A FORUM TO EXCHANGE VIEWS AND IDEAS
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label Chandra Muzaffar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chandra Muzaffar. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
The Syrian Conflict: Qaradawi's Incitement To Violence
By Chandra Muzaffar
03 June, 2013
Countercurrents.org
Any human being who abhors violence and bloodshed would be shocked by remarks made by a leading religious personality, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi, on the 1st of June 2013. At a rally in Doha, he urged Sunni Muslims in the region to go to Syria and fight the Bashar al-Assad government and its supporters, the Hezbollah and Iran. He regarded it as a “jihad.” He claimed that Iran and the Hezbollah want to exterminate, to “devour” the Sunnis. Between Sunnis and Shias, he insisted, there was no common ground.
Qaradawi’s remarks came in the midst of the ongoing critical battle between Syrian government forces and rebels for control of the key border town of Qasair. The Lebanese based Hezbollah is helping government forces. A large number of foreign militants are fighting on the side of the rebels.
Inciting Sunnis to fight Shias will only escalate a bloody conflict that has already claimed tens of thousands of lives. Religious leaders in particular should lend their moral weight to efforts to achieve a political solution. They should be imploring all sides to cease fighting immediately.
Besides, Qaradawi should know that the conflict in Syria is not a simple Sunni-Shia clash. It is rooted in the larger politics of hegemony, Israel and the tussle for power among regional actors. It began as a peaceful protest against Assad’s authoritarian rule in March 2011. Assad reacted with harsh reprisals. Within a couple of weeks, groups and individuals from some neighbouring countries started to supply arms to a segment of the protesters perhaps at the behest of the centres of power in the West and Israel who have always sought to eliminate the Assad government which in the context of its close ties with both Hezbollah and Iran is seen as a challenge to their control and dominance of the region. Indeed, Iran, Hezbollah and the Assad government constitute the only organised, sustained resistance to the US-British-French and Israeli attempt to perpetuate their hegemonic hold over West Asia and North Africa (WANA). It was Hezbollah, it will be recalled, that drove Israel out of Lebanon from 2000 onwards, and in 2006, thwarted its diabolical design to gain control over Lebanon. It is this party, Hezbollah( the party of God) that Qaradawi in his Doha speech described as “the party of shaitan ( satan).”
Because these forces of resistance happen to be Shia, close allies of the Western powers in WANA who happen to be Sunni, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are trying very hard to project the resistance as a Shia attempt to dominate the region. As a result, the more significant issues of Western hegemony, resistance within WANA and the role of Israel which continues to occupy the Golan Heights in Syria, are all submerged in a cleverly contrived Sunni-Shia narrative. Of course, Sunni-Shia differences have existed for a long while and have on occasions coloured politics in the region in the past. But it was only after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which represented a major challenge to Western hegemony and Israeli interests that these differences have been accentuated and manipulated mainly by US ally, Saudi Arabia, to divide Sunnis from Shias.
It is against this backdrop that we should view Qaradawi’s remarks. There was a time when he had a positive attitude towards Sunni-Shia rapprochement. But when some Western states began to re-assert their power in WANA in the midst of the Arab uprisings, Qaradawi appeared to legitimise their role. He was among the earliest public figures to endorse NATO’s air strikes over Libya. In the middle of last year he even opined that if the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came back today, he would support NATO. This earned him the derisive moniker ‘NATO Mufti’ among some Arab commentators.
It is Qaradawi’s legitimisation of Western hegemony by invoking religious authority that makes his role so perfidious. What is worse, he has been appealing to sectarian religious sentiments which pit Muslim against Muslim, which have led to murders and massacres on a massive scale, in order to perpetuate the interests of both regional actors and global powers. It is a glaring example of the crude abuse of religion by someone who dons the garb of religion.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). Malaysia.
Custodian Of The Custodian Of The Custodian
By Chandra Muzaffar
21 August, 2012
Countercurrents.org
Muslims and Muslim governments are angry with Bashar al-Assad. They hold him responsible for the massacre of thousands of people, many of them innocent civilians, in Syria. They want him to go.
It is true that Bashar’s army has killed a lot of people. It has used excessive force --- as I have pointed out in a number of articles before this. Anyone with a conscience would condemn the mindless violence that has bloodied Syria in the last 17 months.
But Bashar’s violence is only one side of the story. The armed rebels opposed to him have also massacred thousands. How else can one explain the fact that almost one-third of the 17,000 people killed so far in the conflict are from the army and related security agencies?
The rebels are not only well equipped with a range of weapons and communication apparatus but are also supported by logistical routes developed by the CIA and intelligence provided by Mossad. Their weapons are delivered through “a shadowy network of intermediaries, including the Muslim Brotherhood,” and “are paid for by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.” Since April 2012, hundreds, perhaps even a few thousand, militants, some linked to Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, from Iraq, Libya, Tunisia and Jordan have crossed over into Syria to fight the Bashar government in what they perceive as a “jihad.” It is reported that out of 200 rebels captured in Aleppo recently, 70 were foreign fighters.
The mainstream media in most Muslim majority states have not highlighted these aspects of the Syrian conflict. Neither have they subjected to scrutiny the authenticity of the news they carry on the conflict and the sources of the news items. As a case in point, the Houla massacre of 25 May 2012 was widely publicised all over the world as an example of the brutal, barbaric character of the Bashar government. Scores of children were allegedly butchered by his militia. A picture of a large number of dead children “wrapped in white shrouds with a child jumping over one of them” was offered as proof of the heinous crime. The picture was actually from the war in Iraq in 2003. The photographer himself, Marco Di Lauro of Getty Images, came out in the open to expose the fabrication. In fact, the Houla massacre itself was “committed by anti-Assad Sunni militants, and the bulk of the victims were members of the Alawi and Shia minorities, which have been largely supportive of the Assad”, according to the leading German daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ).
Houla is not the only case. A Christian nun, Mother Agnes-Mariam de la Croix of the St. James Monastery has published on the monastery’s website, an account of armed rebels gathering Christian and Alawi hostages in a building in the Khalidiya neighbourhood in Homs, and blowing it up with dynamite. The rebels then put the blame for the crime upon the Syrian army. There is also the story of Zainab al-Hosni, allegedly abducted by government forces and burnt to death. A few weeks later, Zainab appeared on Syrian television to nail the lie about her. The most widely quoted source for the alleged atrocities committed by the Syrian government is of course the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) which is a one man operation run by a Rami Abdul Rahman from Coventry, England. His statistics have been challenged on a number of occasions by Syrian analysts who have shown why his reporting is unreliable.
