Freedom of thought needs an atmosphere of tolerance where people can speak their mind and no one is forced to accept the beliefs of others. In the Middle East, though, tolerance is in short supply and ideas that don't fit the expectations of society and governments are viewed as a threat.

Where religion is concerned, the "threat" can come from almost anyone with unorthodox ideas but especially from those who reject religion entirely.

Increasingly, atheists in Arab countries are characterised as dangerous extremists – to be feared no less than violent jihadists.

Persecuting atheists is the inevitable result of governments setting themselves up as guardians of faith. Among the 22 Arab League countries, Islam is "the religion of the state" in 16 of them: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the UAE and Yemen. 

For most of them, this is more than just a token gesture; it also serves political purposes. Embracing religion and posing as guardians of morality is one way for regimes to acquire some legitimacy, and claiming a mandate from God can be useful if they don't have a mandate from the public.

State religions, in their most innocuous form, signal an official preference for one particular kind of faith and, by implication, a lesser status for others. But the effects become far more obtrusive when governments rely on state religion as an aid to legitimacy – in which case the state religion has to be actively supported and policed. That, in turn, de-legitimises other belief systems and legitimises intolerance and discrimination directed against them. 

The policing of religion in Arab countries takes many forms, from governments appointing clerics and setting the theme for weekly sermons to the enforcement of fasting during Ramadan. 

To shield the government-approved version of religion from criticism, a variety of mechanisms can be deployed. These include laws against "defaming" religion and proselytising by non-Muslims but general laws regarding public order, telecommunications and the media may also apply.

In Algeria, for instance, the law forbids making, storing, or distributing printed or audiovisual materials with the intention of "shaking the faith" of a Muslim. In Oman, using the internet in ways that "might prejudice public order or religious values" is an imprisonable offence.

For Muslims who publicly abandon Islam the problem is even worse. In Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen anyone convicted of apostasy faces the threat – at least in theory – of execution.

Using a state religion as an aid to legitimacy turns the personal beliefs of individuals into a political issue, because disagreeing with the state's theological position also implies disloyalty to the state. Those who happen to disagree must either conform or risk becoming not only a religious dissident but a political one too.

Equating religious conformity with loyalty to the state allows Arab governments to label non-conformists not merely as dissidents but extremists. This in turn provides an excuse for suppressing them, as has been seen in Egypt with the Sisi regime's campaign against atheism and in Saudi Arabia where "promotion of atheist thought" became officially classified as terrorism.

Although Saudi Arabia's war on atheists stems from fundamentalist theology, in Egypt it's the opposite: the Sisi regime presents itself as a beacon of religious moderation. To describe the Sisi brand of Islam as moderate, though, is rather misleading. "Militantly mainstream" might be a better term. Theologically speaking it is middle-of the-road and relatively bland but also illiberal and authoritarian in character.

The result in Egypt is a kind of enforced centrism. While allowing some scope for tolerance – of other monotheistic religions, for example – the regime sets limits on discourse about religion in order to confine it to the middle ground. The main intention, obviously, was to place Islamist theology beyond the bounds of acceptability but at the other end of the spectrum it also means that atheism, scepticism and liberal interpretations of Islam have become forms of extremism.

Defining 'extremism'

Absurd as it might seem to place atheists in the same category as extremists such as terrorists and jihadists, the issue hinges on how "extremism" is defined: extreme in relation to what? Violent and intolerant extremism is a global phenomenon but confusion arises when governments try to define it by reference to national or culture-specific values.

Arab states are not the only offenders in this respect, though. They have been assisted by western governments defining "extremism" in a similar way – as rejection of a specific national culture rather than rejection of universal rights and international norms.

In its effort to prevent radicalisation of students, for example, the British government defined extremism as "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values". Also in the context of eradicating extremism, the education minister talked about actively promoting "British values" in schools.

Approaching the problem in this way invites other countries to do likewise – even if their own national and cultural values would be considered extreme in relation to universal rights and international norms. Thus, Saudis can justifiably claim that atheism is contrary to fundamental Saudi values. Furthermore, the British minister's idea of instilling British values into British schoolchildren is not very different in principle from "instilling the Islamic faith" in young Saudis – which the kingdom's Basic Law stipulates as one of the main goals of education.

This article was first published on al-Bab.
 

The post Arab world: Where atheism is equated with extremism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Demonstrators gather at Washington Square Park to protest against President Trump in New York. Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

These include a range of restrictions on citizens from seven war-torn countries in the Middle East and Africa. These are expected to include a temporary ban on most refugees and a suspension of visas. Sudan, Libya and Somalia are said to be on the list.

Questioned about when the additional measures would be announced, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said
 

You’ll see more action this week about keeping America safe.
 

Trump pledged during his election campaign to do just this by using what he termed “extreme vetting”. This comes after complaints from the president’s favourite website –Breitbart – that refugees from conflict zones were still being resettled in the US.

