just commentary september 2013

Vol 13, No.09 September 2013

Turn to next page

ARTICLES

GLOBAL PEACE MARCH TODAMASCUS PLANNED

.BEYOND THE SURAU INCIDENT BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.................................P4

.COMMERCIAL COLONISATION OF AFRICA: THE NEW WILD

WEST (PART II)BY GRAHAM PEEBLES..........................................P 10

STATEMENTS

.THE SHIA ISSUE IN PERSPECTIVE

BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR......................................P 6

.SYRIA: A 12 POINT CASE AGAINST MILITARY INTERVENTION


By Marinella Corriegga, Vanessa Beeley, Feroze Mithiborwala & Roohulla Rezvi

.A NATION BLEEDS


Say No to US War on Syria!!“Syria you are not alone, we shall not letyou down”

The world yet again waits with batedbreath, as the clouds of war threaten todrown the voices of peace. The US isonce again threatening a sovereigncountry, under a false pretext & fabricatedlies. After Afghanistan, Iraq and Libyawhere millions of innocent civilians died,now it is the turn of Syria.

Once again US is going to use its lethalweapons and ‘save’ the people, bybombing them under the dubious pretextof ‘humanitarian intervention’. TheAmerican unilateralism poses a threat &

a challenge to the overwhelming majorityof nations that oppose the war. Yet againthe US is complicit in destroying &undermining the international politicalstructures & legal framework, even as ittries to speak in the name of theinternational community. But eventhough the US stands in splendidisolation, but yet persists with the war.

Thus once again innocent children &entire populations are going to besubjected to the role of helpless guineapigs, whilst the latest weaponry is yetagain tested. Once again residentialareas, hospitals, schools, bridges, watersupply systems, electric plants, will betargeted by the Cruise missiles, even as

the entire civilian & social infrastructureof an entire nation is degraded &destroyed. Once again apache helicoptersare going to display their accuracy oncivilians, their graves to be marked ascollateral damage.

The impending Imperialist-Zionist war onSyria is a threat to the entire region & willsoon envelop the entire world into afratricidal world war, where hundreds ofmillions of innocents will lose their lives.The very survival of humanity is at stake& thus this is a clarion call for peace.

Enough is enough!!

The overwhelming majority of the people

.SRI LANKA: THE FORGOTTEN LESSON IN GOOD GOVERNANCE

BY SALMA YUSUF.................................................P 8.GLOBALISATION ISN’T JUST ABOUT PROFIT. IT’S ABOUT

TAXES TOO

BY JOSEPH STIGLITZ.................................................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

are opposed to the war & are protesting

across every nation across the world. The

true international community, the comity

of nations has spoken out against the

attack, but the US imperialist pays no

heed due to sheer arrogance & the brute

force that it commands.

But this time we are not going to

demonstrate & protest in our cities only.

We are not going to follow the news of

destruction, death & war through the

satellite channels any more. We are not

ready to sit by & watch a new Iraq and

Afghanistan, even as the occupation &

destruction of Palestine carries on.

This time, we are going to be there with

the people of Syria. This time, for the sake

of global peace and justice, we are going

to March to Damascus from across the

nations of the world, to bring the message

of peace & stand in solidarity with the

Syrian nation, which is one of the most

ancient human civilizations.

Our objective is to resist, to defy & stop

the US led war on Syria.

Our objective is to stand witness to the

destruction that will be wrecked on this

nation & let the world know about the

true reality of the genocidal war.

Our objective is to act as a deterrent &

protect the civilian & social

infrastructure.

Our objective is to stand in solidarity with

the Syrian people.

The very fate of humanity is at stake,

where the choice is between peace & a

global war, a war which will spell certain

doom for all of humanity.

Join us from across the world in our

collective endeavor for peace!

Join us in the “Global Peace March to

Damascus”!

In solidarity

Marinella Corriegga, Vanessa Beeley,

Feroze Mithiborwala & Roohulla Rezvi

(For the International Coordination

Committee - GPMD)

Contact us on Facebook:

Contact us via message to this page if

you wish to take part and we can help

you to organise your participation.

Contact us via https://

www.facebook.com/pages/Global-Peace-

M a r c h - t o - D a m a s c u s /

597025893693258?fref=ts if you wish to

participate.

Thank you

10 September, 2013

Source: Countercurrents.org

SYRIA: A 12 POINT CASE AGAINSTMILITARY INTERVENTION

By Chandra Muzaffar

The House of Representatives and the

Senate of the United States of America

should reject any form of US military

intervention in Syria.

Rejection would be a clear statement

against war. It would be a lucid message

on behalf of peace.

There are at least 12 reasons why the US

Congress, and the people of the world,

should adopt such a stand.

One, if the two houses represent the

voice of the American people, it is

significant that 50% of the people are

against military intervention in Syria

according to a NBC poll conducted on

the 28-29 of August 2013. Only 42%

support military action. It is also important

to bear in mind that the people in countries

regarded as the US’s ‘comrades-in-arms’

are also opposed to military force. In

France it is 64% of the citizenry. In Britain,

the House of Commons, reflecting

popular sentiment, has voted against

military intervention in Syria.

Two, since the United Nations’

investigation team has just begun its

analysis of the alleged chemical attack

near Damascus on 21 August, the US

Congress should insist that President

Obama wait until its findings are made

public, before any multilateral — not

unilateral—decision under the aegis of

the UN is taken on Syria. Though the UN

report will not tell us directly who was

responsible for the attack, there may be

enough circumstantial evidence in it to

indicate the likely culprit. Obama’s

disdainful attitude towards the UN’s

investigation is an affront to the world’s

most important international institution.

Former US president George Bush junior

was also guilty of such disdain when he

ignored the UN Security Council (UNSC)

in his arrogant march to war in Iraq in

2003.