It is disappointing that most Muslim governments and NGOs are oblivious to all this and focus only upon Bashar’s wrongdoings. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at its emergency summit held in Mecca on 14 August 2012 reflected this biased approach to the Syrian conflict by condemning only the government while exonerating the armed rebels. A few states such as Algeria, Kazakhstan and Pakistan called for a balanced statement from the summit that would also apportion blame upon the armed opposition but their plea was ignored. Worse, Syria which was suspended from the OIC at the summit was not even invited to the meeting and given a chance to defend itself. It was denied the most elementary principle of natural justice. It is a right that is fundamental to Islamic jurisprudence.
Why has the Muslim world as a whole, especially its elites and its intelligentsia, adopted such a blatantly biased and starkly unjust position on Syria? Is it because many are ignorant of what is really happening in that country, given the orientation of the mainstream media? Or is it because Muslims revere the Saudi monarch so much --- he is after all the custodian of the two holy mosques--- that they are convinced that in seeking the elimination of Bashar al-Assad he is doing what is morally right? Or is it because many Muslim elites are beholden to Saudi wealth --- and Qatari largesse ---- that they are prepared to acquiesce in their wishes? Or is it also because of certain sectarian sentiments that Muslims appear to be incensed with the Bashar government?
It is these sentiments that I shall now explore. For many months now a segment of Sunni ulama (religious elites) in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and certain other states have been attacking Bashar as an Alawite leader who is oppressing the Sunni majority. Since Alawites are a branch of Shia Islam, the target has been Shia teachings and the Shia sect. Given the standing of these ulama, their vitriolic utterances have succeeded in inflaming the passions of some Sunni youth who view Bashar and his circle as infidels who should be fought and defeated at all costs. Even the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has now joined the bandwagon and accuses Shias of theological deviance and malpractices.
It is important to observe in this regard that in the context of Syria there is no rigid Shia-Sunni dichotomy. The Sunnis given their numerical strength dominate the army, the public services and the private sector. Some of the most critical positions in Syrian society are held by Sunnis. The Grand Mufti of Syria for instance is a Sunni of the Shafie doctrinal school. Indeed, sectarian, or for that matter, religious affiliation has very little weight in society. In many ways, Syria is a society that has sought to de-emphasise religious and sectarian loyalties and nurture a notion of common citizenship. Since the beginning of the conflict, it is the Western media that have been preoccupied with the so-called Sunni-Shia divide and appear to be deliberately stoking sectarian sentiments. The Arab media has followed suit.
The way in which Sunni-Shia sentiments are now being manipulated convinces me that geopolitics rather than sectarian loyalties is the motivating force. If sectarian loyalties are really that important, how does one explain the close ties that the Sunni Saudi elite enjoyed with the Shia Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, in the sixties and much of the seventies? Was it because the Shah was the gendarme of the US and the West in the Persian Gulf and an ally of Israel? Was this the reason why the Saudis could get along so well with the Iranian elite? Isn’t it revealing that it was only when the Shah was ousted in a popular revolution in 1979 and the new Islamic leaders of Iran rejected American hegemony over the region and challenged the legitimacy of the Israeli entity, that Saudi relations with Iran took a turn for the worse?
Saudi animosity towards the new independent minded Iran was so great that it bankrolled the Iraqi instigated war against Iran from 1980 to 1988. The primary goal of that war was to strangulate Iran’s Islamic Revolution at its birth. The war brought together a number of pro-US Arab states with the notable exception of Syria. Needless to say the US and other Western powers aided and abetted this anti-Iran coalition. It was during this time that anti-Shia propaganda was exported from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and other parts of South and Southeast Asia. Groups within the Shia community also began to respond to these attacks by churning out their own anti-Sunni literature.
In spite of the relentless opposition to it, Iran, much to the chagrin of its adversaries in the region and in the West, has continued to grow from strength to strength, especially in the diplomatic and military spheres. One of its major achievements is the solid link it has forged with Syria, on the one hand, and the Hezbollah in Lebanon, on the other. It is the most significant resistance link that has emerged --- resistance to Israel and US hegemony--- in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) in recent decades.
Israel, the US and other Western powers such as Britain and France, and actors in WANA like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, are worried. The Iran helmed resistance has increased their apprehension in light of five other related developments.
One, Iran’s nuclear capability. Though Iranian leaders have declared on a number of occasions that they regard the manufacture and use of a nuclear bomb as haram (prohibited), there is no doubt that the country’s nuclear capability has been enhanced considerably in recent years.
Two, the inability of Israel to defeat Hezbollah and gain control over Lebanon which it regards as its frontline defence. This was proven again in 2006 and today Hezbollah is in a more decisive position in Lebanese politics than it was six years ago.
Three, the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 and the introduction of electoral democracy which has led to the rise of Shia political power. Shia political elites in Iraq are by and large inclined towards Iran, which the US sees as a huge setback for its hegemonic ambitions in the region.
Four, the Arab uprisings, especially those that are mass based, like in Tunisia and Egypt, have raised questions about the shape of democratic politics in the region in the coming years. Will it give rise to the emergence of Islamic movements that challenge the legitimacy of Israel, US hegemony and the role of feudal monarchies in WANA? Or, would it be possible to co-opt the new Islamic actors into the status quo?
Five, how will all these changes unfold in a situation where US hegemony is declining? How will Israel and the other states in WANA that are dependent upon US power for the perpetuation of their interests fare when the US is no longer able to protect them as it did in the past?
For Israel in particular all these developments in WANA portend a less secure neighbourhood. Total control and predictability are crucial elements in Israel’s notion of security. It is because of its obsession with security that guarantees control over its neighbourhood that it is determined to break the link between Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah. It reckons that if Bashar is ousted that link would be broken.