The developments will be a real blow to America’s large and thriving Somali and Libyan communities, for whom family reunions and visits from loved ones will be increasingly difficult. There were more than 150,000 Somali immigrants resident in the US as of 2015. Most entered after the 9/11 attacks.

It comes as the communities have been putting down roots, with the Somalis having elected their first legislator, Ilhan Omar. Omar, herself a refugee, is now an elected representative in Minnesota. It was a huge achievement, which she was keen to celebrate:
 

For me, this is my country, this is for my future, for my children’s future and for my grandchildren’s future to make our democracy more vibrant, more inclusive, more accessible and transparent which is going to be useful for all of us.
 

But it is not just Trump and the US throwing up barriers to Africans. The European Union is moving fast to halt the arrival of refugees and migrants on its southern shores, and is close to achieving the virtual “wall” that Trump is set on erecting.
 

Europe moves to seal migrant routes

Europe is close to sealing the routes refugees and migrants take across the Mediterranean. Consider the facts. These are the routes into southern Europe. (Map: Frontex Risk Analysis, Q2 2016)

The graphic produced by the EU’s Frontier Agency is clear: the major route that Africans are taking is via Libya.
 

The map below, from the same source, underlines the point.
 

Two routes that Africans have used in the past have almost been sealed. There is next to no transit by sea from West Africa through the Canary Islands and only a limited number arriving in Spain.

The Egyptian route through the Sinai and Israel has also been closed. The brutal treatment of Eritreans and Sudanese in the Sinai by mafia-style Bedouin families, who extracted ransoms with torture and rape, was certainly a deterrent. But this route was sealed in December 2013 when the Israeli authorities built an almost impregnable fence, blocking entry via the Sinai.

This has left Libya – and to a lesser extent Egypt – as the only viable route for Africans to use. Both are becoming more difficult. There has been the increasing propensity of Egypt to deport Eritreans to their home country, despite the risks that they will be jailed and abused when they are returned.
 

Libya, the final brick in the wall

Libya is critical to the success of the EU’s strategy, as a recent European assessment explained:
 

Libya is of pivotal importance as the primary point of departure for the Central Mediterranean route.
 

The EU has adopted new tactics to try to seal the central Mediterranean route. The countries keenest to push for this are Germany and Italy, which have taken the bulk of the refugees in recent years.

Earlier this month Italy’s Interior Minister Marco Minniti was dispatched to Tripoli to broker an agreement on fighting irregular migration through the country with Fayez al-Sarraj, head of the UN-backed Government of National Accord. Minniti and al-Sarraj agreed to reinforce cooperation on security, the fight against terrorism and human trafficking.

Mario Giro, Italy’s deputy foreign minister, told the Financial Times:
 

There is a new impulse here – we are moving as pioneers. But there is a lot of work to do, because Libya still doesn’t yet have the capacity to manage the flows, and the country is still divided.
 

The Italian proposals are very much in line with agreements the EU reached with African leaders during their summit in Malta in late 2015. The two sides signed a deal to halt the flight of refugees and migrants.

Europe offered training to “law enforcement and judicial authorities” in new methods of investigation and “assisting in setting up specialised anti-trafficking and smuggling police units”. The European police forces of Europol and the EU’s border force (Frontex) will assist African security police in countering the “production of forged and fraudulent documents”.

This meant co-operating with dictatorial regimes, like Sudan, which is ruled by Omar al-Bashir. He is wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.

What is clear is that Europe is determined to do all it can to reduce and finally halt the flow of Africans through Libya – the only viable route left for most African migrants and refugees to reach Europe.

Now Trump is joining these efforts with his own restrictions. For Africans fleeing conflicts the prospects look increasingly grim.

Author is Senior Research Fellow, Horn of Africa and Southern Africa, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study

Courtesy: The Conversation

The post Grim outlook for Africans seeking refuge as Trump looks to ban Somalis, Sudanese appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The United States returned to aerial bomb Libya. The target is Islamic State (IS) positions in the north-central city of Sirte. IS has held Sirte and its surrounding areas since last year. Sirte is the birthplace of Muammar Qaddafi, who was also killed there. After the fall of the Qaddafi government, this central Libyan town languished. It had become the playground of the Libyan Dawn – the militia of the town of Misrata, led by Salah Badi – and later the Libya Shield Force of Benghazi. The latter had close ties to al-Qaeda and is now part of the Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries. When the Islamic State attacked Sirte last year, the various militias had little incentive to stay. They delivered the city to the Islamic State and withdrew to their own hometowns. Attempts to erode the Islamic State by other militias and armies have thus far failed.

The US military says that it will continue to conduct bombing raids on IS positions as long as necessary. While there are US Special Operations troops in Libya, they are not engaged in this action. The Government of National Accord (GNA) – led by Fayez al-Sarraj – invited the United States to bomb the Islamic State. The GNA’s attempt to defeat the Islamic State on the ground has stalled after some rapid movement into the city. Aerial bombardment by the United States, it is hoped, will refocus the GNA troops towards their objection – the seizure of Sirte from the Islamic State.