Three, an attack on Syria would also be a

violation of international law since Syria

has not attacked the US. Like Bush,

Obama has decided to bypass the UNSC.

In fact, on a number of occasions in the

last three decades, the US has, without

going through the UNSC, invaded other

sovereign states.

Four, the US Congress should in all

fairness accord due consideration to the

facts and arguments advanced by those


3


continued next page

who insist that Syrian President Bashar al-

Assad could not have been responsible for

the chemical weapons attack. Why would

he want to use such a weapon in the

presence of the UN investigation team that

he himself had invited to ascertain the truth

about earlier chemical gas attacks? More

importantly, what does Bashar gain from a

chemical attack when he has already scored

a series of victories on the battle-ground in

recent months?

Five, in contrast to Bashar, the armed

opposition in Syria appears to have

compelling motives for launching a

chemical weapons assault. It would serve

to draw the US and its allies into a direct

military involvement in Syria especially

since Obama had declared repeatedly that

the use of chemical weapons by Bashar

would be the red line that would provoke

a US response. There have been other

occasions in the course of the 30 month

conflict when the armed rebels have

manipulated incidents and events to elicit

some reaction or other from Western

powers or the UN. Often, incidents linked

to heinous mass killings committed by the

rebels are blamed upon the Bashar

government via a biased global media.

The 21 August chemical gas incident has

all the markings of a meticulously planned

and executed false flag operation.

Six, indeed the US is guilty of fabricating

various false flag operations since it

emerged as a colonial power at the end of

the nineteenth century. From the

battleship Maine incident in Havana in

1898 to the Gulf of Tonkin episode in 1964

to the Kuwait incubator event in 1990 to

the Weapons of Mass Destruction

(WMD) myth in Iraq in 2003, US

intelligence and security outfits have

become adept at creating situations and

circumstances which are then

manipulated to undermine ‘the enemy.’

Seven, the hypocrisy of US political and

security elites is not confined to false flag

operations. Even when it comes to the

use of chemical weapons, it is obvious

that what the elites preach often

contradicts their actual behaviour. Today,

US leaders condemn the use of chemical

weapons as morally reprehensible. We

ask, who used agent orange in Vietnam

which led to the death of thousands?

Who supplied through oblique channels

mustard gas to Saddam Hussein in his

aggression against Iran — gas which he

employed in Halabjah in March 1988

killing 5000 defenceless people? And

what about the depleted uranium widely

used in Iraq in the wake of the Anglo-

American invasion of that land in 2003?

To this day, hundreds of babies continue

to be born deformed as a result of the

impact of DU. US leaders have no moral

authority to pontificate about the

obscenity of chemical weapons.

Eight, that the moral fig-leaf is a cover

for motives which are related to power

and politics is borne out by yet another

dimension of the chemical weapons

issue. If Obama has chosen to be

bellicose on the issue, it is partly

because his Administration sees it as an

assertion of power against Russia in

light of a number of recent developments

in which the latter has stood up to the

US. Through the Syrian conflict, the US

elite aims to show President Vladimir

Putin that the US is still the world’s sole

military superpower and not to be trifled

with.

Nine, the conflict raises yet another

question of morality and power. The US

and its Western allies, like its regional

partners such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar,

Turkey and Israel, are funding, arming,

providing intelligence and offering

logistical assistance to groups totally

committed to violence and terror as a

method of achieving their goal of ousting

the Bashar government. The Jahbat al-

Nusra, linked to Al-Qaeda — arguably

the strongest of the armed groups ̄ is a

case in point. On the hand, the US and

the others proclaim that they are all

opposed to violence and terrorism and

yet on the other hand they

unscrupulously use terror outfits in

pursuit of their power.

Ten, the Syrian conflict has also

reinforced longstanding sectarian and

tribal divisions in West Asia and North

Africa (WANA). Actors within and

without WANA are exploiting the Sunni-

Shia dichotomy in particular as a way of

playing the majority sect in Islam against

the minority with the aim of weakening

Muslim solidarity. Sectarian violence is

now rearing its ugly head not just in Syria

but also ¯ and for a much longer while

¯ in Lebanon, Bahrain and Iraq.

Eleven, needless to say, sectarian clashes

in WANA benefit Israel which views

turmoil and upheaval in its

neighbourhood as a boon to its goal of

remaining the dominant force in the

region. For the Israeli elite, the ability of

their nation to perpetuate its dominance

is sine qua non for the security of the

state which is their primary obsession. It

is significant that Israel and Zionism have

been able to ensure that US and Western

policy as a whole in WANA is dovetailed

to meet the core interests of the Israeli

state. Taking military action against Syria

with the objective of overthrowing

Bashar is what Israel wants because

Bashar is an important link in the axis of

resistance to Israeli dominance which

includes Iran and Hezbollah. Israel has

conducted three air strikes within Syria

in the last six months and its commandos

have been training segments of the armed

opposition. It is believed that the so-

called ‘independent’ intelligence on the

21 August chemical weapons incident

that is being hawked around by the US

and Britain is actually from Israel. In this

regard, it is worth reiterating that Israel is

the hidden hand in much of the politics

of other states in WANA such as Egypt,

Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Sudan.

Twelve, by taking military action against

WANA states ¯ partly at the urging of



4


continued next page

BEYOND THE SURAU INCIDENT - THE VALUES THAT BIND USBy Chandra Muzaffar

Israel ̄ the US has brought nothing but

misery and suffering to the people. The

classic example is of course Iraq. 10 years

after its conquest by the US and Britain,

Iraq is a totally devastated nation,

wrecked by perpetual sectarian violence,

first ignited by the invasion itself in 2003.