This was obvious in the conversation between Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Russian President, Vladimir Putin, as reported by the respected Jewish journalist, Israel Shamir. Netanyahu made it clear that Israel preferred “the Somalisation of Syria, its break-up and the elimination of its army.” Bashar’s successor ---- after his ouster--- he stressed “must break with Iran.” Netanyahu gave the impression that Israel was in a position to “influence the rebels.”
Since this is Israel’s agenda for Syria, all the moves and manoeuvres of states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to eliminate Bashar would be very much in line with what Israel wants. Any wonder then that both Israeli leaders and its media welcomed the suspension of Syria from the OIC. In this regard, Israel would have been thrilled to read a pronouncement by Al-Qaradawi in May 2012, widely reported in the WANA media that “If the Prophet Muhammad was alive today, he would lend his support to NATO.”
More than endorsement from within the region, what Israel has always been confident about is the patronage and protection of the US and most of Europe. On Syria, and in the ultimate analysis, on Iran, the Israeli political and military elites know that the centres of power in the West share its diabolical agenda. Indeed, it is Israel that determines the US’s position on critical issues pertaining to WANA. It is the tail that wags the dog.
Israel’s relationship with a major Arab state like Saudi Arabia, (with whom it has no formal diplomatic ties) on the one hand, and the US, on the other, tells us a great deal about who is in charge of who. The Kenyan- American scholar, Professor Ali Mazrui, once described the Saudi-US nexus this way: the problem with the custodian of the Holy Mosques is that there is a custodian of the custodian.
If I may add, since it is Israel that decides US foreign policy in WANA, it may not be inaccurate to say that there is a custodian of the custodian of the custodian.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). Malaysia.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Iran: The Price of Resistance
By Chandra Muzaffar
28 January, 2012
European Union foreign ministers have agreed to a full-fledged embargo on all imports of Iranian crude oil. Towards this end, various measures will be adopted gradually from 23 rd January to 1 st July 2012 . In December 2011, the US Congress (with a 100 to 0 vote in the Senate) presented a mandatory sanctions package to President Obama which starting June 2012 will prohibit any third-country banks and companies from dealing with Iran's Central Bank. Both the EU and US moves, it is alleged, are aimed at pressurising Iran to stop its so-called ‘nuclear weapons' programme through the emasculation of its oil exports which account for more than 80% of its national revenue.
Nuclear Weapons Programme
The first question we should ask is: Does Iran have a nuclear weapons programme? The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) --- its mischievous attempt to raise doubts about Iran 's nuclear energy programme notwithstanding--- admits in its November 2011 Report that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. Incidentally, every nuclear installation in Iran has been inspected hundreds of times by the IAEA making them the most thoroughly inspected nuclear facilities on earth! Even the US 's own classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 2011--- which the well-known investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, had exposed in May 2011--- states quite clearly that Iran is not producing nuclear weapons and had in fact halted such a programme way back in 2003. NIE 2011 in a sense reiterates what is contained in NIE 2007.
Of course, Iran continues to enrich uranium up to the 20% level required for the production of medical isotopes. This is far below the 85% plus necessary to manufacture a nuclear bomb. Every major leader in Iran has emphasised over and over again that they have no intention of making a bomb. They regard it --- rightly--- as haram (or prohibited in Islam).
Because its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes--- medical research and electricity---- the Iranian government agreed to a nuclear fuel swap deal initiated by Brazil and Turkey in May 2010 which would have seen Iran shipping low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for fuel for a research reactor. The Western powers and Israel rejected the deal.
Their rejection underscores the stark hypocrisy that surrounds the entire issue of Iran 's nuclear programme. If it is nuclear weapons that they are concerned about why didn't they accept a deal that would have, to a large extent, curbed any clandestine move by Iran to produce such weapons? Or, are certain Western powers and Israel against Iran producing nuclear energy even for peaceful purposes --- a right that Iran possesses as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
It is important to raise these questions for two other reasons. One, the countries that are most vocal in demanding that Iran terminate its uranium enrichment programme are all nuclear weapon states. The US has an arsenal of more than 5000 nuclear warheads while Israel, an undeclared nuclear state---- the only nuclear weapon state in West Asia and North Africa (WANA)--- has perhaps between 200 and 400 warheads. Two, countries such as the US, Britain, France and even Israel had no qualms about assisting Iran to launch its nuclear programme in the fifties when it was under the Shah, Reza Pahlavi. US President, Dwight Eisenhower, saw it as an “atoms for peace” enterprise. One does not have to second guess why they were all so enthusiastic about the Shah's nuclear energy programme---- because the dictator was their gendarme in that corner of WANA, protecting their strategic, political and oil interests with all his brutal might.
Why did the West and Israel change their attitude towards Iran 's nuclear programme? Was it because an Islamic Revolution had occurred in Iran in 1979? Was Islam the decisive factor? Islam per se was not the major reason for the change in attitude. After all, the West counts as its allies a number of countries that view themselves as ‘Islamic States' and subscribe to a somewhat narrow, exclusive idea of Islam and Muslim identity. Saudi Arabia , Qatar and most of the Gulf Sheikhdoms would be outstanding examples. Colluding and collaborating with these states and other Islamic movements has never been a problem for the centres of power in the West.
Independence
The real reason why the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear programme became anathema for the West and Israel was because of Iran 's defence of its independence and integrity in the face of US and Western hegemony. The Islamic Republic under the guidance of its charismatic leader Ayatollah Khomeini was not prepared to submit to US dominance or acquiesce with Israeli arrogance. From the outset --- from 1979 itself--- Iran was determined to manage its own destiny which is why it nationalised oil and strengthened its self-reliance.
In an earlier period--- in 1953 to be exact--- another Iranian leader, this time a highly principled secular democrat, Mohammad Mosaddegh, had also sought to assert Iranian independence and sovereignty by nationalising oil. This incurred the wrath of the British and American elites whose companies dominated the local oil industry. With the help of their intelligence services, they managed to oust Mosaddegh from his Prime Ministership and restore full authority to the Shah.
Others in WANA, at different times and in different circumstances, have also paid the price for resisting dominance.Gamal Nasser in Egypt, HouriBoumediene in Algeria, Hafiz Assad in Syria, Yasser Arafat in Palestine (and other Palestinian freedom fighters), Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, had all at some point or other in their lives refused to yield to hegemonic power. Today, there are leaders like Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon , Khalil Meshal in Palestine , and Bashar Assad in Syria who continue to resist Israeli power and US hegemony and are therefore targeted by Tel Aviv and Washington.
