq followed an eerily similar

trajectory. Under Saddam Hussein, the

state-owned Iraq Petroleum Company

(IPC) produced up to 2.8 million

barrels per day until 1991, when the

First Gulf War with the United States

and ensuing sanctions dropped output

to half a million barrels daily. Though

by 2001 production had again risen to

almost 2.5 million barrels per day, it

never reached earlier heights. As the

Pentagon geared up for an invasion of

Iraq in late 2002, however, Bush

administration insiders and well-

connected Iraqi expatriates spoke

dreamily of a coming golden age in

which foreign oil companies would be

invited back into the country, the

national oil company would be

privatized, and production would reach

never before seen levels.

Who can forget the effort the Bush

administration and its officials in

Baghdad put into making their dream

come true? After all, the first American

soldiers to reach the Iraqi capital

secured the Oil Ministry building, even

as they allowed Iraqi looters free rein

in the rest of the city. L. Paul Bremer

III, the proconsul later chosen by

President Bush to oversee the

establishment of a new Iraq, brought

in a team of American oil executives

to supervise the privatization of the

country’s oil industry, while the U.S.

Department of Energy confidently

predicted in May 2003 that Iraqi

production would rise to 3.4 million

barrels per day in 2005, 4.1 million

barrels by 2010, and 5.6 million by

2020.

None of this, of course, came to

pass. For many ordinary Iraqis, the

U.S. decision to immediately head for

the Oil Ministry building was an

instantaneous turning point that

transformed possible support for the

overthrow of a tyrant into anger and

hostility. Bremer’s drive to privatize the

state oil company similarly produced

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

3


continued next page

a fierce nationalist backlash among

Iraqi oil engineers, who essentially

scuttled the plan. Soon enough, a full-

scale Sunni insurgency broke out. Oil

output quickly fell, averaging only 2.0

million barrels daily between 2003 and

2009. By 2010, it had finally inched

back up to the 2.5 million barrel mark

— a far cry from those dreamed of

4.1 million barrels.

One conclusion isn’t hard to draw:

Efforts by outsiders to control the

political order in the Middle East for

the sake of higher oil output will

inevitably generate countervailing

pressures that result in diminished

production. The United States and

other powers watching the uprisings,

rebellions, and protests blazing

through the Middle East should be

wary indeed: whatever their political

or religious desires, local populations

always turn out to harbor a fierce,

passionate hostility to foreign

domination and, in a crunch, will

choose independence and the

possibility of freedom over increased

oil output.

The experiences of Iran and Iraq

may not in the usual sense be

comparable to those of Algeria,

Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya,

Oman, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,

Tunisia, and Yemen. However, all of

them (and other countries likely to get

swept up into the tumult) exhibit some

elements of the same authoritarian

political mold and all are connected to

the old oil order. Algeria, Egypt, Iraq,

Libya, Oman, and Sudan are oil

producers; Egypt and Jordan guard

vital oil pipelines and, in Egypt’s case,

a crucial canal for the transport of oil;

Bahrain and Yemen as well as Oman

occupy strategic points along major

oil sealanes. All have received

substantial U.S. military aid and/or

housed important U.S. military bases.

And, in all of these countries, the chant

is the same: “The people want the

regime to fall.”

Two of these regimes have already

fallen, three are tottering, and others

are at risk. The impact on global oil

prices has been swift and merciless:

on February 24th, the delivery price

for North Brent crude, an industry

benchmark, nearly reached $115 per

barrel, the highest it’s been since the

global economic meltdown of October

2008. West Texas Intermediate,

another benchmark crude, briefly and

ominously crossed the $100 threshold.

WHY THE SAUDIS ARE THE KEYS

So far, the most important Middle

Eastern producer of all, Saudi Arabia,

has not exhibited obvious signs of

vulnerability, or prices would have

soared even higher. However, the royal

house of neighboring Bahrain is already

in deep trouble; tens of thousands of

protesters — more than 20% of its half

million people — have repeatedly taken

to the streets, despite the threat of live

fire, in a movement for the abolition

of the autocratic government of King

Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa, and its

replacement with genuine democratic

rule.

These developments are especially

worrisome to the Saudi leadership as

the drive for change in Bahrain is being

directed by that country’s long-abused

Shiite population against an entrenched

Sunni ruling elite. Saudi Arabia also

contains a large, though not — as in

Bahrain — a majority Shiite population

that has also suffered discrimination

from Sunni rulers. There is anxiety in

Riyadh that the explosion in Bahrain

could spill into the adjacent oil-rich

Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia —

the one area of the kingdom where

Shiites do form the majority —

producing a major challenge to the

regime. Partly to forestall any youth

rebellion, 87-year-old King Abdullah

has just promised $10 billion in grants,

part of a $36 billion package of

changes, to help young Saudi citizens

get married and obtain homes and

apartments.

Even if rebellion doesn’t reach

Saudi Arabia, the old Middle Eastern

oil order cannot be reconstructed. The

result is sure to be a long-term decline

in the future availability of exportable

petroleum.

Three-quarters of the 1.7 million

barrels of oil Libya produces daily

were quickly taken off the market as

turmoil spread in that country. Much

of it may remain off-line and out of

the market for the indefinite future.

Egypt and Tunisia can be expected to

restore production, modest in both

countries, to pre-rebellion levels soon,

but are unlikely to embrace the sorts

of major joint ventures with foreign

firms that might boost production

while diluting local control. Iraq,

whose largest oil refinery was badly

damaged by insurgents only last week,

and Iran exhibit no signs of being able

to boost production significantly in the

years ahead.