Outside WANA there is the other tragic

case of Afghanistan which 12 years after

the US-NATO occupation is still mired in

the agony of chaos. Why should Syria

be any different? Some advocates of

military intervention in Syria are of the

opinion that since the military action that

Obama is planning is limited in scope and

duration, Syria will not end up like Iraq or

Afghanistan. There is no guarantee. Once

it commences, the military operation could

assume a life of its own. The response from

the Syrian military command, and the

reaction of Iran and Russia could be

decisive. Besides, there are individuals and

groups in Obama’s trench who are

determined to oust Bashar, to achieve

regime change. That could lead to a

prolonged campaign.

Instead of travelling further down the

military route, the US House of

Representatives and the Senate should

urge Obama to lend his weight to the

proposed US-Russia meeting on Syria to

be attended by all the other regional and

international actors connected to the

Syrian conflict. Securing an immediate

ceasefire would be the meeting’s

principal goal. The US and its allies

should cease providing military,

monetary and all other forms of

assistance to the armed opposition on

the ground. As the opposition’s

benefactors turn off the tap, so should

Bashar’s Russian and Iranian backers.

The ceasefire should be supervised by

the UN and would set the stage for the

establishment of an interim national

unity government comprising

representatives from Bashar’s Baath

Party, the legitimate Syrian opposition

and independent individuals. The unity

government will draft a new constitution

which will provide for a parliamentary

election to be followed immediately by a

presidential election. Both elections, and

the referendum on the constitution,

should be conducted and monitored by

the UN.

These are ideas which have been on the

table before but they have not

materialised. Both Bashar and his

opponents and their respective

supporters should prove, through deeds,

that this time they will make a determined

effort to achieve results. They should

realise that the alternative to a peaceful

resolution of the conflict through

negotiations is a continuous, brutal,

bloody civil-cum-proxy war without

winners.

2 September, 2013

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President

of International Movement for a Just

World (JUST)

STATEMENT

Muslims and Buddhists in Malaysia

should not allow the Surau incident to

have a negative impact upon relations

between the two communities. There are

at least two reasons why they should be

vigilant about protecting what has been

generally a harmonious relationship.

One, given the deterioration in Malay-

non-Malay ties in recent times, the Surau

incident may be perceived in some

quarters as further proof of a worsening

communal milieu. Two, since the incident

has come in the midst of a series of

negative episodes involving Buddhists

and Muslims in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and

Indonesia ¯ apart from Thailand ¯

there may be a tendency to view what

happened at the Tanjung Sutera Resort

in Johor on 10 August 2013 as part of an

emerging pattern of tension and friction

between the two communities in Asia.

Muslims and Buddhists in Malaysia are

by and large aware of inter-religious

sensitivities. The very fact that the Chief

Buddhist High Priest of Malaysia, Datuk

K. Sri Dhammaratana apologised

immediately to “our Muslim brothers and

sisters” for the actions of a group of

Buddhists from Singapore who had used

the Surau for Buddhist meditation and

chanting testifies to this. The Adviser to

the Johor State Religious Council

expressed his appreciation of the

Buddhist apology and described it as a

“praiseworthy measure.”

The Surau incident reminds us that

performing the religious ritual of a

particular community within the sacred

space of another community is not

acceptable in Malaysia. True, it has been

done, on rare occasions, in other parts of

the world but the norm everywhere is to

preserve and protect what is perceived

as the sanctity of one’s own sacred space

for those within the fold. This in itself is

not a barrier to inter-religious

understanding and empathy.

It is when the notion of the sanctity and

purity of one’s place of worship is carried

to extremes that it becomes a challenge.



5


In that context, demolishing the Surau

simply because it had been misused on a

single occasion would be a radical move,

at variance with the past practices of a

religion which had allowed people of

other faiths into its sacred space. Besides,

demolishing the Surau because it had

been “defiled” sends a wrong message

to our multi-religious society.

Rather than taking punitive measures of

this sort, religious authorities should be

embarking upon programmes to educate

Muslims and Buddhists about the values

and principles that they share in common.

For the last seventeen years, the

International Movement for a Just World

(JUST) has been engaged in dialogues

with Buddhist groups such as the

International Network of Engaged

Buddhists (INEB), Soka Gakkai and the

Museum of World Religions on how

shared universal spiritual and moral

values and principles can help to shape

a just and peaceful world. In the process,

ARTICLES

Why is Egypt bleeding? Because its

security forces are re-asserting their power

and authority and the Ikhwan-al- Muslimin(

Muslim Brotherhood) is resisting.

Since the police with the backing of the

powerful military began a brutal crackdown

on the Ikhwan and its supporters on 14

August 2013, at least 800 people have been

killed. This includes a small number of

police personnel allegedly executed by the

Ikhwan.

The on-going tussle for power between the

military and the Ikhwan has a long history

behind it. For a brief moment in 1952 they

joined hands in the overthrow of King

Farouk but soon they parted company and

for decades there has been bitter

antagonism and animosity between these

two actors who have dominated Egyptian

politics for so long. The Ikhwan was in fact

banned by Gamal Abdul Nasser, then

Deputy Prime Minister, in 1954, following

an attempt by members of the movement to

assassinate him. Nasser became President

in 1956. The Ikhwan remained outlawed

under his successors, Anwar Sadat and

Hosni Mubarak, who like Nasser, were

military officers.

During this period there were frequent

crackdowns against Ikhwan members and

leaders. Imprisonment, arbitrary

detention and torture characterised the

lives of these Ikhwan activists.

Nonetheless, they managed to sustain

their support base and organisational

structure. The social services that they

provided and their welfare work endeared

them to the people especially the poor

and disadvantaged who constitute such

a huge portion of Egyptian society.

After Mubarak was ousted by a popular

uprising in February 2011, Ikhwan was

legalised. It entered the political process

through a party called the Freedom and

Justice Party. It was this party that won

the largest number of seats in the

Parliamentary Election held at the end of

2011 and the beginning of 2012. In the

June 2012 Presidential Election — the

first free and fair presidential election in

Egypt’s history — it was the candidate

from the Freedom and Justice Party, Dr.