It is appropriate to observe at this juncture that resistance to US hegemony has had a longer and perhaps more tragic history in parts of Latin America . From Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti to Salvador Allende, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez,Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa these and other illustrious leaders have unflinchingly opposed attempts by the US elite to subjugate the people of Latin America and subordinate the continent to the whims and fancies of its northern neighbour. Indeed, today there is a new determination in Latin America to strengthen the independence of individual states and of the region as a whole through cooperation and collective action that is both innovative and dynamic.
There is no doubt at all that it is Iran 's refusal to be subservient to the US , Israel and their allies, its readiness to resist, that has incensed the powers-that-be. It explains why they are going all out to emasculate the Iranian economy, manufacture mass disaffection with the government and, at the right moment, engineer a regime change. The excuse they are using for this manipulation is of course Iran 's unproven nuclear weapons programme. In the scenario that is unfolding before our eyes, there are shades of the build-up that led to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein 2003.
Targeting Iran
While Iran's desire to remain independent has been a prominent feature of the nation's personality since the Revolution 33 years ago, there must be situations and circumstances that are more current and contemporarywhich have given rise tothisobsession in Tel Aviv and in certain Western capitals with the targeting and taming of Iran.What are these situations and circumstances? There are many. We shall highlight some of them.
1. In the wake of the Arab uprising, the Israeli elite has become extremely apprehensive about the state's security and its future. It is afraid that popular movements sweeping through WANA would eventually challenge the legitimacy of the Israeli regime. Though Israel's protector, the US, has sought assurances from some of the Islamic parties that have come to power that they will not question the Israeli presence, the Israeli elite regards the increasing influence of states and movements in WANA that are firmly opposed to Israeli suppression of Palestinian rights--- the most powerful of which is of course Iran--- as a huge threat to Israel's very existence. This is why it wants its protector, buttressed by its European allies, to castrate Iran immediately.
2. This fear has increased dramatically in recent months with the economic decline of its protector and the economic crisis embroiling various European states. Israel knows that the US 's decline is part of a general decline which in a sense is irreversible and would therefore want its protector to act decisively against Israel 's foes like Iran now when the US still has the military muscle rather than wait until it is too late. For the US elite itself, the most serious implication of its decline is its loss of control over WANA, the world's major oil exporting region which is, at the same time, of tremendous geostrategic significance. When hegemonic powers are losing their dominance, do they not become more bellicose in attempting to perpetuate their power and privilege? Should we be surprised when they turn against other actors on the ascendancy who are perceived as the cause of their decline?
3. For both the US and Israeli elites and European leaders allied to them, it is Iran which is the lynchpin of the challenge to their hegemony over WANA. Iran maintains a tried and tested link to the Syrian leadership and to the Hezbollah in Lebanon . Hamas is also to a certain degree part of this link which in broad terms constitutes the resistance to US-Israel hegemony. As the fulcrum of this resistance, Iran has displayed remarkable tenacity--- a tenacity which is now expressing itself in its ability to take on US drones and US spies and to openly challenge US military power. Similarly, the Syrian crisis, orchestrated to a large extent by external forces, has revealed the resilience of the Bashar Assad government. Likewise, in defending Lebanon against the Israeli assault in 2006, the Hezbollah showed that it possesses both strategic depth and immense courage which in the end thwarted the Israeli agenda. Both Israel and the US are determined to not only break the link of resistance but also to crush each of the component elements of the link.
4. What has strengthened their determination to act against Iran in particular is the situation in Iraq . The Israeli and US elites had hoped that the conquest of Iraq would help to create a new environment in WANA which would reinforce their grip over oil and strengthen their geostrategic position in the region through a subservient leadership in Baghdad eager to do their bidding. Given Iraq 's importance, the Baghdad leadership, they reckoned, would succeed in shaping an atmosphere in the region conducive to Israel even if it were at the cost of Palestinian self-determination. However, things have not worked according to plan. WhileUS and British companies have managed to secure lucrative oil deals, Israeli and US elites have failed to gain political control over Iraq . A nation that is politically unstable, socially chaotic and deeply divided along sectarian lines, there is endless jockeying for power among contending groups. In the midst of this maelstrom, most of the groups within the majority Shia community seem to have gravitated towards Shia Iran . Shia affinity has undoubtedly smoothened the forging of political ties across the Iraq-Iran border. Recent political developments in Iraq indicate that the influence that emanates from these ties is considerable. It is this that annoys and angers the Israeli, US and British elites. Their political defeat in Iraq which is a major setback for them in WANA and beyond is one of the primary reasons why they are now training their guns on Iran .
5. Iran 's influence over Iraq has also riled some regional actors. The monarchical elite in Saudi Arabia , with its Wahabi orientation, often manifests an almost visceral hatred towards the Shia sect. Some Saudi leaders regard it as their duty to defend the Sunni majority against the rising Shia tide. They are not alone in perceiving growing Shia influence and power --- in Iraq , in Syria through the Alawite elite, in Lebanon via Hezbollah, and in Bahrain--- as a mortal threat to the Sunnis. The Qatari leadership and even some Turkish politicians and intellectuals have begun to ring the alarm bells. The latter, it is said, are backing some hard-line Sunnis in Iraq . These anti-Shia sentiments which are spreading quite rapidly in WANA have heightened the antagonism towards Iran . They have strengthened the hand of the US and Israel and their European allies as they prepare to move against the Iranian Republic .
6. For the US curbing Iran 's influence goes beyond WANA. Iran has become close to Russia in the last couple of years. The relationship is strategic and economic especially since they have overlapping interests in Central Asia and the Caspian region. Russia itself is re-asserting its power in Eastern Europe , Central Asia , West Asia and South Asia , much to the chagrin of the US . That is why it is uneasy about a Russian-Iranian nexus developing in the future.