The critical player is Saudi Arabia,

which just increased production to

compensate for Libyan losses on the

global market. But don’t expect this

pattern to hold forever. Assuming the

royal family survives the current round

of upheavals, it will undoubtedly have

to divert more of its daily oil output to

satisfy rising domestic consumption

levels and fuel local petrochemical

industries that could provide a fast-

growing, restive population with

better-paying jobs.

From 2005 to 2009, Saudis used

about 2.3 million barrels daily, leaving

about 8.3 million barrels for export.

Only if Saudi Arabia continues to

provide at least this much oil to

international markets could the world

even meet its anticipated low-end oil

needs. This is not likely to occur. The

Saudi royals have expressed

reluctance to raise output much above

10 million barrels per day, fearing

damage to their remaining fields and

so a decline in future income for their

many progeny. At the same time, rising

domestic demand is expected to

consume an ever-increasing share of

Saudi Arabia’s net output. In April

2010, the chief executive officer of

state-owned Saudi Aramco, Khalid al-

Falih, predicted that domestic

consumption could reach a staggering

8.3 million barrels per day by 2028,

leaving only a few million barrels for

L E A D A R T I C L E


4

continued next page

S T A T E M E N T

POSADA : PROTECTING A TERRORIST

STATEMENT


ARTICLES

On the 8th of April 2011, a Court in El Paso,

Texas acquitted the notorious terrorist,

Luis Posada Carriles, of 11 charges of

perjury, fraud and obstruction. By freeing

him of all charges, the US authorities

proved yet again that they are extremely

protective of Posada.

Who is Posada? Posada was the

mastermind behind the explosion in mid-

air of a Cuban airliner over Barbados in

1976. The explosion killed 73 persons

including children. Posada was detained

in Venezuela but with the help of the CIA

escaped from prison. He was then

involved in a ‘drugs for weapons’

operation from the Ilopango airbase in El

Salvador. In 1997 he was the principal

agent behind a series of bombing

incidents, manipulated by the CIA, that

targeted tourist facilities in Cuba. He was

also actively involved in a conspiracy to

assassinate the then Cuban President,

Fidel Castro, during a summit in Panama

THE SPRATLY SITUATION IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEABy Arujunan Narayanan

When the Cold War ended in 1989, many

international relations experts opined

that the Spratly archipelago in South

China Sea will be a potential flashpoint

as China (also Taiwan), Vietnam, the

Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei were

having conflicting claims of territories.

Francis Fukuyama, a well known

International Relations scholar, came up

with the thesis that the end of history

has come with the ultimate success of

liberal democracy and states that do not

embrace liberal economy will not

progress. War as an instrument of policy

was relegated to a lesser position

compared to economic growth that comes

with trade and commerce. Many

International Relations experts said that

the battle amongst states has shifted

from theatres of war to markets.

As a state that stakes a claim to the

whole of the Spratly archipelago, China’s

position will have important implications

in 2000. Consequently, he was arrested

and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment

in Panama for terrorism. But he was

pardoned and released in 2004 by the

former President of Panama, Moscoso,

obviously as a result of pressure from

the Cuban-American mafia in the US and

their protectors in Miami and

Washington.

It is a damning indictment on the

judicial and political system of the US

that a man who has made a career of stark

naked terrorism should be accorded so

much protection by the authorities. It

underscores the double standards and

hypocrisy that inform the so-called US

fight against terrorism. When it suits its

narrow interests it is ever ready to work

hand-in –glove with terrorists.

The US’s complicity with Posada is

also a reflection of the country’s animosity

and antagonism towards its tiny, little

neighbour, Cuba. For more than 50 years,

Cuba has been on the radar screen of the

US. The latter has imposed severe

economic sanctions upon Cuba since

1961. It has sabotaged its economy;

subverted its political system. The US

elite just cannot tolerate a neighbour—

even if it is a militarily weak and vulnerable

neighbour— that is determined to shape

its own destiny and chart its own future.

The US elite can begin to change its

negative attitude towards Cuba by

acceding to the request of the present

Venezuelan government made more than

5 years ago to extradite Posada to

Venezuela to enable authorities in that

country to mete out justice to him— on

behalf of the 73 human beings killed in

the airline explosion of 1976.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,

President,

International Movement for a Just

World (JUST).

17 April 2011

export and ensuring that, if the world

can’t switch to other energy sources,

there will be petroleum starvation.

In other words, if one traces a

reasonable trajectory from current

developments in the Middle East, the

handwriting is already on the wall.

Since no other area is capable of

replacing the Middle East as the world’s

premier oil exporter, the oil economy

will shrivel — and with it, the global

economy as a whole.

Consider the recent rise in the price

of oil just a faint and early tremor

heralding the oilquake to come. Oil

won’t disappear from international

markets, but in the coming decades it

will never reach the volumes needed

to satisfy projected world demand,

which means that, sooner rather than

later, scarcity will become the

dominant market condition. Only the

rapid development of alternative

sources of energy and a dramatic

reduction in oil consumption might

spare the world the most severe

economic repercussions.

3 March, 2011

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and

world security studies at Hampshire College, a

TomDispatch regular, and the author of Rising

Powers, Shrinking Planet.

Source: Countercurrents.org


5


continued next page

A R T I C L E S

for East Asia’s stability. Within the last

twenty years, by embracing some aspects

of capitalism, China has emerged as the

second largest economic power in the

world and is poised to replace the US in

the top position. It is also a major military

power in the region and has the potential

to become a superpower in line with its

global economic dominance.