Mohamed Morsi, who secured 52% of the

popular vote. As a democratically elected

President, Morsi initiated a referendum on

a new national constitution. 64% of those

who voted endorsed the Constitution.

Morsi’s and the Ikhwan’s proven

democratic credentials frightened the

military. The military elite saw Ikhwan’s

popularity as a direct challenge to its

power. This is why it used Egypt’s High

Constitutional Court made up of judges

inclined towards the military to order the

dissolution of the democratically elected

parliament on 14 June 2012. The judiciary

was also manipulated to curb the powers

of the President in matters pertaining to

security, defence, foreign policy and the

national budget. A number of policy

decisions that Morsi made also angered

the military top brass.

The military with its strong grip over the

economy also sought to undermine

efforts by the Morsi government to

address various economic issues facing

the people. It explains to some extent why

the long queues of people waiting to

purchase certain essentials that marked

Morsi’s tenure disappeared shortly after

he was ousted! Of course, Morsi himself

failed to formulate effective solutions to

critical problems such as unemployment

By Chandra MuzaffarA NATION BLEEDS

continued next page

we have discovered how even on issues

that appear to pit Buddhists against

Muslims such as the conflict in Southern

Thailand or the clashes between

Buddhists and Rohingyas in Myanmar,

Muslim and Buddhist advocates of

dialogue are able to adopt common

positions based upon justice and inspired

by compassion ¯ values that are at the

heart of both religions.

15 August, 2013

S T A T E M E N T


6

continued next page

A R T I C L E Scontinued from page 5

and inflation. His administration was by

and large inept. Because some of

Ikhwan’s most prominent leaders such as

its spiritual guide, Mohammed Badie, and

Khairat el-Shater were the ones who

actually wielded influence in Morsi’s

administration, some of its policies

veered towards exclusiveness alienating

a significant segment of the non-Ikhwan

populace.

All this provided ammunition to the

military and other groups when they

began to mobilise the masses against

Morsi for the 3rd July coup. But Morsi’s

shortcomings do not in any way justify

the coup against a democratically elected

leadership. If Morsi had to be removed,

there was only one avenue available to

the people: through a free and fair

election. That is a fundamental principle

in a democracy. Street demonstrations,

however massive, do not legitimise coups.

Besides, we now know that the “15 to 20

millions” who were supposed to have taken

to the streets — as the veteran journalist

Robert Fisk has pointed out — is a gross

exaggeration which defies logic.

That US and some European leaders can

use such outrageous claims to rationalise

their reluctance to condemn a blatant

military coup against a democratically

elected leader is testimony to their

hypocrisy as defenders of democracy.

What explains their reluctance? It stems

largely from their fear that Ikhwan, given

its policy position on Israel, will not be as

accommodative as the Egyptian military

elite has been since the eighties on issues

pertaining to their intimate ally’s “security

concerns.” It is not surprising therefore

that a number of US Senators and

members of the Congress have

emphasised over and over again that their

most trustworthy partner in Egypt

remains the military. They have also

reminded President Obama that in the

wake of the Egyptian turmoil, Israel must

remain the US’s primary commitment.

The Israeli regime itself had made it

explicitly clear the moment Ikhwan re-

surfaced as a political force to reckon

with in the post-Mubarak era that it was

suspicious of the movement.

Seen within this context, one should not

attach any significance to criticisms from

Washington, London and other Western

capitals about the military’s “excessive

force” and its killing of civilians. They

are meant to mollify human rights groups

at home and to project their international

image as opponents of merciless killings.

The litmus test is whether the US

government will demand that Morsi be

restored to his legitimate position as

President of Egypt.

What this means is that it is unlikely that

there will be strong pressure from the US

upon the 3rd July coup makers to

relinquish their power. At the most, the

principal architect of the coup, General

Abdul- Fattah al-Sisi, will exercise some

restraint in his operations against

Ikhwan. The fighting and the killing will

go on. Ikhwan will not give up. If

anything, the Ikhwan leadership and its

rank-and-file may become even more

determined to achieve justice for Morsi

if the military decides to ban the Ikhwan

— a proposal which may well exacerbate

the situation.

If that happens, and the conflict between

the military and Ikhwan continues,

bloodshed and mayhem may plague

Egypt for many years to come. The

nation will sink into a morass. Such a

prospect will be a disaster for the people.

On the other hand, if in the midst of the

conflict, Egypt makes some economic

progress and resolves at least a portion

of its economic woes, the situation may

eventually stabilise.

However, the long-term consequences of

suppressing Ikhwan will continue to

challenge the nation and Muslims

everywhere. Islamic groups and even

states will conclude that democracy does

not offer any hope. If their aspirations

cannot be achieved through the

democratic process, it would be better

for them to resort to other means,

including violent methods to realise their

goals.

This is why it is so important for a

democratic experiment in a major Arab-

Muslim state like Egypt to succeed. For

now, that experiment has suffered a

colossal setback.

19 August, 2013

THE SHIA ISSUE IN PERSPECTIVEBy Chandra Muzaffar

For more than three weeks now, the

Bahasa Malaysia media has raised the

spectre of a Shia threat to Islam and

Muslims in the country. Day in and day

out articles speak of Shia proselytization

among Sunni Muslims; of widespread

conversions which allegedly have

increased the Shia population in

Malaysia to almost 250,000.

Though empirical evidence of Shia

proselytization is scant, it is true that any

organised attempt to propagate Shia

teachings in largely Sunni societies, and

vice versa, will have repercussions.

Malaysia, like the rest of the Malay

world, has been Sunni for centuries.

When an individual or family converts

to a minority sect that has no deep roots

in the region, uneasiness develops

within the larger community and tensions

rise.