7. Of even greater significance to the US 's hegemonic agenda is the relationship between Iran and China . Largely economic in nature, China imports 9% of its oil and 15% of its gas from Iran . China has massive investments in the oil and gas industry in Iran , and is helping to upgrade its infrastructure in general. Since access to energy is critical for China 's development, the US which is determined to contain China , is keen on exercising control over China 's sources of energy supply. What this means is that curtailing Iran 's oil and gas exports may in fact be part of a larger agenda whose principal goal is the containment of China , the nation that the US and the West view as the most formidable challenge ever to their centuries old dominance.
8. Iran 's expanding ties with various Latin American countries also irks the US . Countries such as Cuba , Venezuela , Nicaragua , Ecuador , Bolivia and Brazil , among others have become good friends of Iran in recent years. Most of these states are opposed to US dominance over Latin America . A couple of them have become very critical of Israeli occupation of Palestine . Since Venezuela and Ecuador are also major oil exporters, the US is worried that the ties that Iran , also an important oil exporter, is forging with them could enhance their collective clout in the global economy to the detriment of the US . This is yet another reason why the US sees Iran as a challenge to its hegemonic power.
9. It is not just because of Iran 's ties with oil exporting states in Latin America or its export of oil to China that oil is also a factor that explains the targeting of Iran . As one of the top five oil exporters in the world, Iran is an attractive destination for a lot of oil companies especially from the US --- a country which has been excluded from Iran 's petroleum sector for more than three decades. According to petroleum experts there are oil and gas fields that have yet to be explored fully. There is also money to be made from infrastructure investments. US and other Western oil firms are hungering to go in--- just as they moved into Iraq after the invasion in 2003.
10. A final factor that is responsible for this fixation with Iran is perhaps the position of the US dollar. The dollar, needless to say, is one of the most crucial pillars of US global hegemony. This is the reason why any attempt to redefine its role as the world's principal reserve currency elicits an immediate response from US financial and political circles. In the last few years Iran has been steadily distancing itself from the US dollar in its trade transactions. At the end of December 2011, it signed an agreement with China that states that the Iranian rial and the Chinese yuan would be used in bilateral trade. In early January 2012, Iran made a similar arrangement with Russia , the rial and the rouble replacing the US dollar. Iran and India are holding discussions on moving out of dollar settlements. Trading in gold is an option they are considering. These moves by Iran have assumed great significance because others, including US allies, are abandoning the dollar in some of their bilateral trade arrangements. Japan and China , for instance, have announced that they will trade in yen and yuan.Because Iran is perceived as one of those nations pushing hard for the abandonment of the dollar, the US has her in its sights. It has been suggested that one of the reasons why the US decided to invade Iraq in 2003 was because Saddam Hussein had switched from the dollar to the euro for the sale of his country's oil.
Suffering; Mistakes
The ten points elaborated here prove that the US and its allies have zero tolerance for any challenge, however minor, to US hegemonic power or to the position of Israel . Those who resist their power and position will pay the price. In the last 30 odd years, Iran has paid the price of resistance in hundreds of ways. Less than a year after the Islamic Revolution, a war was imposed upon Iran --- a war led by the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, on behalf of all the Gulf Sheikhdoms, a number of other Arab states, the US, Britain, certain other Western governments, and even the Soviet Union. Though Iran 's adversaries had different motives, their common objective was to crush the Revolution which they saw as a challenge to their interests. A million lives were lost on both sides of the divide in the eight year war which emasculated the Iranian economy and sapped the nation's energy. In June 1981, a vicious bombexplosion wiped out some top political leaders, a huge number of parliamentarians, and leading figures in the Judiciary. This, and other subsequent terrorist attacks, it is alleged,were master-minded by a militant group operating from Iraq called the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. In recent years the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme has been subjected to a cyber- attack and four of its scientists have been assassinated. And for decades, Iran has been under US economic sanctions which have had a negative impact upon its development programme.
Indeed, very few countries have been subjected to the pain and suffering that Iran has gone through in the last 33 years. The perseverance and fortitude of the Iranian people, as we have alluded to, is awe-inspiring. And yet, an objective analysis of Iran 's response to hegemony would suggest that Iranian leaders and activists have also made serious mistakes. From the perspective of international law and diplomacy, it was clearly wrong of Iranian students to seize the US Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 and hold its occupants hostage for 444 days. Storming the British Embassy in the nation's capital on 29 November 2011 was also a foolish act for which Iran 's Minister of Foreign Affairs has apologised. Likewise, allegations of foul-play in the June 2009Presidential Election could have been better handled. The Iranian authorities should have countered those allegations by demonstrating their commitment to total electoral transparency and accountability. The language that the current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sometimes employs on matters of grave international significance is intemperate and injudicious. However difficult the situation maybe, there is no need to deliberately provoke or irritate one's enemies. As a case in point, though Ahmadinejad's oft-quoted remarks about Israel were distorted and twisted by the Western media and politicians, the Iranian President could have adopted a more mature yet principled stance vis-à-vis the Jewish state.
Hegemonic Agenda
Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Muhammad Khatami, proved that it was possible to defend Iran 's independence and dignity without being unduly confrontational. He sought to meet the challenge of hegemony by insisting upon dialogue among civilisations and the politics of inclusiveness. Khatami was prepared to talk to the US leadership. But instead of welcoming the offer of dialogue, US President, George Bush Junior, chose to castigate Iran as part of an “axis of evil.”
The demonization of Iran proves yet again that regardless of whether the target adopts a confrontational or conciliatory approach, the hegemon will continue to pursue its agenda. It is an agenda that has a power and potency of its own. In the context of WANA, Israel , it is so apparent, is the driving force behind US hegemonic power.
Making people everywhere aware of this and what its consequences are is one of the most urgent tasks at hand. This task is perhaps a little less difficult today compared to the past for two reasons. One, as we have stated a number of times before, US helmed hegemonic power is declining. People are becoming much more critical of US's global role now. Two, the citizens of WANA in particular are acutely conscious of what hegemonic intervention can lead to after witnessing the chaos and catastrophe that have befallen Iraq and Afghanistan . They are also beginning to sense--- after the initial euphoria---- that Libya may also be heading towards calamity. Foreign intervention they know is not the solution. It is the problem.