In relation to the Spratly islands,

China has announced that the Spratly

archipelago is its sovereign territory. It

even claims the whole of the South China

Sea as Chinese territory based on its nine-

dotted-line claim which encroaches into

the territories claimed by other coastal

states. The first announcement about its

sovereignty over the islands was in 1955

following the Peace Treaty that officially

ended the Second World War in the Far

East. Since then, there has been no

change in China’s position in relation to

the archipelago. It used force in the

archipelago against Vietnam in 1979 and

in 1988. Following the end of the Cold

War in 1989, China realized that the

Spratly issue will be an obstacle to its

modernization programme and relegated

it to the next generation to foster cordial

bilateral relations with the ASEAN states.

Although at one time, China was

unwilling to even discuss the problem

with any other claimant state, she later

adopted a policy of dealing bilaterally

with states that have claims in the Spratly

archipelago. On realizing that the policy

was not well received by the ASEAN

states and it was not in its interest, China

decided to deal with ASEAN as a whole.

A Joint Statement issued after the

Meeting of Heads of States/Governments

of the Member States of ASEAN and the

President of the People’s Republic of

China, Kuala Lumpur, on 16th December

1997, noted that China will follow its five

Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in its

relations with ASEAN states amongst

which is the peaceful settlement of

disputes. While the Joint-Statement

covers the overall economic prosperity

and the security of the region, its Point

No. 8 specifically addressed the issue by

providing for the exercise of self-restraint

to promote peaceful resolution of the

problem by encouraging friendly

relations, cooperation and development

amongst the competing states as well as

promoting peace and the stability of the

region.

This was followed by the

Declaration on the Conduct (DOC) of

Parties in the South China Sea between

ASEAN and China on 4th November,

2002, in Phnom Penh. Points 5 and 6 of

the DOC provided for the promotion of

peace in the disputed area pending

peaceful settlement by juridical means.

Point No. 5 provides for promotion of

trust and confidence amongst the parties

by exercising self-restraint in conducting

their activities in the disputed area by

not occupying uninhabited geographical

features, involving in dialogues and

exchange of views between defence and

military officers, humane treatment of

persons in danger or distress, notifying

each other of their military exercises and

exchanging information. Exploring

cooperative activities which include

marine environment protection, marine

scientific research, safety of navigation

and communication at sea, search and

rescue operation; and combating

transnational crime, including but not

limiting to trafficking in illicit drugs,

piracy and armed robbery at sea and

illegal traffic in arms are addressed in

Point No. 6.

The non-binding nature of the

DOC appears to be conducive to the

temporary management and maintenance

of peace in the Spratly archipelago. That

may also be in line with the ASEAN way

of handling the issue and in the interest

of China as well. For a complex issue like

the Spratlys, there should be a more

binding code of conduct that calls for

more commitment towards resolution.

The non-binding nature of the DOC

provides the parties a way to manage the

problem while giving some breathing

space to find an acceptable solution in

future. All the smaller contestants were

looking upon the magnanimity of the

Chinese dragon to find a lasting position

among the islands in the Spratly

archipelago. On the other hand, China

was eyeing total control of the potential

oil and other marine resources in the

archipelago that will help much towards

its emergence as the number one

economic power as well as a credible

military power in world politics.

The statement by US Secretary of

State Hillary Clinton at the Hanoi ASEAN

Regional Forum in July, 2010 that the US

has ‘strategic interest’ in the South China

Sea and it could play a role in solving the

dispute, has angered China as that will

be a challenge to her sovereignty claim in

the Spratly archipelago. President

Obama’s meeting with ASEAN leaders on

22nd September, 2010 in New York during

which the Spratly dispute was discussed

would have added further salt to the

injury, especially when China has

declared that the South China Sea and

the territories within the water are her

sovereign territory of core interest that

cannot be compromised. Following the

US announcement of its interest in the

Spratly issue, China seems to be prepared

to relook the DOC for one that is more

binding. Whether that will become a

reality will be an important issue of China’s

domestic politics. Military history shows

that nations have gone to war when core

interests were challenged, especially in

their sovereign territories. Whether China

will use force to resolve the Spratly issue

is a concern of not only those states that

have conflicting claims in the archipelago

but also those have national interests in

East Asia.

It is important to see the Spratly

conflict from the perspective of the

emerging US-PRC rivalry in East Asia.

China is fast rising as an important

economic and military power, fast exerting

its influence amongst the states in

Southeast Asia. The US has realised that

if it continues to remain aloof and less

committed in East Asia, China will become

more dominant and hegemonic and that

will have negative implications for US

interests in the region. Hence there is a

need for the US to return to East Asia and

to use the Spratly issue as a smokescreen

to counter China’s influence in the region,

especially amongst the ASEAN states.


6


A R T I C L E S

Given that major powers always

compete in influencing states to win

support, the US and China are trying their

best to win over the Southeast Asian

states. Most important is whether the US-

PRC rivalry will destablise the region.

Currently both powers, despite the

irritants, enjoy cordial bilateral relations,

especially in trade. Both benefit from the

sizeable markets of each other. The US

also needs China to pacify North Korea

while fearing that China, North Korea and

Russia may form an alliance that may be

detrimental to the US interests in the

Northeast as well as Central Asia. An

antagonized China will become a thorn

in the flesh, especially when the US is

still bogged down in Afghanistan,

entangled in Iraq and sees a threat from

‘nuclear’ Iran. Similarly China too is not

in a position to antagonize the US as it is

no match to the US military might and

any military conflict with the US will only

be harmful to its national aspirations of

becoming a dominant actor in

international politics.