Proselytization should be discouraged in

an intelligent and mature manner. Sunni

religious functionaries and scholars

should engage with Shias allegedly

involved in proselytization. The adverse

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


consequences of their activity should be

conveyed to them and their followers. At

the same time, one should respect the

beliefs of those few families in our midst

who have been Shia for generations.

The overwhelmingly Sunni majority

should also be educated on some of those

Shia beliefs and practices that do not

conform to their tradition. That the Sunni-

Shia schism is essentially a product of

politics and power revolving around the

status of Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s

cousin and son-in-law, is a point that

should be emphasised clearly. The Shias

have a different record of Hadiths and

certain prayer rituals set them apart from

the Sunnis. It is also true that the majority

within the sect recognises the practice of

Muta’ah (temporary marriage).

Acknowledging Shia-Sunni differences in

an objective fashion is not the same as

misinforming the public and distorting

the truth in flagrant violation of ethics

which is what some of the media have

been doing in recent weeks. There is no

need to regurgitate those distortions.

Suffice to reiterate that all Shias subscribe

to the same Quran as the Sunnis.

(Incidentally, the translator of the most

widely read rendition of the Quran in the

English language, the late Abdullah Yusuf

Ali, was a Shia scholar). They are as loyal

to the memory of the Prophet as the

Sunnis are. They face the same Kiblah.

They perform the Hajj. They observe the

fast. And they pay the zakat — apart from

recognising the centrality of prayer in

their lives. Instead of balancing Sunni-

Shia differences with these similarities, a

huge segment of the Bahasa media has

gone on a rampage, stigmatising and

demonising Shias.

Demonization of this sort not only

spawns distrust and suspicion. It also

breeds hatred and antagonism. If left

unchecked, it may even lead to tensions

and the very violence we want to avoid.

Equally serious, when tension and hatred

heighten within the Muslim Ummah, it

would be so easy for those who want to

control the community to exploit its

internal antagonism in order to conquer

and rule the community. This is what

happened in Iraq in 2003. The US and

British invaders exploited Shia

sentiments in their bid to oust Saddam

Hussein’s minority Sunni government.

After Saddam was overthrown and the

majority Shias came to power through the

ballot-box, the US and Britain realised that

the new government in Baghdad was more

inclined towards the Shia government in

Tehran. This was inimical to their interests

and the agenda of their most intimate ally

in the region, namely, Israel. They then

began to manipulate the Sunnis against the

Shia leadership in Baghdad. It is partly

because of this manipulation and the

concomitant power struggles that there is

continuing sectarian violence in Iraq today.

Syria is another tragic example of a

bloody conflict which the global media

controlled by the centres of power in the

West, and Western allies and client states

in West Asia are trying hard to

camouflage as a Sunni-Shia struggle

when in reality it is a stark attempt by

Western powers and Israel to crush

resistance to their hegemonic control of

the region. Turkey, on the one hand, and

Saudi Arabia, on the other, have

additional reasons for plugging this line.

For Sunni Turkey, the rise of Iran and

Shia influence in the region is a challenge

to its ambition and power. For Saudi Arabia,

its ideological attachment to Wahabism

makes it an implacable foe of the Shia belief

system.

The case of Iran also exposes the

underlying political motive behind what

is presented by the Saudi elite and other

like-minded groups in West Asia as “the

Shia threat to Islam.” Before the 1979

Iranian Revolution, Sunni elites in Riyadh

and other Gulf capitals had a warm and

cosy relationship with Iran under Shah

Pahlavi in spite of its Shia orientation.

The Shah, needless to say, was a

staunch ally of the US and Britain.

When the Revolution brought to the

fore a leadership opposed to US helmed

hegemony, Saudi attitude towards Iran

also changed. Iran and Shia teachings

became a problem.

That hegemonic politics is strongly

intertwined with animosity towards

Shia states and movements is borne out

by yet another example. Though the

masses in West Asia shower accolades

upon Hezbollah for its heroic role in

protecting Lebanon’s territorial

integrity in the face of Israeli

aggression, some pro Washington

Sunni elites continue to disparage the

movement. They have now been joined

by some well-known Sunni ulama who

are incensed that the Hezbollah came

to the aid of Bashar Al- Assad’s soldiers

in freeing a Syrian-Lebanese border

town from the control of Western

sponsored, Saudi and Qatari financed

rebels. It explains the massive,

persistent attacks upon Hezbollah and

its Shia character by the ulama in the

Arab media.

It is the pronouncements of these ulama

which are largely responsible for the

upsurge of Shia bashing in Malaysia

in the last few weeks. These ulama —

especially someone like Sheikh Yusuf Al-

Qaradawi ¯ have a huge following in

the country and are highly revered by

the Muslim populace. There is almost

uncritical adulation of these ulama.

Instead of blind worship, Malaysian

Muslims should try to understand the

political dimension of the Shia issue

and cease to demonise this minority

sect within the Ummah. In fact, they

should be looking for meeting-points

between the Sunni majority and Shia

minority. Apart from those fundamental

aspects of faith that we have alluded

to, there are other important links

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


between the two groups that are worth

highlighting. At the theological level, it

is sometimes forgotten that Imam Abu

Hanifah (died 768), the founder of the

Hanafi mazhab, the largest doctrinal

school within the Sunni community, was

a student of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (died

757), the sixth Imam of the Shias and the

founder of the largest group within the

Shia community, known as Ithna ashariyyah,

or Twelve –Imam Shi’ism. Indeed, the links

were so pervasive at various periods in

history that the Sunni-Shia dichotomy was

often blurred.