These are not the first US strikes on Libya. It is important to remember that it was the US-led NATO war on Libya in 2011 that broke the Libyan state – destroying its institutions and allowing the West’s preferred rebels to chase out anyone with links to the government. This is precisely what the US occupation had done in Iraq; it was repeated in its details within Libya (I show this in my new book, The Death of the Nation). A Libya with a weak institutional scaffolding rapidly descended into chaos. Town-based militias took control over their domains, fighting between towns for control over the hinterland. Older extremist forces – the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – returned to authority, with some of their fighters who had experience in Afghanistan and Iraq now leaders in their hometowns. Many of these young men went to Syria via Turkey to fight against the government of Bashar al-Assad. Once the West began to bomb IS targets in Syria, they came home to set up their own vilayat of the Islamic State. Fighters from other parts of North Africa – particularly Tunisia – joined them as they seized Sirte and its surrounding areas. The US bombed their positions last November and then again this February – to no avail. They dug in.

Benghazi is a real place
In the United States, ‘Benghazi’ has become a slogan. It has come to mean that Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy. But Benghazi, of course, is a real city in eastern Libya with a population of over six hundred thousand people. It is a city in great distress, its unity fragmented and its people traumatized by an endless war that is taking place within the heart of its residential areas.

As the US bombed the IS positions this week, a massive car bomb struck Benghazi. This bomb killed at least twenty-two people and wounded twenty others. The bomb went off in the Guwarsha residential district in Benghazi, which has been the frontline for the past two years between various Islamist extremists – including the Islamic State – and the Libyan National Army led by a former CIA asset, General Khalifa Hafter. The various Islamist groups are mostly under the command of the Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries, which includes Ansar al-Sharia. The most extreme elements of the latter joined the Islamic State. The Shura Council has taken responsibility for the most recent bomb blast.
The Libyan National Army has conducted its own airstrikes against the Shura Council and Islamic State forces in both the Guwarsha and Ganfouda neighborhoods of Benghazi. In late June, the Libyan National Army carried out particularly severe bombing of these areas. Civilian casualties are suspected, although it is hard to verify what is going on within areas controlled by the Islamic State and the Shura Council. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb’s leader Abu Ubaidah Yusuf al-Anabi, in an audio message, called on Libyans to fight the ‘Franks’ in Benghazi. He also called upon the Libyan National Army to allow women and children safe passage from Ganfouda. Haftar’s advisors rejected this proposal. A MIG-23, flown by the highly-regarded Major Idris Hamed al-Obeidi, was shot down in Ganfouda in early July. Mercy is not on the lips of his comrades.

Fragile politics
Politics in Libya remains fragile. The Government of National Accord (GNA) emerged out of desperation. Two parallel governments – one in Tripoli and one in Tobruk/Bayda – had established themselves. They had begun to create parallel institutions, including two oil ministries. Meanwhile, in Benghazi, General Khalifa Hafter acted as a third government, unwilling to bring himself under civilian control. He began a war on the Shura Council in order to take Benghazi as his prize after being chased out of Tripoli. Pressure from the United Nations and the West forced the two governments of Tripoli and Tobruk to merge. They selected al-Sarraj, who comes from a family of Libyan grandees, to take the helm. Al-Sarraj came from the Western-backed Tobruk government. He has had a hard time gaining the trust of the Islamists of the Tripoli government.

When the new GNA passed Decree no. 1, which sought to bring all military forces under civilian command, General Hafter was not on the list. Nor was Ibrahim Jadhran, the head of the Petroleum Facilities Guards, who controls a swathe of Libyan oil lands. In Tripoli, the avarice of Haitham Tajouri and his militia competes with the old al-Qaeda hand Abdelhakim Belhaj. Al-Sarraj might be the leader of the GNA, but in Tripoli he exists at the mercy of these warlords. When the GNA prepared to release twelve men accused of crimes against the uprising of 2011 last month, unknown assailants executed them in the Ain Zara prison – just south of Tripoli. This is an example of how the armed militias continue to exercise control over Libyan society, with no expectation that the GNA could tether them. Libyan institutions – weak already under Muammar Qaddafi and then destroyed by the NATO war – are not strong enough to consolidate power. It is this weakness that will allow the Shura Council and the Islamic State to maintain its authority.

What will the US airstrikes do in such a brittle political environment? An advisor to the GNA says that they hope these airstrikes will allow their troops to take back Sirte. If they do so, he says, then the West and the UN will lift the sanctions that thus far prevent $67 billion of Libyan sovereign funds from being in the control of the Libyan government. The price for this money is to help remove the Islamic State. The West, in other words, is holding the money hostage till Libya’s government goes along with its agenda. It is important, therefore, to acknowledge that when the Libyan government requests US airstrikes, it does so not of its own volition but because of the conditions for the release of its own money. The airstrikes weaken the Libyan government. People are already saying that even General Haftar conducts his own airstrikes. He does not ask the Americans for help.