Currently, all ASEAN states enjoy

good economic relations with China,

including those having conflicting claims

in the Spratly archipelago. China’s

economic dominance is evident in the

neighbouring states, especially in

Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia.

Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines,

Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei are also

benefitting economically from China.

China’s economic and military power

might cause anxiety amongst the ASEAN

states, especially those with overlapping

claims in the Spratly archipelago. They

have to balance their relationship

between the two great powers; but given

the history of the region they may choose

to bandwagon with the US. Besides, any

conflict in the Spratly archipelago will

also not be in the interest of the ASEAN

Dialogue partners, such as the European

Union, India, Australia, Japan and others

that may wish to see a peaceful East Asia

that will benefit them economically.

Malaysia has to handle the US-PRC

rivalry with much caution, diplomatic

skills and wisdom. There are five elements

of its national interest involved here.

China is a very important trade partner,

an influential regional military power and

a rising economic giant with much clout

in the region, especially amongst the

ASEAN states. If Malaysia aligns more

towards the US, then it will antagonize

China to the detriment of bilateral

relations. With regard to the US, it is also

a major trade partner, an important military

power with long cordial bilateral defence

relations and a likely ‘ally’ at times of

crisis as it proved during the 1963-1965

Confrontation with Indonesia and

assisting Malaysia against communism

after the fall of Saigon in 1975 .

Malaysia must also take into

consideration the importance of ASEAN

as a regional organization when viewing

the situation. Hence, it has to be careful

that its response to the US-PRC rivalry

and the Spratly problem does not harm

ASEAN’s position as a regional inter-

governmental organization committed to

promote peace and stability in the region.

Malaysia must also determine how it is

going to manage its diplomatic relations

especially with those ASEAN states

having conflicting claims in the Spratly

archipelago. As the ultimate objective of

a state is to promote its national interest

and protect its sovereign rights, each

may adopt different positions in

responding to the US-PRC rivalry and the

Spratly issue. Finally, Malaysia has to

exercise its diplomatic skills to protect and

promote her sovereign rights in a milieu

of emerging US-PRC rivalry and the

complexity of the Spratly problem.

There are enough peace-promoting

mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific Region,

such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, East

Asian Summit, ASEAN Plus 3, ASEAN

Defence Ministers Meeting, Asia Pacific

Economic Cooperation, Shanghai

Cooperation Organisation and others that

can help to mitigate the negative impact

of US-PRC rivalry on the region. Given

that US-PRC relations are of mutual

benefit, that ASEAN countries gain from

both powers, and a peaceful East Asia is

a prerequisite for the economic growth

of all the states in the region as well as

for extra-regional powers, there is little

probability of the Spratly dispute

escalating. The territorial dispute in the

Spratly archipelago needs peaceful

settlement using the mechanisms

available in the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982.

The aim of the United Nations Charter is

to promote international cooperation to

achieve international peace and security

for humanity. The decision to resolve the

Spratly dispute by peace or war is a

choice for the sovereign states involved

in the dispute but it is important for that

decision to be tempered by the wisdom

derived from the lessons of military

history which show that while war brings

chaos and destruction peace brings

progress and prosperity.

U.S. SECRETLY BACKED SYRIAN OPPOSITION GROUPS

By Craig Whitlock

continued next page

The State Department has secretly

financed Syrian political opposition

groups and related projects, including a

satellite TV channel that beams anti-

government programming into the

country, according to previously

undisclosed diplomatic cables.

The London-based satellite

channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting

in April 2009 but has ramped up

operations to cover the mass protests in

Syria as part of a long-standing campaign

to overthrow the country’s autocratic

leader, Bashar al-Assad. Human rights

groups say scores of people have been

killed by Assad’s security forces since

the demonstrations began March 18;

Dr Arujunan Narayanan is a member of the

JUST Executive Committee. The above article

was first published in MIMA Bulletin Vol. 18(1)

2011.

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

Syria has blamed the violence on “armed

gangs.”

Barada TV is closely affiliated with

the Movement for Justice and

Development, a London-based network

of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic

cables show that the State Department

has funneled as much as $6 million to the

group since 2006 to operate the satellite

channel and finance other activities

inside Syria. The channel is named after

the Barada River, which courses through

the heart of Damascus, the Syrian capital.

The U.S. money for Syrian opposition

figures began flowing under President

George W. Bush after he effectively froze

political ties with Damascus in 2005. The

financial backing has continued under

President Obama, even as his

administration sought to rebuild relations

with Assad. In January, the White House

posted an ambassador to Damascus for

the first time in six years.

The cables, provided by the anti-

secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that

U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus

became worried in 2009 when they learned

that Syrian intelligence agents were

raising questions about U.S. programs.

Some embassy officials suggested that

the State Department reconsider its

involvement, arguing that it could put the

Obama administration’s rapprochement

with Damascus at risk.

Syrian authorities “would

undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going

to illegal political groups as tantamount

to supporting regime change,” read an

April 2009 cable signed by the top-

ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the

time. “A reassessment of current U.S.-

sponsored programming that supports

anti-[government] factions, both inside

and outside Syria, may prove

productive,” the cable said.

It is unclear whether the State

Department is still funding Syrian

opposition groups, but the cables

indicate money was set aside at least

through September 2010. While some of

that money has also supported programs

and dissidents inside Syria, The

Washington Post is withholding certain

names and program details at the request

of the State Department, which said

disclosure could endanger the recipients’

personal safety.