It is also important to recall that some of

the most enlightened Muslim

personalities in the contemporary epoch,

both Sunni and Shia, like Shah Wali Allah,

Sayyid Jamaluddin Al-Afghani,

Muhammed Abduh, and Mahmud Shaltut

had sought to reconcile Sunni and Shia

teachings. So did Imam Khomeini,

contrary to what some Bahasa

newspapers have suggested. It was

Khomeini who prohibited Shias from

denigrating some of the wives of the

Prophet and the first three Caliphs. He also

inaugurated Al-Quds Day as a way of

SRI LANKA: THE FORGOTTEN LESSON IN GOOD GOVERNANCEBy Salma Yusuf

In post-war Sri Lanka, a reprioritising of

the national agenda, a change in attitude

to state structures and innovating new

approaches to embrace forgotten

stakeholders remain critical for social

change

Though social justice and the

advancement of peace has not yet

evolved to occupying centre-stage in the

corporate agenda, a significant

development in the international arena is

that businesses are no longer averse to

the idea. Moreover, there has been

acknowledgement within the

international business sector that the

credibility of its operations can be

strengthened by subscribing to altruistic

ideological pursuits and embracing its

latent social role.

In Sri Lanka too, there has begun a

national momentum to raise awareness on

the need to develop the social conscience

of the private sector, following the

conclusion of the three-decade war that

ravaged the country. In this context, what

is required is a more radical reprioritising

of the national agenda in the post-war

situation to socio-economic and political

aims to facilitate such a progressive

movement.

What must be recommended is the

adoption of investment in four areas as

critical to a strategy for contributing to

reconciliation and peace-building: First,

livelihood and income generation

activities; second, training and

empowerment through capacity building

in soft-skills including those that increase

innovation, entrepreneurship and

employability; third, a need to engage

directly with individuals and communities

in war-affected regions of the country and

finally, to ensure that all endeavours

undertaken embrace the vision of

preventing economic stagnation which

has been at the root of most political

conflicts.

The attractiveness of investing in the

north of the country must not be

forgotten in this endeavour. The

availability of rich natural resources in the

region such as limestone, land,

groundwater, sea salt, fisheries and

agriculture could be tapped into in order

to create industries, income generation

and livelihood opportunities.

Additionally, the market demand for

produce and jobs is increasing with the

return of formerly displaced persons to

their original habitats. Further, there exists

potential for development of tourism-

related infrastructure as Jaffna is gaining

increasing currency as a tourist

destination, both by locals and

foreigners. It was recorded that with the

removal of travel restrictions to the north

of the country, a total of 31,000 persons

had travelled to the north in 2012 alone.

This in itself is a testament to the promise

for both local and foreign tourism in the

north of the country which would

benefit immensely from private sector

investment.

The conflict between the north and

south of Sri Lanka has been largely due

to the lack of economic opportunities.

Waiting for perfect conditions to invest

can be counter-productive to social

progress. Reflecting on the Sri Lankan

political history, both insurrections in

the south, and the north, were largely

resource, class and caste related.

Leaving behind a segment of the

community whether in the north or the

south will result in the seeds of dissent

taking root. Allowing marginalisation of

a segment of the community will result

in ethnic entrepreneurs exploiting it for

personal and political advantage.

To this end, certain considerations need

to be made when decisions to invest in

the north and the east are taken, namely,

that youth and adult populations in the

north have been deprived of basic

building solidarity between Sunnis and

Shias on behalf of the Palestinian struggle.

There was a time when even Qaradawi

committed himself to amity between

Sunnis and Shias. In a joint statement

with the Iranian Shia leader, Akbar

Hashemi Rafsanjani in 2007, he “stressed

the impermissibility of the fighting

between the Sunnis and Shias” and the

need to “be aware of the conspiracies

of the forces of hegemony and Zionism

which aim to weaken Islam and tear it

apart in Iraq.”

10 August, 2013

continued next page


9

continued next page

continued from page 8education during the conflict. Capacity

building is a sine qua non for generating

employability and creating opportunities

for income generation.

The business community is well placed

for developing capacity of potential

entrepreneurs by playing a major role in

skill building. Hence, recognition of such

a role for the private sector and business

community must be taken seriously.

Although engagement of the business

community has been acknowledged as

essential for peace-building by both the

World Bank and the United Nations, a

system of rewards to lure early private

sector entry has yet to be devised, at the

international and national levels.

Further, it is recommended that involving

the private sector in the larger work of

formulating the post-war recovery

strategy in Sri Lanka will help generate

ownership of the process, and in turn

sustainability of outcomes. This would

require innovative thinking by both the

public and private sectors.

The challenge therefore lies in finding

new means to make such engagement

attractive by establishing appropriate

economic and non-economic incentives

for investment.

Possible incentives would be, first, to

demonstrate to businesses how early –

entry into the war – torn regions are a

test of the resilience of the sector’s ability

to navigate adverse conditions and

establish suitable conditions for

economic proclivity.

Second, it can play a crucial self-serving

role in shaping of the market for decades

to come by securing preferential rights

for early entrants and contributing to

developing the legal and regulatory

framework in which they will have to

operate. Such need to be highlighted to

the private sector in Sri Lanka who are

still weary of potential fallouts associated

with investing in the war-affected regions

of the country; and are only now being

sensitised to the critical role that they

can play in re-building the nation and

fostering durable peace.

Closely related to this is the need to

cultivate a positive attitude towards state

structures, administrative structures, public

service and international institutions.

Hence, these two considerations ought to

be integral to Sri Lanka’s foreign policy

strategy, which would necessarily involve

both direct bilateral and multilateral

engagement with relevant foreign powers

and world bodies.

In Sri Lanka, the need for economic

prosperity or at least movement away

from abject poverty and economic

hopelessness is pivotal to moving

towards reconciliation and peace

building if the spirit of peace is to not

falter and be extinguished. It is the private

sector that can provide in the long-term

economic growth opportunities, jobs and

wealth creation.

20 April, 2013

Salma Yusuf is a human rights lawyer based

in Sri Lanka and a visiting lecturer at the

University of Colombo. She is also a member

of JUST.