Will the airstrikes actually degrade and destroy the Islamic State? It is not merely the Islamic State that is Libya’s problem. Airstrikes such as this will only move these fighters to other locations – to Tunisia, for instance, or to Benghazi. They will continue to be a serious problem in North Africa. Indeed, if they return to Tunisia, they will bring great peril to that country, which has only just seen its head of government lose a vote of no-confidence. In March, the Tunisian town of Ben Guerdane, on the Libyan border, saw virulent clashes between IS and the Tunisian army. What is now being called ‘Islamo-gangsterism’ has entered Tunis’ slums such as Ettadhamen. These are increasingly tinder-boxes. Or they will head to Benghazi, where the battlefield has destroyed the city that started the uprising of 2011.
 

The post It’s Bombs Away for the USA in Libya appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.” – Albert Einstein

A spate of attacks by Islamic fundamentalist groups in recent days has shocked us.

These attacks shock us and cause immense sadness. How can anyone not sympathise with the innocent victims and their families? They also fill us with rage. How could such dastardly acts be committed, by whom and most importantly how can such acts be stopped in future?
 
However, it is important to resist the urge to latch on to simplistic answers which a highly successful propaganda machinery and ample bigotry which surrounds us, throw at us. Such answers play into the hands of those who are actually responsible for such a state of affairs.
 
The roots of this madness go back 60-70 years. In the post World War II era, newly independent Arab states were filled with hope of a better, modern future outside of colonial influence, in solidarity with other newly independent countries and the non-aligned movement and based on a secular progressive agenda. But this was a threat to US and Western powers and their goal of control over oil.

The roots of this madness go back 60-70 years. In the post World War II era, newly independent Arab states were filled with hope of a better, modern future outside of colonial influence, in solidarity with other newly independent countries and the non-aligned movement and based on a secular progressive agenda. But this was a threat to US and Western powers and their goal of control over oil as these Republics sought to nationalise oil production to use the profits to benefit their own people and not Western corporations.
 
Also, as workers and socialist movements made inroads in to the Arab world, the US looked for ways to curb the spread of socialism there. It was also a threat to the Saudi monarchy which saw the idea of secular republics as an existential threat to itself. And hence an alliance was born between the Saudis and the West which continues to this date to put an end to the "dangerous" idea of secular republican Arab nationalism by propagating an obscure virulent form of Islamic fanaticism.
 
This is one of the main pillars of US foreign policy for the Middle East. The other pillar of US policy in the Middle East has been its unrelenting support for Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestinian territories in complete violation of international law and many United Nations resolutions. The brutal siege of Gaza, arbitrary arrests and the detention of thousands of Palestinians in West Bank and Israel without trials, targeted assassinations and periodic full-fledged wars, including aerial bombing referred to as “mowing the lawn” by Israeli officials, show Israel’s total contempt for international law and the US support for it.
 
The earliest regime change manoeuvre at curbing Arab nationalism was in Iran. The democratically elected government of Mossadegh was toppled in 1953 by a CIA backed coup. Mossadegh had sought to nationalize Iranian oil.

The earliest regime change manoeuvre at curbing Arab nationalism was in Iran. The democratically elected government of Mossadegh was toppled in 1953 by a CIA backed coup. Mossadegh had sought to nationalize Iranian oil. In his place, the hated Shah monarchy was installed. Egypt's president and one of the most prominent voices of Arab nationalism and Non-Aligned Movement, Nasser was sought to be contained by the US using the Muslim Brotherhood. After Nasser's death, Egypt was co-opted by the Americans by effectively giving its military an annual bribe of $1 billion since the 1970s.
 
The Iranians overthrew the Shah monarchy and established an Islamic Republic in 1979. This posed a challenge to both US and Saudi Arabia. The new Republic needed to be punished for daring to topple the US puppet Shah regime. For the paranoid Saudi monarchy, the concept of an Islamic ‘Republic’ called into question their own raison d'être. Iraq's Saddam Hussein was then bankrolled by the US-Saudi Alliance to start a war against Iran. He used chemical weapons against the Iranians which resulted in more than 100,000 deaths.
 
Declassified documents ^[1] show that the Americans knew about these attacks but still continued to support Saddam. Interestingly, Saddam was an American friend when he used weapons of mass destruction but became an enemy and Iraq was invaded in 2003 when he didn’t possess any such weapons. Another interesting part of this story is when Iran was getting attacked with chemical weapons, their supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa that the use of such weapons was un-Islamic and so Iran never retaliated with chemical warfare. So, the "greatest democracy on earth” sanctioned the use of chemical weapons while a Muslim mullah ruled out its use even as a defensive move.
 
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia had started an organisation called the World Muslim League in 1962 in direct reaction to Nasser's pan-Arabic nationalism. It still exists today. It is funded and controlled by Saudi Arabia. It exports Wahhabism to all the countries where it has a presence. One would see an amazing correlation between places where WML has its offices (like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.) and places which are current hot-beds of Islamic fanaticism. All this information is readily available in the public domain. However, Saudi continues to be one of the closest allies of the US till date. The US has effected regime change in country after country in the name of its ‘War on Terror’. Yet it continues to ally, fund and arm Saudi Arabia.       
 