Syria, a police state, has been ruled

by Assad since 2000, when he took power

after his father’s death. Although the

White House has condemned the killing

of protesters in Syria, it has not explicitly

called for his ouster.

The State Department declined to

comment on the authenticity of the cables

or answer questions about its funding of

Barada TV.

Tamara Wittes, a deputy assistant

secretary of state who oversees the

democracy and human rights portfolio in

the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, said

the State Department does not endorse

political parties or movements.

“We back a set of principles,” she

said. “There are a lot of organizations in

Syria and other countries that are seeking

changes from their government. That’s

an agenda that we believe in and we’re

going to support.”

The State Department often funds

programs around the world that promote

democratic ideals and human rights, but

it usually draws the line at giving money

to political opposition groups.

In February 2006, when relations with

Damascus were at a nadir, the Bush

administration announced that it would

award $5 million in grants to “accelerate

the work of reformers in Syria.”

But no dissidents inside Syria were

willing to take the money, for fear it would

lead to their arrest or execution for

treason, according to a 2006 cable from

the U.S. Embassy, which reported that

“no bona fide opposition member will be

courageous enough to accept funding.”

Around the same time, Syrian exiles

in Europe founded the Movement for

Justice and Development. The group,

which is banned in Syria, openly

advocates for Assad’s removal. U.S.

cables describe its leaders as “liberal,

moderate Islamists” who are former

members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Barada TV

It is unclear when the group began

to receive U.S. funds, but cables show

U.S. officials in 2007 raised the idea of

helping to start an anti-Assad satellite

channel.

People involved with the group and

with Barada TV, however, would not

acknowledge taking money from the U.S.

government.

“I’m not aware of anything like that,”

Malik al-Abdeh, Barada TV’s news

director, said in a brief telephone

interview from London.

Abdeh said the channel receives

money from “independent Syrian

businessmen” whom he declined to

name. He also said there was no

connection between Barada TV and the

Movement for Justice and Development,

although he confirmed that he serves on

the political group’s board. The board is

chaired by his brother, Anas.

“If your purpose is to smear Barada

TV, I don’t want to continue this

conversation,” Malik al-Abdeh said.

“That’s all I’m going to give you.”

Other dissidents said that Barada

TV has a growing audience in Syria but

that its viewer share is tiny compared with

other independent satellite news

channels such as al-Jazeera and BBC

Arabic. Although Barada TV broadcasts

24 hours a day, many of its programs are

reruns. Some of the mainstay shows are

“Towards Change,” a panel discussion

about current events, and “First Step,” a

program produced by a Syrian dissident

group based in the United States.

Ausama Monajed, another Syrian

exile in London, said he used to work as

a producer for Barada TV and as media

relations director for the Movement for

Justice and Development but has not

been “active” in either job for about a

year. He said he now devotes all his

energy to the Syrian revolutionary

movement, distributing videos and

protest updates to journalists.

He said he “could not confirm” any

U.S. government support for the satellite

channel, because he was not involved

with its finances. “I didn’t receive a

penny myself,” he said.

Several U.S. diplomatic cables from

the embassy in Damascus reveal that the


8

A R T I C L E S


Syrian exiles received money from a State

Department program called the Middle

East Partnership Initiative. According to

the cables, the State Department

funneled money to the exile group via the

Democracy Council, a Los Angeles-based

nonprofit. According to its Web site, the

council sponsors projects in the Middle

East, Asia and Latin America to promote

the “fundamental elements of stable

societies.”

The council’s founder and

president, James Prince, is a former

congressional staff member and

investment adviser for Price Waterhouse

Coopers. Reached by telephone, Prince

acknowledged that the council

administers a grant from the Middle East

Partnership Initiative but said that it was

not “Syria-specific.”

Prince said he was “familiar with”

Barada TV and the Syrian exile group in

London, but he declined to comment

further, saying he did not have approval

from his board of directors. “We don’t

really talk about anything like that,” he

said.

The April 2009 cable from the U.S.

Embassy in Damascus states that the

Democracy Council received $6.3 million

from the State Department to run a Syria-

related program called the “Civil Society

Strengthening Initiative.” That program

is described as “a discrete collaborative

effort between the Democracy Council

and local partners” to produce, among

other things, “various broadcast

concepts.” Other cables make clear that

one of those concepts was Barada TV.

U.S. allocations

Edgar Vasquez, a State Department

spokesman, said the Middle East

Partnership Initiative has allocated $7.5

million for Syrian programs since 2005. A

cable from the embassy in Damascus,

however, pegged a much higher total —

about $12 million — between 2005 and

2010.

The cables report persistent fears

among U.S. diplomats that Syrian state

security agents had uncovered the

money trail from Washington.

A September 2009 cable reported

that Syrian agents had interrogated a

number of people about “MEPI

operations in particular,” a reference to

the Middle East Partnership Initiative.

“It is unclear to what extent [Syrian]

intelligence services understand how

USG money enters Syria and through

which proxy organizations,” the cable

stated, referring to funding from the U.S.

government. “What is clear, however, is

that security agents are increasingly

focused on this issue.”

U.S. diplomats also warned that

Syrian agents may have “penetrated” the

Movement for Justice and Development

by intercepting its communications.

A June 2009 cable listed the concerns

under the heading “MJD: A Leaky Boat?”

It reported that the group was “seeking

to expand its base in Syria” but had been

“initially lax in its security, often speaking

about highly sensitive material on open

lines.”