Immediate Measures
While mass consciousness building about the danger of hegemony as the ultimate repudiation of human dignity will take time, we could propose some immediate measures thatshould be taken to avert military strikes against Iran and to prevent a war in WANA. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping could through the UN Security Council suggest a new nuclear deal which would allow Iran limited uranium enrichment under strict supervision within a larger treaty signed by all the states in WANA and other leading powers that pledges to create a nuclear weapon free zone in the region within a certain time-frame. The manufacture, storage, saleand distribution of other weapons of mass destruction should also be prohibited. As the formulation of such a treaty begins in earnest, all sanctions against Iran should also be lifted. There are other challenges notably the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state and the status of Israel , which should also be resolved at the same time.
Is there still time to persuade the powers-that-be to consider proposals like this? Or is it already too late in the day? Is the hegemon--- or is Israel--- about to strike?
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and Professor of lobal Studies at UniversitiSains Malaysia .
Malaysia .
27 January 2012
28 January, 2012
European Union foreign ministers have agreed to a full-fledged embargo on all imports of Iranian crude oil. Towards this end, various measures will be adopted gradually from 23 rd January to 1 st July 2012 . In December 2011, the US Congress (with a 100 to 0 vote in the Senate) presented a mandatory sanctions package to President Obama which starting June 2012 will prohibit any third-country banks and companies from dealing with Iran's Central Bank. Both the EU and US moves, it is alleged, are aimed at pressurising Iran to stop its so-called ‘nuclear weapons' programme through the emasculation of its oil exports which account for more than 80% of its national revenue.
Nuclear Weapons Programme
The first question we should ask is: Does Iran have a nuclear weapons programme? The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) --- its mischievous attempt to raise doubts about Iran 's nuclear energy programme notwithstanding--- admits in its November 2011 Report that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. Incidentally, every nuclear installation in Iran has been inspected hundreds of times by the IAEA making them the most thoroughly inspected nuclear facilities on earth! Even the US 's own classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 2011--- which the well-known investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, had exposed in May 2011--- states quite clearly that Iran is not producing nuclear weapons and had in fact halted such a programme way back in 2003. NIE 2011 in a sense reiterates what is contained in NIE 2007.
Of course, Iran continues to enrich uranium up to the 20% level required for the production of medical isotopes. This is far below the 85% plus necessary to manufacture a nuclear bomb. Every major leader in Iran has emphasised over and over again that they have no intention of making a bomb. They regard it --- rightly--- as haram (or prohibited in Islam).
Because its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes--- medical research and electricity---- the Iranian government agreed to a nuclear fuel swap deal initiated by Brazil and Turkey in May 2010 which would have seen Iran shipping low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for fuel for a research reactor. The Western powers and Israel rejected the deal.
Their rejection underscores the stark hypocrisy that surrounds the entire issue of Iran 's nuclear programme. If it is nuclear weapons that they are concerned about why didn't they accept a deal that would have, to a large extent, curbed any clandestine move by Iran to produce such weapons? Or, are certain Western powers and Israel against Iran producing nuclear energy even for peaceful purposes --- a right that Iran possesses as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
It is important to raise these questions for two other reasons. One, the countries that are most vocal in demanding that Iran terminate its uranium enrichment programme are all nuclear weapon states. The US has an arsenal of more than 5000 nuclear warheads while Israel, an undeclared nuclear state---- the only nuclear weapon state in West Asia and North Africa (WANA)--- has perhaps between 200 and 400 warheads. Two, countries such as the US, Britain, France and even Israel had no qualms about assisting Iran to launch its nuclear programme in the fifties when it was under the Shah, Reza Pahlavi. US President, Dwight Eisenhower, saw it as an “atoms for peace” enterprise. One does not have to second guess why they were all so enthusiastic about the Shah's nuclear energy programme---- because the dictator was their gendarme in that corner of WANA, protecting their strategic, political and oil interests with all his brutal might.
Why did the West and Israel change their attitude towards Iran 's nuclear programme? Was it because an Islamic Revolution had occurred in Iran in 1979? Was Islam the decisive factor? Islam per se was not the major reason for the change in attitude. After all, the West counts as its allies a number of countries that view themselves as ‘Islamic States' and subscribe to a somewhat narrow, exclusive idea of Islam and Muslim identity. Saudi Arabia , Qatar and most of the Gulf Sheikhdoms would be outstanding examples. Colluding and collaborating with these states and other Islamic movements has never been a problem for the centres of power in the West.
Independence
The real reason why the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear programme became anathema for the West and Israel was because of Iran 's defence of its independence and integrity in the face of US and Western hegemony. The Islamic Republic under the guidance of its charismatic leader Ayatollah Khomeini was not prepared to submit to US dominance or acquiesce with Israeli arrogance. From the outset --- from 1979 itself--- Iran was determined to manage its own destiny which is why it nationalised oil and strengthened its self-reliance.
In an earlier period--- in 1953 to be exact--- another Iranian leader, this time a highly principled secular democrat, Mohammad Mosaddegh, had also sought to assert Iranian independence and sovereignty by nationalising oil. This incurred the wrath of the British and American elites whose companies dominated the local oil industry. With the help of their intelligence services, they managed to oust Mosaddegh from his Prime Ministership and restore full authority to the Shah.
Others in WANA, at different times and in different circumstances, have also paid the price for resisting dominance.Gamal Nasser in Egypt, HouriBoumediene in Algeria, Hafiz Assad in Syria, Yasser Arafat in Palestine (and other Palestinian freedom fighters), Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, had all at some point or other in their lives refused to yield to hegemonic power. Today, there are leaders like Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon , Khalil Meshal in Palestine , and Bashar Assad in Syria who continue to resist Israeli power and US hegemony and are therefore targeted by Tel Aviv and Washington.
It is appropriate to observe at this juncture that resistance to US hegemony has had a longer and perhaps more tragic history in parts of Latin America . From Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti to Salvador Allende, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez,Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa these and other illustrious leaders have unflinchingly opposed attempts by the US elite to subjugate the people of Latin America and subordinate the continent to the whims and fancies of its northern neighbour. Indeed, today there is a new determination in Latin America to strengthen the independence of individual states and of the region as a whole through cooperation and collective action that is both innovative and dynamic.