The US poured in billions of dollars, training and provided logistical support to the mujahideen (jihad warriors) in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. Saudi Arabia exported its own disgruntled youth indoctrinated with Wahhabi fanaticism to fight the Holy Wars in far off lands.

Afghanistan provided the first major opportunity for large scale use of these Islamic terror groups for regime change. The US poured in billions of dollars, training and provided logistical support to the mujahideen (jihad warriors) in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. Saudi Arabia exported its own disgruntled youth indoctrinated with Wahhabi fanaticism to fight the Holy Wars in far off lands, the youth who may have otherwise challenged the oppressive Saudi monarchy at home. Among the ‘holy warriors’ who left Saudi Arabia to fight in Afghanistan was one Osama Bin Laden, one of the sons of the wealthy Bin Laden family, intimately connected to the Saudi monarchy.
 
Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted the US organised and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.
Brzezinski told the Mujahideen.^[2]

We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over – there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.

British foreign secretary, Robin Cook, wrote that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies.^[3] Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of ‘the database’ in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

The extent of American indoctrination for the jihad can be inferred from a Washington Post article in 2002:^[4]

The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings ….

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books ….

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US sought to project itself as the sole superpower and redraw the map of the Arab world. In the late 90s, before 9/11, a neo-conservative think tank – Project for the New American Century (PNAC) –issued a draft calling for regime changes in countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and other countries.^[5] Many of the signatories of this document went on to hold important positions in the Bush administration.
 
Post 9/11, GW Bush used the ruse of ‘War against Terror’ to effect regime change in country after country. Destroying working states and funding extreme elements like Al Qaeda in Libya, ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In this regime change doctrine, the US and Saudi Arabia funded and armed extreme Islamist groups.

Post 9/11, GW Bush used the ruse of ‘War against Terror’ to effect regime change in country after country. Destroying working states and funding extreme elements like Al Qaeda in Libya, ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In this regime change doctrine, the US and Saudi Arabia funded and armed extreme Islamist groups to fight the regimes which were targeted to be changed and then to control the countries which had been rendered stateless.
 
Each such regime change would completely destroy the country – its infrastructure, state machinery and produce inhuman living conditions for vast majority of the population in these countries. It is these soulless conditions, this hopelessness which would provide fertile ground for recruiting the next set of ‘holy warriors’.

American ambassador Joe Wilson wrote to Hillary Clinton in a confidential cable:^[6]

"My trip to Baghdad (September 6-11) has left me slack jawed. I have struggled to find the correct historical analogy to describe a vibrant, historically important Middle Eastern city being slowly bled to death. Berlin and Dresden in World War II were devastated but they and their populations were not subjected to seven years of occupation that included ethnic cleansing, segregation of people by religious identity, and untold violence perpetrated upon them by both military and private security services. I have not been to Gaza but suspect that the dehumanizing effects are somewhat similar. The occupation and especially the walling off of neighborhoods have destroyed the very fabric of the urban society."
 
In such conditions, with the state machinery destroyed post regime change, the invading US backed Western forces would seek to regain control by funding the worst, most extreme Islamic fundamentalist groups.
 
The secular Arab republics had a contract with their own people. These regimes would provide a basic living standard to its people through state support and in return the people had no political rights. Over time this contract got violated with oil price shocks, increasing neo-liberalism and cronyism, the state support decreased and people grew increasingly frustrated. Given the lack of political and democratic rights there was no outlet to vent out this frustration.

In early 2011, a series of people's revolts erupted across the Arab world in what has come to be known as the Arab Spring. This set the stage for the next set of US led Western interventions in the Arab world. US sought to curb the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt. Saudi troops crushed the rebellion in Bahrain. But these protests were used as a pretext to implement regime change in countries such as Libya and Syria. For those interested, Vijay Prashad’s excellent book, The Death of the Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution, analyses the events around and post Arab Spring in great detail.^[7]
 
Sidney Blumenthal, close adviser to the Clintons and Hillary Clinton’s unofficial intelligence gatherer, wrote a since declassified intelligence email to the former US Secretary of State.^[8] The email identified French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”
 
Further the email confirmed what has become a well-known theme of Western supported insurgencies in the Middle East: the contradiction of special forces training militias that are simultaneously suspected of links to Al Qaeda. Blumenthal relates that “an extremely sensitive source” confirmed that British, French, and Egyptian special operations units were training Libyan militants along the Egyptian-Libyan border, as well as in Benghazi suburbs. Blumenthal further voiced concern about the very militias these Western special forces were training because of “radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC and its military command.”
 
Libya and its neighbour Tunisia, with which Libya has a porous border, have since become major recruiting grounds for ISIS. Many ISIS operatives move about freely in Libya and through the porous border into neighbouring Tunisia.
 