The cable cited evidence that the

Syrian intelligence service was aware of

the connection between the London exile

group and the Democracy Council in Los

Angeles. As a result, embassy officials

fretted that the entire Syria assistance

program had been compromised.

“Reporting in other channels

suggest the Syrian [Mukhabarat] may

already have penetrated the MJD and is

using the MJD contacts to track U.S.

democracy programming,” the cable

stated. “If the [Syrian government] does

know, but has chosen not to intervene

openly, it raises the possibility that the

[government] may be mounting a

campaign to entrap democracy activists.”

17 April, 2011

Craig Whitlock is a journalist working

for The Washington Post since 1998.

Source: Countercurrent.org

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE ARAB UPRISING?By Chandra Muzaffar

The Arab Uprising is no longer what it

was. Its complexion is changing.

One of the outstanding features of

the first phase of the Uprising was its

peaceful, non-violent character. The

ouster of both the Tunisian dictator, Ben

Ali, on 25 January 2011 and the Egyptian

autocrat, Hosni Mubarak, on 11 February

2011 was largely peaceful. But the

protesters in Libya resorted to arms

within a day or two of their uprising in

Benghazi on 15 February. It is well known

that one of the leading groups in what continued next page

has evolved into a full-scale rebellion is

a well-armed militia, the National Front

for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). The

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) is

another militant outfit, some of whose

founders were veterans from the struggle

against the Soviet occupation of

Afghanistan, that is playing a critical role

in the rebellion. It is reportedly linked to

Al-Qaeda. In Syria too, right from the

outset, militant organisations had

infiltrated peaceful demonstrations and

fired upon civilians and security forces

alike, killing more than 80 senior military

personnel. Some elements in the protest

movement in Yemen which at the

beginning was peaceful have also begun

to resort to violence.

INTERFERENCE

The other trend which has tarnished

the Arab Uprising is the interference of

regional actors in the revolts and

rebellions that are occurring in individual

states. The most blatant was of course

the entry of troops from Saudi Arabia at

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

9

continued next page


the head of a Gulf Cooperation Council

(GCC) military force into Bahrain on 14

March 2011 to put down a popular

uprising supported by the majority Shiite

population against the Sunni Bahraini

monarch, Shiekh Hamad bin Isa Al-

Khalifa. The brutal suppression of a

peaceful movement for basic human

rights and democracy — 52 civilians were

massacred — has been a severe setback

for the Uprising as a whole. But Saudi

officials insist that it is Shiite Iran that is

instigating the protest in Bahrain.

Turning to another kingdom in the region,

Qatar has been giving military and

financial assistance to the rebels in Libya.

It is alleged that Syrian protesters are

being armed and funded by Bandar Sultan

of Saudi Arabia and Saad Hariri in

Lebanon.

The motives behind interference

and manipulation by individuals, groups

and states are not difficult to discern. The

Saudi-GCC move into Bahrain was to

preserve the status quo in Bahrain for

fear that democratisation of the

Sheikhdom would undermine the Saudi

Ruler’s absolute power in his own

kingdom especially since there is a restive

Shiite minority in his eastern province.

Qatar’s role in the Libyan rebellion has

nothing to do with democracy since Qatar

is an absolute monarchy with the Emir

exercising total suzerainty over the

Emirate’s oil. By supporting the rebels,

Qatar is actually acting at the behest of

Western powers that are determined to

affect a regime change in Libya. Qatar is

after all a close US military ally whose

air-base is used by the US for its

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Qatar

also has commercial ties with Israel. It is

partly because they are pursuing the

agenda of Western powers and Israel vis-

à-vis Syria that Sultan and Hariri are

actively engaged in fomenting unrest in

that country. For Hariri in particular it is

also a question of hitting back at Syrian

President, Bashar Assad, for allegedly

manoeuvring him out of office in Beirut.

WESTERN POWERS

If manipulations and manoeuvres

by regional players have impacted

adversely upon the Arab Uprising it is

largely because they are intertwined—

as we have seen— with the interests of

certain Western powers. This is the third

negative trend that should concern us.

It is alleged, for instance, that the NFSL

is funded by the CIA and French

Intelligence. France, Britain, the US and

other Western countries such as Italy,

Spain, Portugal and Canada have gone

beyond imposing a ‘No Fly Zone’ upon

Libya to attempting to eliminate Gadaffi

physically. His youngest son, Saif al-

Arab, and three grandchildren, killed in

a NATO air-strike on 30 April, have

become the tragic victims of this

diabolical assassination plan. In Syria,

evidence has surfaced to show that the

US has been financing opposition

groups, “including a satellite TV channel

beaming anti-regime programmes into the

country.” The London- based Barada

TV channel which began broadcasting

in April 2009 is linked to a London-based

network of exiles, the Movement for

Justice and Development, which has

received as much as US 6 million dollars

from the US State Department since 2006.

In Yemen, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi

Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Algeria,

where there is— or there was — unrest

in some form or other, Western powers

are involved, directly or obliquely, in

ensuring that the eventual outcome

would be in their favour. As a case in

point, in Yemen, the US, it is alleged, is

trying very hard to persuade the

President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, an ally, to

step down and hand over power to a

leadership inclined towards the US. The

GCC, a grouping that is closely aligned

to the US and the West, is helping the

US in this scheme. Even in Tunisia and

Egypt, the US, working through

individuals and groups in various

institutions and segments of society, is

determined to ensure that its interests and

the interests of Israel will be preserved

and perpetuated in the emerging

democratic scenarios in the two

countries.

INTERESTS

What are those interests that the US

elite and other Western elites are

determined to protect at all costs? They

are not homogeneous though they

revolve around some recurring themes.