GLOBALISATION ISN’T JUST ABOUT PROFITS. IT’S ABOUT TAXES TOOBy Joseph Stiglitz

Big corporates are gaming one nation’s

taxpayers against another’s: we need a

global deal to make them pay their way

The world looked on agog as Tim Cook,

the head of Apple, said his company had

paid all the taxes owed - seeming to say

that it paid all the taxes it should have

paid. There is, of course, a big difference

between the two. It’s no surprise that a

company with the resources and

ingenuity of Apple would do what it

could to avoid paying as much tax as it

could within the law. While the supreme

court, in its Citizens United case seems

to have said that corporations are people,

with all the rights attendant thereto, this

legal fiction didn’t endow corporations

with a sense of moral responsibility; and

they have the Plastic Man capacity to be

everywhere and nowhere at the same time

- to be everywhere when it comes to

selling their products, and nowhere when

it comes to reporting the profits derived

from those sales.

Apple, like Google, has benefited

enormously from what the US and other

western governments provide: highly

educated workers trained in universities

that are supported both directly by

government and indirectly (through

generous charitable deductions). The

basic research on which their products

rest was paid for by taxpayer-supported

developments - the internet, without

which they couldn’t exist. Their

prosperity depends in part on our legal

system - including strong enforcement

of intellectual property rights; they asked

(and got) government to force countries

around the world to adopt our standards,

in some cases, at great costs to the lives

and development of those in emerging

markets and developing countries. Yes,

they brought genius and organisational

skills, for which they justly receive kudos.

But while Newton was at least modest

enough to note that he stood on the

shoulders of giants, these titans of

industry have no compunction about

being free riders, taking generously from

the benefits afforded by our system, but

not willing to contribute commensurately.

Without public support, the wellspring

from which future innovation and growth

will come will dry up - not to say what will

happen to our increasingly divided society.

It is not even true that higher corporate tax

rates would necessarily significantly

decrease investment. As Apple has shown,


10


it can finance anything it wants to with debt

- including paying dividends, another ploy

to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

But interest payments are tax deductible -

which means that to the extent that

investment is debt-financed, the cost of

capital and returns are both changed

commensurately, with no adverse effect on

investment. And with the low rate of

taxation on capital gains, returns on equity

are treated even more favorably. Still more

benefits accrue from other details of the tax

code, such as accelerated depreciation and

the tax treatment of research and

development expenditures.

It is time the international community faced

the reality: we have an unmanageable,

unfair, distortionary global tax regime. It is

a tax system that is pivotal in creating the

increasing inequality that marks most

advanced countries today - with America

standing out in the forefront and the UK

not far behind. It is the starving of the public

sector which has been pivotal in America

no longer being the land of opportunity

with a child’s life prospects more dependent

on the income and education of its parents

than in other advanced countries.

Globalisation has made us increasingly

interdependent. These international

corporations are the big beneficiaries of

globalisation - it is not, for instance, the

average American worker and those in

many other countries, who, partly under

the pressure from globalisation, has seen

his income fully adjusted for inflation,

including the lowering of prices that

globalisation has brought about, fall year

after year, to the point where a fulltime male

worker in the US has an income lower than

four decades ago. Our multinationals have

learned how to exploit globalisation in every

sense of the term - including exploiting the

tax loopholes that allow them to evade their

global social responsibilities.

The US could not have a functioning

corporate income tax system if we had

elected to have a transfer price system

(where firms “make up” the prices of goods

and services that one part buys from

another, allowing profits to be booked to

one state or another). As it is, Apple is

evidently able to move profits around to

avoid Californian state taxes. The US has

developed a formulaic system, where

global profits are allocated on the basis of

employment, sales and capital goods. But

there is plenty of room to further fine-tune

the system in response to the easier ability

to shift profits around when a major source

of the real “value-added” is intellectual

property.

Some have suggested that while the

sources of production (value added) are

difficult to identify, the destination is less

so (though with reshipping, this may not

be so clear); they suggest a destination-

based system. But such a system would

not necessarily be fair - providing no

revenues to the countries that have borne

the costs of production. But a destination

system would clearly be better than the

current one.

Even if the US were not rewarded for its

global publicly supported scientific

contributions and the intellectual

property built on them, at least the

country would be rewarded for its

unbridled consumerism, which provides

incentives for such innovation. It would

be good if there could be an international

agreement on the taxation of corporate

profits. In the absence of such an

agreement, any country that threatened

to impose fair corporate taxes would be

punished - production (and jobs) would

be taken elsewhere. In some cases,

countries can call their bluff. Others may

feel the risk is too high. But what cannot

be escaped are customers.

The US by itself could go a long way to

moving reform along: any firm selling goods

there could be obliged to pay a tax on its

global profits, at say a rate of 30%, based

on a consolidated balance sheet, but with

a deduction for corporate profits taxes paid

in other jurisdictions (up to some limit). In

other words, the US would set itself up as

enforcing a global minimum tax regime.

Some might opt out of selling in the US,

but I doubt that many would.

The problem of multinational corporate

tax avoidance is deeper, and requires

more profound reform, including dealing

with tax havens that shelter money for

tax-evaders and facilitate money-

laundering. Google and Apple hire the

most talented lawyers, who know how to

avoid taxes staying within the law. But

there should be no room in our system

for countries that are complicitous in tax

avoidance. Why should taxpayers in

Germany help bail out citizens in a

country whose business model was

based on tax avoidance and a race to the

bottom - and why should citizens in any

country allow their companies to take

advantage of these predatory countries?

To say that Apple or Google simply took

advantage of the current system is to let

them off the hook too easily: the system

didn’t just come into being on its own. It

was shaped from the start by lobbyists

from large multinationals. Companies like

General Electric lobbied for, and got,

provisions that enabled them to avoid

even more taxes. They lobbied for, and

got, amnesty provisions that allowed

them to bring their money back to the US

at a special low rate, on the promise that

the money would be invested in the

country; and then they figured out how

to comply with the letter of the law, while

avoiding the spirit and intention. If Apple

and Google stand for the opportunities

afforded by globalisation, their attitudes

towards tax avoidance have made them

emblematic of what can, and is, going

wrong with that system.