Once the Gaddafi regime was toppled in Libya, the US set its eyes on toppling the Assad regime in Syria. While Obama talked about crossing of Red Lines as a pretext for regime change, the real reason was to contain the old nemesis of US and Saudi Arabia – Iran which ironically had got more powerful as its enemies on the West (Saddam Hussein) and on the East (Taliban) were taken out by US invasions. The Assad regime was close to Iran and toppling it was seen as a way to contain Iran. Respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote of a CIA “rat line”^[9] of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels. A declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, effectively welcomed the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq.^[10]
 
In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the document identified Al-Qaida in Iraq (which became ISIS) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” and stated that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria. It is now well established that the US, Saudi and Qataris funded, armed and provided logistical support to fanatical groups such as Al-Nursa and Al-Qaida which went on to become the ISIS.

NATO Ally, Turkey opened it borders with Syria for jihadists to fly in from Libya, Tunisia, Chechnya and other parts of the world to Turkish airports like Mardin, cross the border and join ISIS to fight the Syrian government. Meanwhile ISIS oil flowed into Turkey to be sold on the black market. The US and its allies turned a blind eye as these groups committed horrific crimes against women, minorities and religious ‘others’ such as Shia Muslims, Yazidis, Alawites, Christians, etc. Anyone who opposed them or didn’t live up to their most barbaric laws was fair game for beheadings and cruellest punishments.
 
It is only after the ISIS went ‘overboard’ by publicly beheading Westerners, threatening Baghdad and announcing an Islamic Caliphate, which would include all Islamic countries including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, that they became the “bad guys” and US started attacking ISIS. Even then it was the Russian entry into Syria in support of the Assad regime which forced the US to finally get serious about hammering the ISIS.
 
It is only after the ISIS went ‘overboard’ by publicly beheading Westerners, threatening Baghdad and announcing an Islamic Caliphate, which would include all Islamic countries including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, that they became the “bad guys” and US started attacking ISIS. Even then it was the Russian entry into Syria in support of the Assad regime which forced the US to finally get serious about hammering the ISIS.
 
The discussion on the ‘Global War on Terror’ would be incomplete without also understanding its effects on the US domestically. This perpetual low intensity war is great for US military-industrial complex which wields enormous amounts of political power in the US. In a world where capitalism is facing an acute shortage of demand globally, you can just funnel enormous amounts of people's money into military, defence, security, IT and reconstruction sectors. Its public knowledge that US spends more on defence than next 10 or so countries combined or that Halliburton (which had vice president Dick Cheney on its board) got no bid contracts for Iraq reconstruction projects.
 
For most big name IT companies, US military, homeland security, etc. are huge customers. Normally, this money should go to people's welfare. However, US healthcare is one of the worst in developed world, Education standards are falling, road infrastructure is not what it used to be. So, how do you justify this to their people, while funnelling huge amounts of money to rich white folks on Wall Street? By keeping them very scared about terrorism and through fanning the flames of Islamophobic hysteria.
 
Conclusion:
With each terror attack, we see an outpouring of sympathy and messages of solidarity with the victims. We also hear calls for Muslims to take “personal responsibility” and for all Muslims to condemn the terror attacks, as if the vast majority of Muslims have anything to do with the terror attacks. We hear calls for reform movement within Islam. This is indicative of the rampant Islamophobia in society and the complete success of the propaganda machinery of US led Western Imperialism. Such calls are clearly misguided since they seek to blame the victims rather than the real source of such terror networks.
 
In such a bleak world is there any reason for hope? Imperialism has now ravaged the world for the last 500 years. Yet there also have been astonishing victories in the fight against imperialism. The post war period saw a wave of anti-colonial struggles successfully overthrow colonial rule. Similarly, Latin America was in the US stranglehold and a laboratory for neo-liberalism. In the 1970s, CIA backed coups installed brutal military dictatorships in many Latin American countries which oversaw violent elimination and mass killings of the civil society and Left activists in those countries. And yet, Latin America has seen a resurgent wave of leftist governments come to power in country after country and which have managed to take Latin America out of the US stranglehold.
 
Clearly, given its oil resources the Middle East is especially precious to US led Western Imperialism. However, the only way to fight these imperialist terror networks is for people the world over, including in the US and the West, to organise people's and workers’ movements which can provide hope to the people for a better future. Through these struggles for better living and working conditions people's unity can be built to tackle such powerful forces. History has shown that only such people's movement have been capable of taking the fight and beating back imperialism. I conclude with Rosa Luxemburg's prophetic words written 100 years back: "Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to Socialism or regression into Barbarism."
 