In the case of Libya, for Europe, more than

the US, the desire to control the country’s

huge oil and gas reserves is a factor. For

the US, which has denied vehemently that

it harbours any strategic designs vis-a-

vis Libya, the latter’s critical role in

facilitating China’s access to its own oil

and gas and the energy resources of

other African states is an important

consideration. Since access to energy

would be sine qua con for China’s

ascendancy as a global power, the US

which fears this new reality is going all

out to control the flow of oil and gas in

China’s direction. According to Paul

Craig Roberts, a former senior US

government official, “China has extensive

energy investments and construction

investments in Libya. They are looking

to Africa as a future energy source.”

Besides, Gadaffi has, in recent months,

intensified his mobilisation of African

states to form a sort of United States of

Africa which will resist Western

exploitation of the continent’s vast

natural resources. This would run

counter to the Pentagon’s idea of an

African Command (Africom) launched in

2007. With Syria, US and other Western

elites are unhappy that the Bashar Assad

government remains a “resistance state”

opposed to the unjust Israeli occupation

of Arab lands. Because it has close ties

to the Hezbollah in Lebanon which is now

in the driver’s seat in Beirut, and is also

an ally of the Iranian government — both

of which are in the crosshairs of

Washington and Tel Aviv — Syria has

become a threat to the US and Israeli drive


10


for hegemony over the region. Israel and

the West would prefer a government in

Damascus that would be more

accommodative of their dominance. The

US’s primary concern in Yemen is to

ensure that the strategic port of Eden is

under the watchful eye of a reliable ally

while it would like to see Bahrain remain

in the grip of the Khalifa family mainly

because the island is the home of the US

fifth fleet. Saudi Arabia is of critical

importance to the US and Israel not only

because of its mammoth oil reserves but

also because it is a huge importer of US

weapons. This is why the US is

determined to keep the King on his

throne. Some of the same

considerations— albeit on a lower

scale— apply to Qatar and Kuwait. Egypt

and Jordan are crucial because both have

signed peace treaties with Israel.

Oil, Israel, China, geostrategic

interests, and weapons are the five

reasons why the US and its western allies

are hell-bent on shaping the Arab

Uprising to fulfil their agenda. This is why

there is so much meddling and

interference on their part. It explains their

military intervention in Libya. Some

analysts would argue that the West is

staging a “counter –revolution” to the

Arab Uprising, with the connivance and

collusion of their Arab allies and clients.

SUGGESTIONS

How should we respond this

challenge? More and more governments

and civil society organisations should

speak up and make it lucidly clear to the

US and its NATO allies, the Gaddafi

government and all the opposition

groups that there is no military solution

in Libya. A ceasefire should be declared

at once. It should be observed by

everyone under the supervision of

international observers. The African

Union and Turkish peace plans which

have many similarities should be revived

with some modifications, and merged.

Apart from opening a humanitarian

corridor in the country through which aid

will be transported to all those in dire

need, the emphasis should be upon

building institutions for a viable,

sustainable democracy. At the same time,

the merged peace plan should contain

provisions for the departure of Gaddafi

and his family. Given the terrible atrocities

the dictator has committed against his

own people and others over decades—

atrocities which now outweigh the good

that he has done— there is no other

option. One hopes that after the exit of

the Gaddafi family and its cronies, a free

and fair election in Libya will produce a

leadership that is not only honest and

accountable but also one that will defend

and protect the nation’s sovereignty and

independence. It should not be

subservient to Western powers or other

powers for that matter.

In the case of Syria too, the citizens

of the world have a role to play. They

should demand, in unequivocal language,

that the US, Britain, France, Israel,

Lebanon and Saudi Arabia stop

immediately their machinations and

manipulations. It is the people of Syria

who will determine the destiny of their

nation. The Bashar Assad government

for its part should hasten the meaningful

reforms it has promised the people in

recent weeks. Many of these reforms

have not been translated into action.

Other laws that are in the offing related

to local administration elections, the

formation of political parties, and the

freedom of the media, should be

expedited. Indeed, Bashar should go

beyond these reforms and announce

publicly that there will be a democratic

Presidential Election before the end of

this year and he is prepared to defend

his presidency in an open contest. At the

same time, he should realise that while

he has the right as Syria’s legitimate

President to act firmly against murderous

militias, his security forces should

exercise maximum restraint when faced

with peaceful, unarmed protesters. The

killing of such protesters is totally

unacceptable to the human conscience.

It is this that provides fodder to Western

governments that are so eager to

intervene in Syria in pursuit of their own

nefarious agenda.

These humble suggestions on how

we can respond to the challenge posed

by a “counter-revolution” engineered by

certain Western powers and their Arab

allies, especially in the context of Libya

and Syria, are being made in the hope

that the Arab Uprising can still be saved.

If the Arab Uprising can be returned to

its pristine ideals, it will emerge once

again, as a genuine struggle by a people

determined to re-affirm their dignity and

their humanity.

3 May, 2011.

By Ramzy Baroud

STAYING HUMAN : THE HEROIC LEGACY OF

VITTORIO ARRIGONI

“Dear Mary,” wrote Italian justice

activist Vittorio Arrigoni to a friend. “Do

you (know who) will be on the boats?

I’m still in Gaza, waiting for you. I will be

at the boat to greet you. Stay human. Vik.”

“Mary” is Mary Hughes Thompson,

a dedicated activist who braved the high

seas to break the Israeli siege on Gaza in

2008.