There is no doubt at all that it is Iran 's refusal to be subservient to the US , Israel and their allies, its readiness to resist, that has incensed the powers-that-be. It explains why they are going all out to emasculate the Iranian economy, manufacture mass disaffection with the government and, at the right moment, engineer a regime change. The excuse they are using for this manipulation is of course Iran 's unproven nuclear weapons programme. In the scenario that is unfolding before our eyes, there are shades of the build-up that led to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein 2003.
Targeting Iran
While Iran's desire to remain independent has been a prominent feature of the nation's personality since the Revolution 33 years ago, there must be situations and circumstances that are more current and contemporarywhich have given rise tothisobsession in Tel Aviv and in certain Western capitals with the targeting and taming of Iran.What are these situations and circumstances? There are many. We shall highlight some of them.
1. In the wake of the Arab uprising, the Israeli elite has become extremely apprehensive about the state's security and its future. It is afraid that popular movements sweeping through WANA would eventually challenge the legitimacy of the Israeli regime. Though Israel's protector, the US, has sought assurances from some of the Islamic parties that have come to power that they will not question the Israeli presence, the Israeli elite regards the increasing influence of states and movements in WANA that are firmly opposed to Israeli suppression of Palestinian rights--- the most powerful of which is of course Iran--- as a huge threat to Israel's very existence. This is why it wants its protector, buttressed by its European allies, to castrate Iran immediately.
2. This fear has increased dramatically in recent months with the economic decline of its protector and the economic crisis embroiling various European states. Israel knows that the US 's decline is part of a general decline which in a sense is irreversible and would therefore want its protector to act decisively against Israel 's foes like Iran now when the US still has the military muscle rather than wait until it is too late. For the US elite itself, the most serious implication of its decline is its loss of control over WANA, the world's major oil exporting region which is, at the same time, of tremendous geostrategic significance. When hegemonic powers are losing their dominance, do they not become more bellicose in attempting to perpetuate their power and privilege? Should we be surprised when they turn against other actors on the ascendancy who are perceived as the cause of their decline?
3. For both the US and Israeli elites and European leaders allied to them, it is Iran which is the lynchpin of the challenge to their hegemony over WANA. Iran maintains a tried and tested link to the Syrian leadership and to the Hezbollah in Lebanon . Hamas is also to a certain degree part of this link which in broad terms constitutes the resistance to US-Israel hegemony. As the fulcrum of this resistance, Iran has displayed remarkable tenacity--- a tenacity which is now expressing itself in its ability to take on US drones and US spies and to openly challenge US military power. Similarly, the Syrian crisis, orchestrated to a large extent by external forces, has revealed the resilience of the Bashar Assad government. Likewise, in defending Lebanon against the Israeli assault in 2006, the Hezbollah showed that it possesses both strategic depth and immense courage which in the end thwarted the Israeli agenda. Both Israel and the US are determined to not only break the link of resistance but also to crush each of the component elements of the link.
4. What has strengthened their determination to act against Iran in particular is the situation in Iraq . The Israeli and US elites had hoped that the conquest of Iraq would help to create a new environment in WANA which would reinforce their grip over oil and strengthen their geostrategic position in the region through a subservient leadership in Baghdad eager to do their bidding. Given Iraq 's importance, the Baghdad leadership, they reckoned, would succeed in shaping an atmosphere in the region conducive to Israel even if it were at the cost of Palestinian self-determination. However, things have not worked according to plan. WhileUS and British companies have managed to secure lucrative oil deals, Israeli and US elites have failed to gain political control over Iraq . A nation that is politically unstable, socially chaotic and deeply divided along sectarian lines, there is endless jockeying for power among contending groups. In the midst of this maelstrom, most of the groups within the majority Shia community seem to have gravitated towards Shia Iran . Shia affinity has undoubtedly smoothened the forging of political ties across the Iraq-Iran border. Recent political developments in Iraq indicate that the influence that emanates from these ties is considerable. It is this that annoys and angers the Israeli, US and British elites. Their political defeat in Iraq which is a major setback for them in WANA and beyond is one of the primary reasons why they are now training their guns on Iran .
5. Iran 's influence over Iraq has also riled some regional actors. The monarchical elite in Saudi Arabia , with its Wahabi orientation, often manifests an almost visceral hatred towards the Shia sect. Some Saudi leaders regard it as their duty to defend the Sunni majority against the rising Shia tide. They are not alone in perceiving growing Shia influence and power --- in Iraq , in Syria through the Alawite elite, in Lebanon via Hezbollah, and in Bahrain--- as a mortal threat to the Sunnis. The Qatari leadership and even some Turkish politicians and intellectuals have begun to ring the alarm bells. The latter, it is said, are backing some hard-line Sunnis in Iraq . These anti-Shia sentiments which are spreading quite rapidly in WANA have heightened the antagonism towards Iran . They have strengthened the hand of the US and Israel and their European allies as they prepare to move against the Iranian Republic .
6. For the US curbing Iran 's influence goes beyond WANA. Iran has become close to Russia in the last couple of years. The relationship is strategic and economic especially since they have overlapping interests in Central Asia and the Caspian region. Russia itself is re-asserting its power in Eastern Europe , Central Asia , West Asia and South Asia , much to the chagrin of the US . That is why it is uneasy about a Russian-Iranian nexus developing in the future.
7. Of even greater significance to the US 's hegemonic agenda is the relationship between Iran and China . Largely economic in nature, China imports 9% of its oil and 15% of its gas from Iran . China has massive investments in the oil and gas industry in Iran , and is helping to upgrade its infrastructure in general. Since access to energy is critical for China 's development, the US which is determined to contain China , is keen on exercising control over China 's sources of energy supply. What this means is that curtailing Iran 's oil and gas exports may in fact be part of a larger agenda whose principal goal is the containment of China , the nation that the US and the West view as the most formidable challenge ever to their centuries old dominance.
8. Iran 's expanding ties with various Latin American countries also irks the US . Countries such as Cuba , Venezuela , Nicaragua , Ecuador , Bolivia and Brazil , among others have become good friends of Iran in recent years. Most of these states are opposed to US dominance over Latin America . A couple of them have become very critical of Israeli occupation of Palestine . Since Venezuela and Ecuador are also major oil exporters, the US is worried that the ties that Iran , also an important oil exporter, is forging with them could enhance their collective clout in the global economy to the detriment of the US . This is yet another reason why the US sees Iran as a challenge to its hegemonic power.