Notes:
[1] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-us-knew-iraq-was-using-chemical-weapons-helped-out-anyway-1792375/?no-ist
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4lf0RT72iw
[3] Cook, Robin (8 July 2005). ‘The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means’; https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development
[4] Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, From US, the ABC's of Jihad: Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts, Washington Post, March 23, 2002.
[5] PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century; https://web.archive.org/web/20130817122719/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
[6] Zaid Jilani, Joe Wilson to Hillary Clinton in 2010: Baghdad Has Been Bled to Death”; https://theintercept.com/2016/03/02/joe-wilson-to-hillary-clinton-in-2010-baghdad-has-been-bled-to-death/
[7] Vijay Prashad, The Death of the Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution http://mayday.leftword.com/book/the-death-of-the-nation-and-the-future-of-the-arab-revolution/9789380118369/
[8] Brad Hoff, Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
[9] Seymour M. Hersh, The Red Line and the Rat Line. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
[10]  http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
 

The post How Imperialism Nurtures the Global Terror Network appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In March 2016, a mother walks through misty weather with her two sons along train tracks in Idomeni, Greece. Credit: ©UNICEF/UN012794/Georgie
 

Cedric Prakash

The World Humanitarian Summit(WHS), May  23rd & 24th 2016 in Istanbul, Turkey is finally underway!

The two-day event convened by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is focused around his call that humanity – people’s safety, dignity and the right to thrive – be placed at the heart of global decision-making. Three major goals have been envisaged for the Summit:

To re-inspire and reinvigorate a commitment to humanity and to the universality of humanitarian principles,

To initiate a set of concrete actions and commitments aimed at enabling countries and communities to better prepare for and respond to crises, and be resilient to shocks,

To share best practices which can help save lives around the world, put affected people at the centre of humanitarian action, and alleviate suffering.

In order to deliver for humanity, stakeholders must act immediately on five core responsibilities:

• To prevent and end conflict,
• To respect rules of war,
• To leave no one behind,
• To work differently to end need,
• To invest in humanity.

Besides two other responsibilities are also highlighted:

• Catalyse action for gender equality;
• Respond to disasters and climate change.

Both the goals and the core responsibilities are certainly laudable and could go a long away to help bring ‘humanity’ back centre-stage in a world that so desperately cries out for it! The WHS, a first-of-its-kind, was expected to bring together heads of  state and government and key decision-makers from across the globe.

On the eve of the Summit however, in a lead ‘The New York Times’ (May 21, 2016) states: “Most of the world’s most powerful leaders – those whose soldiers and diplomats can end wars and hold accountable those who violate international humanitarian law – are not going.” 

Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany is the only G-7 leader who is expected to be present. The absence of world leaders at this important summit is a sad commentary of how far an immediate global response will actually go in the wake of the greatest humanitarian crisis that has gripped the world today!

It is true however, that the WHS will bring together more than six thousand participants representing more than 125 countries, the UN agencies and the whole spectrum of civil society organisations which are engaged in humanitarian issues. It will be a great opportunity not merely to exchange notes, ‘sell’ the good work being done – but more than ever to see in what ways an immediate, collaborative, pragmatic and sustainable response is agreed upon – and which can be implemented without delay.

Many are skeptical if this will actually happen. A few weeks ago one of the leading humanitarian INGOs, Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) (Doctors without Borders) pulled out of the WHS. MSF stated:“As shocking violations of international humanitarian law and refugee rights continue on a daily basis, WHS participants will be pressed to a consensus on non-specific, good intentions to ‘uphold norms’ and ‘end needs’. The summit has become a fig-leaf of good intentions, allowing these systematic violations, by states above all, to be ignored. We no longer have any hope that the WHS will address the weaknesses in humanitarian action and emergency response, particularly in conflict areas or epidemic situations."

Point taken. But those who gather in Istanbul must ensure that the WHS is no ‘fig-leaf of good intentions’ and must have the courage to ask and answer difficult questions, like:

• Will the so-called developed nations CLOSE DOWN immediately their arms and ammunitions industry?
• Will developing nations stop increasing their spending on ‘Defence and Military warfare’?
• Will nations stop the juggernaut of fascism, fundamentalism, fanaticism and misplaced ‘patriotism’ which excludes the other and propagates the building of walls and fences?
• Will heads of State stop killing their own people –in the name of quelling dissent and rebellion?
• Will human rights violations particularly of the IDPs and the refugees be addressed immediately?
• Will increased funding for education of the vulnerable and the marginalised become the corner stone for a more inclusive and egalitarian world?

As part of the WHS, the UN has launched a major campaign ‘Education cannot wait!’ stating: “One in four of the world’s school-aged children – 462 million – now live in countries affected by crisis. Of these children, 75 million are in the most desperate need of support: they are either in danger of or already missing out on their right to education. Education gives children the building blocks to rebuild their lives and, eventually, their country.”
These are but some of the questions! Unless there is a clear political resolve to address endemic issues – nothing may change dramatically. The WHS is an opportunity – for the sake of millions of people the world over – which cannot be wasted. It should not be allowed to be an exercise in futility or a mere cosmetic with empty rhetoric! Those who are there MUST realise that the time to ACT is NOW! Tomorrow will be too late! 

(Fr Cedric Prakash, an Indian priest, is currently posted in Lebanon).
 
——————————————————
Baher Kamal

When, in March 2015, delegates from the Middle East met in Amman for their regional consultations round in preparation for the two-day World Humanitarian Summit which opened in Istanbul today, most likely what they had in mind is the fact that their region was – and still is – the dramatic set of “the mother of all humanitarian crises.”