Vittorio Arrigoni, or Vik, was

reportedly murdered by a fundamentalist

group in Gaza, a few hours after he was

kidnapped on Thursday, April 14. The

killing was supposedly in retaliation for

Hamas’ crackdown on this group’s

members. All who knew Vik will attest to

the fact that he was an extraordinary

person, a model of compassion, solidarity continued next page

and humanity.

Arrigoni’s body was discovered in

an abandoned house hours after he was

kidnapped. His murderers didn’t honor

their own deadline of thirty hours. The

group, known as the Tawhid and Jihad,

is one of the fringe groups known in Gaza

as the Salafis. They resurface under


11


different names and manifestations, for

specific – and often bloody - purposes.

“The killing prompted grief in Gaza,

but also despair,” read an op-ed in the

UK Independent on April 16. “Not only

was Arrigoni well known and well liked

there, but it escaped no one that this

kidnapping was the first since that of the

BBC journalist Alan Johnson in 2007.”

However, Johnson’s kidnappers, the

so-called Army of Islam (a small group of

fanatics affiliated with a large Gaza clan)

held their hostage for 114 days. There

was plenty of time to organize and

pressure the criminals to release him. In

Arrigoni’s case, merely few hours stood

between the release of a horrifying video

showing a blindfolded and bruised

activist, and the finding of his motionless

body. The forensic report said that he was

strangled. His friends said that he was

tortured.

Vittorio Arrigoni’s murder was an

opportunity for Israel’s supporters. Most

notorious amongst them was Daniel

Pipes. He wrote, in a brief entry in the

National Review Online: “Note the

pattern of Palestinians who murder the

groupies and apologists who join them

to aid in their dream of eliminating Israel.”

Pipes named three individuals, including

the Palestinian-Israeli filmmaker, Juliano

Mer-Khamis, and Arrigoni himself, and

then proceeded to invite readers to “send

in further examples that I may have

missed.”

Pipes’ list, however, will have no

space for such names as Rachel Corrie,

Tom Hurndall and James Miller, for these

individuals were all murdered by Israeli

forces. Pipes will also fail to mention the

nine Turkish activists murdered aboard

the Mavi Marmara ship on its way to

break the siege on Gaza in May 2010, and

the nine activists abroad Irene (the

Jewish Boat to Gaza) who were

intercepted, kidnapped and humiliated by

Israeli troops before being deported

outside the country in September 2010.

82-year-old Reuben Moscowitz, a

Holocaust survivor, was one of the

activists aboard the Irene, as was Lillian

Rosengarten, an American “who fled the

Nazis as a child in Frankfurt,” according

to a New York Times blog.

The people Pipes failed to mention

truly represent a rainbow of humanity.

Men and women of all ages, races and

nationalities have stood and will

continue to stand on the side of the

Palestinians.

But this story is selectively ignored

of pseudo-intellectuals, intent on

dismissing humanity to uphold Israel.

They refuse to see the patterns in

front of them, as they are too busy

concocting their own.

Writing in UK Guardian from Rome,

on April 15, John Hooper said, “Arrigoni’s

life was anything but safe. In September

2008 he was injured (by Israeli troops)

accompanying Palestinian fishermen at

sea. Two years ago he received a death

threat from a US far-right website that

provided any would-be killers with a

photo and details of distinguishing

physical traits, such as a tattoo on his

shoulder.”

The group that murdered Arrigoni,

like others of its kind, existed for one

specific, violent episode before

disappearing altogether. The mission in

this case was to kill an International

Solidarity Movement activist who

dedicated years of his life to Palestine.

Shortly before he was kidnapped, he

wrote in this website of the “criminal”

Israeli siege on Gaza. He also mourned

the four impoverished Palestinians who

died in a tunnel under the Gaza-Egypt

boarder while hauling food and other

goods.

Before his murder, Arrigoni was

anticipating the arrival of another flotilla

– carrying activists from 25 countries

boarding 15 ships – that is scheduled to

sail to Gaza in May. Israeli Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu adamantly called on

EU countries to prevent their nationals

from jointing the boats. “I think it’s in

your and our common interest…that this

flotilla must be stopped,” he told

European representatives in Jerusalem,

according to an AFP report, April 11.

Israeli officials are angry at the

internationals who are ‘de-legitimizing’

the state of Israel by standing in

solidarity with the Palestinians. Arrigoni

has done so much to harm the carefully

fabricated image of Israel as an island of

democracy and progress. Along with

other activists, he has shattered this

myth through simple means of

communication.

Vik signed his messages with “Stay

human”. His book, detailing his

experiences in Gaza, was entitled

Restiamo Umani (Let Us Remain

Human). Mary Hughes Thompson

shared with me some the emails Arrigoni

sent her. “I can hardly bear to read them

again,” she wrote. This is an extract from

one of them:

“No matter how (we) will finish the

mission…it will be a victory. For human

rights, for freedom. If the siege will not

(be) physically broken, it will break the

siege of the indifference, the

abandonment. And you know very well

what this gesture is important for the

people of Gaza. That said, obviously we

are waiting at the port! With hundreds

of Palestinians and ISM comrades we

will come to meet you sailing, as was

the first time, remember? All available

boats will sail to Gaza to greet you.

Sorry for my bad English…big

hug…Stay Human. Yours, Vik”

Vik’s killers failed to see his

humanity. But many of us will always

remember, and we will continue trying to

“stay human”.

22 April, 2011

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is

the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His

latest book My Father Was a Freedom

Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story is available on

Amazon.com.

Source: Countercurrents.org

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 also 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 may 2011

Documents