9. It is not just because of Iran 's ties with oil exporting states in Latin America or its export of oil to China that oil is also a factor that explains the targeting of Iran . As one of the top five oil exporters in the world, Iran is an attractive destination for a lot of oil companies especially from the US --- a country which has been excluded from Iran 's petroleum sector for more than three decades. According to petroleum experts there are oil and gas fields that have yet to be explored fully. There is also money to be made from infrastructure investments. US and other Western oil firms are hungering to go in--- just as they moved into Iraq after the invasion in 2003.
10. A final factor that is responsible for this fixation with Iran is perhaps the position of the US dollar. The dollar, needless to say, is one of the most crucial pillars of US global hegemony. This is the reason why any attempt to redefine its role as the world's principal reserve currency elicits an immediate response from US financial and political circles. In the last few years Iran has been steadily distancing itself from the US dollar in its trade transactions. At the end of December 2011, it signed an agreement with China that states that the Iranian rial and the Chinese yuan would be used in bilateral trade. In early January 2012, Iran made a similar arrangement with Russia , the rial and the rouble replacing the US dollar. Iran and India are holding discussions on moving out of dollar settlements. Trading in gold is an option they are considering. These moves by Iran have assumed great significance because others, including US allies, are abandoning the dollar in some of their bilateral trade arrangements. Japan and China , for instance, have announced that they will trade in yen and yuan.Because Iran is perceived as one of those nations pushing hard for the abandonment of the dollar, the US has her in its sights. It has been suggested that one of the reasons why the US decided to invade Iraq in 2003 was because Saddam Hussein had switched from the dollar to the euro for the sale of his country's oil.
Suffering; Mistakes
The ten points elaborated here prove that the US and its allies have zero tolerance for any challenge, however minor, to US hegemonic power or to the position of Israel . Those who resist their power and position will pay the price. In the last 30 odd years, Iran has paid the price of resistance in hundreds of ways. Less than a year after the Islamic Revolution, a war was imposed upon Iran --- a war led by the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, on behalf of all the Gulf Sheikhdoms, a number of other Arab states, the US, Britain, certain other Western governments, and even the Soviet Union. Though Iran 's adversaries had different motives, their common objective was to crush the Revolution which they saw as a challenge to their interests. A million lives were lost on both sides of the divide in the eight year war which emasculated the Iranian economy and sapped the nation's energy. In June 1981, a vicious bombexplosion wiped out some top political leaders, a huge number of parliamentarians, and leading figures in the Judiciary. This, and other subsequent terrorist attacks, it is alleged,were master-minded by a militant group operating from Iraq called the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. In recent years the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme has been subjected to a cyber- attack and four of its scientists have been assassinated. And for decades, Iran has been under US economic sanctions which have had a negative impact upon its development programme.
Indeed, very few countries have been subjected to the pain and suffering that Iran has gone through in the last 33 years. The perseverance and fortitude of the Iranian people, as we have alluded to, is awe-inspiring. And yet, an objective analysis of Iran 's response to hegemony would suggest that Iranian leaders and activists have also made serious mistakes. From the perspective of international law and diplomacy, it was clearly wrong of Iranian students to seize the US Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 and hold its occupants hostage for 444 days. Storming the British Embassy in the nation's capital on 29 November 2011 was also a foolish act for which Iran 's Minister of Foreign Affairs has apologised. Likewise, allegations of foul-play in the June 2009Presidential Election could have been better handled. The Iranian authorities should have countered those allegations by demonstrating their commitment to total electoral transparency and accountability. The language that the current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sometimes employs on matters of grave international significance is intemperate and injudicious. However difficult the situation maybe, there is no need to deliberately provoke or irritate one's enemies. As a case in point, though Ahmadinejad's oft-quoted remarks about Israel were distorted and twisted by the Western media and politicians, the Iranian President could have adopted a more mature yet principled stance vis-à-vis the Jewish state.
Hegemonic Agenda
Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Muhammad Khatami, proved that it was possible to defend Iran 's independence and dignity without being unduly confrontational. He sought to meet the challenge of hegemony by insisting upon dialogue among civilisations and the politics of inclusiveness. Khatami was prepared to talk to the US leadership. But instead of welcoming the offer of dialogue, US President, George Bush Junior, chose to castigate Iran as part of an “axis of evil.”
The demonization of Iran proves yet again that regardless of whether the target adopts a confrontational or conciliatory approach, the hegemon will continue to pursue its agenda. It is an agenda that has a power and potency of its own. In the context of WANA, Israel , it is so apparent, is the driving force behind US hegemonic power.
Making people everywhere aware of this and what its consequences are is one of the most urgent tasks at hand. This task is perhaps a little less difficult today compared to the past for two reasons. One, as we have stated a number of times before, US helmed hegemonic power is declining. People are becoming much more critical of US's global role now. Two, the citizens of WANA in particular are acutely conscious of what hegemonic intervention can lead to after witnessing the chaos and catastrophe that have befallen Iraq and Afghanistan . They are also beginning to sense--- after the initial euphoria---- that Libya may also be heading towards calamity. Foreign intervention they know is not the solution. It is the problem.
Immediate Measures
While mass consciousness building about the danger of hegemony as the ultimate repudiation of human dignity will take time, we could propose some immediate measures thatshould be taken to avert military strikes against Iran and to prevent a war in WANA. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping could through the UN Security Council suggest a new nuclear deal which would allow Iran limited uranium enrichment under strict supervision within a larger treaty signed by all the states in WANA and other leading powers that pledges to create a nuclear weapon free zone in the region within a certain time-frame. The manufacture, storage, saleand distribution of other weapons of mass destruction should also be prohibited. As the formulation of such a treaty begins in earnest, all sanctions against Iran should also be lifted. There are other challenges notably the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state and the status of Israel , which should also be resolved at the same time.
Is there still time to persuade the powers-that-be to consider proposals like this? Or is it already too late in the day? Is the hegemon--- or is Israel--- about to strike?
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and Professor of lobal Studies at UniversitiSains Malaysia .
Malaysia .
27 January 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)