Nevertheless, as a sort of reminder, the United Nations told them again: “millions of people, from Libya to Palestine, from Yemen to Syria and Iraq, have had their lives completely overturned by violence.”

They were also reminded that the huge numbers of people affected by conflict, violence and displacement did little to convey the real trauma experienced.

The Facts
The United Nations reported “more people are displaced by conflict than at any time since 1945.” Figures are self-explanatory. There are currently an estimated total of 60 million forcibly displaced people –either at home or abroad — across the globe.

Of these:
— 5 million Palestinian refugees are still dispersed mostly in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, according to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA);

— 1,5 million people are practically besieged in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, in a permanent humanitarian crisis;

— 4 million Syrian civilians so far had to flee war as refugees seeking safety in the region and in Europe, as an immediate consequence of the Syrian five-year long conflict, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) estimates;

— 1 million Syrians have been forcibly displaced from their homes in their own country, according to the United Nations;

— 1 million Libyans are victims of uncontrolled armed fights in their own, unstable state. “There is alarming information coming from Libya about grave acts that could amount to war crimes,” UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon warned on 6 March 2016;

— 5 million Iraqis have been sentenced to the condition of being either refugees abroad or ‘refugees’ at home. Already in July 2015, the top UN humanitarian official in Iraq declared as “devastating” the closure of life-saving

services in Iraq for people in need, citing the most recent shut-downs of basic health care will directly impact more than one million people, including some 500,000 children who now will not be immunised, spreading risk of a measles outbreak and resumption of polio;

— 1 million Syrian refugees live in Lebanon. The UN reported six months ago that some 70 per cent of these refugees were living below the extreme poverty line in Lebanon;

— 2 million civilian Yemenis fled to even another war long-hit country–Somalia as result of the on-going armed conflict. More than 15.2 million Yemenis lack access to health care services, well over half the war-torn country’s total population, yet there is a 55 per cent gap in requested international funding to address the crisis, according to the World Health Organisation.

Photo credit: Human Wrongs Watch

In other words—the Middle East is both the origin of and/or home to 1 in 3 refugees and displaced persons in the whole world.

These major figures refer to the known as ‘traditional’ Middle East region, comprising 22 Arab countries and Israel.

The data go much further when it comes to the so-called “Greater Middle East”, which also include armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The extended region would be in this case origin and home to additional 10 million refugees and displaced persons, this making nearly half of their total numbers all over the planet.

The Ira of Nature

But not only wars and conflicts hit the Middle East–natural disasters do more damage, last longer, and in many places recur before people have even had a chance to recover, according to the United Nations.

So, while all the above is a consequence of armed conflicts, there are other dramatic facts the make of the Middle East ‘the mother of all humanitarian crises’.

Just some examples:

— The Middle East risks to become an ‘uninhabitable’ region due to the impact of climate change

— 2 in 3 Arab countries already suffer from acute water shortage, while the remaining third is considered water unsafe nations;

— The United Nations predicts 40 per cent water shortfall by 2030. The Middle East is expected to be one of the most impacted.

In short, a whole region of nearly 400 million people is already victim of man-made disasters, be these wars and violence or simply the expected response of nature.
“We see it, we live it,…”

The Istanbul World Humanitarian Summit will focus on five key areas: to prevent and end conflict; to respect the rules of war; to leave no one behind; to work differently to end need, and to invest in humanity.

When announcing the Summit, top UN officials, headed by the secretary general Ban Ki-moon, have repeatedly warned that the world is living the worst ever-humanitarian crisis since World War II.

Herve Verhoosel, spokesperson of the World Humanitarian Summit, recently wrote in IPS “We have arrived at the point of no return. At this very moment the world is witnessing the highest level of humanitarian needs since World War Two.”

“We are experiencing a human catastrophe on a titanic scale: 125 million in dire need of assistance, over 60 million people forcibly displaced, and 218 million people affected by disasters each year for the past two decades,” Verhoosel said.

This makes a total of 400 million victims, the equivalent to some 80 per cent of the entire European population.

Verhoosel gave specific figures: more than 20 billion dollars are needed to aid the 37 countries currently affected by disasters and conflicts.

“Unless immediate action is taken, 62 percent of the global population– nearly two-thirds of all of us- could be living in what is classified as fragile situations by 2030. Time and time again we heard that our world is at a tipping point. Today these words are truer than ever before.”

The situation has hit home, Verhoosel said. “We are slowly understanding that none of us is immune to the ripple effects of armed conflicts and natural disasters. We’re coming face to face with refugees from war-torn nations and witnessing first-hand the consequences of global warming in our own backyards.”

“We see it, we live it, and we can no longer deny it.”

(Baher Kamal, Egyptian-born, Spanish-national secular journalist. He is founder and publisher of Human Wrongs Watch. Kamal is a pro-peace, non-violence, human rights, coexistence defender. This article was first published on Human Wrongs Watch).

The post Global Summit Opens in Istanbul to Address ‘Mother of All’ Humanitarian Crises appeared first on SabrangIndia.