28 May, 2013

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Laureate is

economics.

Source: Readersupportednews.org

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

11

The Alliance offers a combination of

public and private money to African

countries willing to take the G8 plunge

into international political-economic

duplicity, with, ACB and “the large

multinational seed, fertiliser and

agrochemical companies setting the

agenda … and philanthropic institutions

(like AGRA and others) establishing the

institutional and infrastructural

mechanisms to realise this agenda”.

Britain has pledged £395 million of foreign

aid whilst, according to the UN “over 45

local and multinational companies have

expressed their intent to invest over $3

billion across the agricultural value chain

in Grow Africa countries [a Programme of

the New Partnership for Africa’s

Development (NEPAD) established by the

African Union in 2003.].” In order to get

their hands on some of the corporations,

billions however, African nations are

required to “change their seed laws, trade

laws and land ownership in order to

prioritise corporate profits over local food

needs”, Mozambique for example is

contracted, the Guardian tells us to

“systematically cease distribution of free

and unimproved seeds”, and is drawing

up new laws granting intellectual property

rights (IPR) of seeds, that will “promote

private sector investment”. In other

words, laws are being written that allow

foreign companies – ‘investors’ (a word

used to mislead and bestow legitimacy) -

to grab the land of their African ‘partners’,

patent their seeds and monopolise their

food markets. In Ghana, Tanzania and

Ivory Coast, similar regulations sit on the

table waiting to be rubber-stamped.

The re-writing of seed laws, along with

the fact that these unbalanced deals allow

“big multinational seed, fertiliser and

agrochemical companies such as Yara,

Monsanto, Syngenta and Cargill to set

the agenda”, is a major concern expressed

by environmental NGO’s and

campaigners, Reuters (20/06/2013) report.

These are concerns that the initiating G8

governments, were they at all troubled by

the impact of their meddling, should share.

The wide ownership, by a small number

of huge agro-chemical companies of the

rights to seeds and fertilisers, is creating,

the UN in its report on the Right to Food,

state: “monopoly privileges to plant

breeders and patent-holders through the

tools of intellectual property”. This

growing trend, facilitated through the

support of the G8 governments is placing

more and more control of the worldwide

food supply in their hands, and is causing,

“the poorest farmers [to] become

increasingly dependent on expensive

inputs, creating the risk of indebtedness in

the face of unstable incomes.” India is a

case in question where farmers strangled

by debt are committing suicide at a rate of

two per hour.

Investment Support Sharing

African farmers, and civil society along

with 25 British campaign groups including

War on Want (WoW), Friends of the

Earth (FoE), The Gaia Foundation and the

World Development Movement, have

declared their objections to the New

Alliance and asked that the government

withhold the £395 million so generously

pledged by Prime Minister David

Cameron. African civil societies are in no

doubt that “opening markets and creating

space for multinationals to secure profits

lie at the heart of the G8 intervention”,

they “recognise the New Alliance is a

poisoned chalice, and they are right to

reject it”, asserts Kirtana Chandrasekaran

of Friends of the Earth (FoE).

Having made a continental mess of their

own countries’ economies, not to

mention the environmental mayhem

caused by their neo-liberal economic

policies, it is with unabashed colonial

arrogance that the G8 governments deem

to tell African countries what to do with

their land and how best to do it. Not only

do they have no genuine interest in

Africa, save what can be gained from it,

but they have “no legitimacy to intervene

in matters of food, hunger and land tenure

in Africa or any other part of the world”,

as WoW make clear. The New Alliance,

according to David Cameron, is “a great

combination of promoting good

governance and helping Africa to feed

its people”. He and the rest of the G8 are

as FoE states, “pretending to be tackling

hunger and land grabbing in Africa while

backing a scheme that will ruin the lives

of hundreds of thousands of small

farmers”. This new deal is “a pro-

corporate assault on African nations”,

providing ‘investment and support‘

opportunities for greedy investors,

looking to further expand their corporate

assets with the support of participating

governments obliged to provide a

selection box of state incentives.

The ending of hunger in sub-Saharan

Africa, India and elsewhere, will not be

brought about by allowing large tracts

of land to be bought up by corporations

whose only interest is in maximizing

return on investment. Far from providing

investment and support for the people

of Africa, The Alliance is a mask for

exploitation and profiteering. True

investment in Africa is, investment in the

people of Africa; the smallholder farmers,

the women and children, the communities

across the continent. It involves working

collectively, consulting, encouraging

participation and crucially sharing.

Sharing of knowledge, experience and

technology, sharing the natural

resources – the land, food and water, the

minerals and other resources equitably

amongst the people of Africa and indeed

the wider world. Such radical,

commonsense ideas would go a long way

to creating not only food security but

harmony, trust and social justice which

just might bring about peace.

27 June, 2013

Part I of this article appeared in the August

2013 JUST Commentary.

Graham Peebles is Director of The Create

Trust, www.thecreatetrust.org.

Source: Countercurrents.org

COMMERCIAL COLONISATION OF AFRICA: THE NEW WILD WEST (PART II)By Graham Peebles

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 Chequeaddressed to:

International Movement for a Just WorldP.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

or direct to our bank account:Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya MainBranch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya,Selangor Darul Ehsan,MALAYSIA

Account No. 5141 6917 0716

Donations from outside Malaysia should be madeby 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 tosimilar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if youcould share this copy of the JUST Com-mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-ter still invite him/her to write to JUSTso that we can put his/her name on ourCommentary mailing list.

TERBITAN BERKALA

just commentary september 2013

Documents

us war

entire world

death war

clouds of war

afratricidal world war

n t e r n

t i o n

entire nation