just commentary february 2013

Vol 13, No.02 February 2013

Turn to next page

.MUSLIM SOCIETIES, ISRAEL AND THE WEST (PART III)INTERVIEW................................................................P 7

.GOOD TERRORIST; BAD TERRORIST

BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.......................................P 2

. “RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT” AS IMPERIAL TOOL: THE

CASE FOR A NON- INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY

BY JEAN BRICMONT..............................................P 4

ARTICLES

By Joseph E. StiglitzTHE POST- CRISIS CRISES

.VIOLENCE IN CONNECTICUT: WHY?BY ROBERT J. BURROWES....................................P 8

In the shadow of the euro crisis andAmerica’s fiscal cliff, it is easy to

ignore the global economy’s long-termproblems. But, while we focus onimmediate concerns, they continue tofester, and we overlook them at ourperil.

The most serious is global warming.While the global economy’s weakperformance has led to a correspondingslowdown in the increase in carbonemissions, it amounts to only a shortrespite. And we are far behind thecurve: Because we have been so slowto respond to climate change, achievingthe targeted limit of a two-degree(centigrade) rise in global temperature,will require sharp reductions inemissions in the future.

Some suggest that, given the economicslowdown, we should put globalwarming on the backburner. On thecontrary, retrofitting the globaleconomy for climate change wouldhelp to restore aggregate demand andgrowth.

At the same time, the pace oftechnological progress andglobalization necessitates rapidstructural changes in both developedand developing countries alike. Suchchanges can be traumatic, and marketsoften do not handle them well.

Just as the Great Depression arose inpart from the difficulties in movingfrom a rural, agrarian economy to anurban, manufacturing one, so today’sproblems arise partly from the need tomove from manufacturing to services.New firms must be created, andmodern financial markets are better atspeculation and exploitation than theyare at providing funds for new

enterprises, especially small andmedium-size companies.

Moreover, making the transitionrequires investments in human capitalthat individuals often cannot afford.Among the services that people wantare health and education, two sectorsin which government naturally plays animportant role (owing to inherentmarket imperfections in these sectorsand concerns about equity).

Before the 2008 crisis, there was muchtalk of global imbalances, and the needfor the trade-surplus countries, likeGermany and China, to increase theirconsumption. That issue has not goneaway; indeed, Germany’s failure toaddress its chronic external surplus ispart and parcel of the euro crisis.China’s surplus, as a percentage ofGDP, has fallen, but the long-termimplications have yet to play out.

America’s overall trade deficit will notdisappear without an increase indomestic savings and a more

.THE GRAVEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

BY NOAM CHOMSKY..............................................P 10

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

2

continued next page

continued from page 1

fundamental change in global monetaryarrangements. The former wouldexacerbate the country’s slowdown,and neither change is in the cards. AsChina increases its consumption, it willnot necessarily buy more goods fromthe United States. In fact, it is morelikely to increase consumption of non-traded goods – like health care andeducation – resulting in profounddisturbances to the global supply chain,especially in countries that had beensupplying the inputs to China’smanufacturing exporters.

Finally, there is a worldwide crisis ininequality. The problem is not only thatthe top income groups are getting alarger share of the economic pie, butalso that those in the middle are notsharing in economic growth, while inmany countries poverty is increasing.In the US, equality of opportunity hasbeen exposed as a myth.

While the Great Recession hasexacerbated these trends, they wereapparent long before its onset. Indeed,I (and others) have argued that growinginequality is one of the reasons for theeconomic slowdown, and is partly aconsequence of the global economy’sdeep, ongoing structural changes.

An economic and political system thatdoes not deliver for most citizens isone that is not sustainable in the longrun. Eventually, faith in democracy andthe market economy will erode, andthe legitimacy of existing institutionsand arrangements will be called intoquestion.

The good news is that the gap betweenthe emerging and advanced countrieshas narrowed greatly in the last threedecades. Nonetheless, hundreds ofmillions of people remain in poverty,and there has been only a little progressin reducing the gap between the leastdeveloped countries and the rest.

Here, unfair trade agreements –including the persistence of unjustifiableagricultural subsidies, which depressthe prices upon which the income ofmany of the poorest depend – haveplayed a role. The developed countrieshave not lived up to their promise inDoha in November 2001 to create apro-development trade regime, or totheir pledge at the G-8 summit inGleneagles in 2005 to providesignificantly more assistance to thepoorest countries.

The market will not, on its own, solveany of these problems. Global warming

is a quintessential “public goods”problem. To make the structuraltransitions that the world needs, weneed governments to take a more activerole – at a time when demands forcutbacks are increasing in Europe andthe US.

As we struggle with today’s crises, weshould be asking whether we areresponding in ways that exacerbate ourlong-term problems. The path markedout by the deficit hawks and austerityadvocates both weakens the economytoday and undermines futureprospects. The irony is that, withinsufficient aggregate demand themajor source of global weaknesstoday, there is an alternative: invest inour future, in ways that help us toaddress simultaneously the problemsof global warming, global inequality andpoverty, and the necessity of structuralchange.

7 January, 2013Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in

economics and Professor at Columbia

University, was chairman of President Bill

Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and

served as Senior Vice President and Chief

Economist of the World Bank.

Source: Project Syndicate

By Chandra MuzaffarGOOD TERRORIST; BAD TERRORIST

The French military operation inMali has brought to the fore the blatantdouble standards in the approach ofcertain Western nations to the wholequestion of terrorism.

In the case of Mali, France, with thesupport of Britain, Germany and UnitedStates, has committed itself to combatingdiehard militants who are determined touse violence to establish their power andauthority. Yet in Libya, these countriesand their allies in West Asia and NorthAfrica (WANA) had no compunctions

about colluding with militant groups tooust Muammar Gaddafi in a bloody andbrutal campaign which killed tens ofthousands of people in 2011.

Their hypocrisy becomes even starkerin Syria. Western powers and groupsfrom Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon andTurkey have been providing funds,logistical support and sophisticatedweapons to rebels within Syria andmercenaries from a number of othercountries, to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad government. Many of thesearmed groups, like their counterpartsin Libya and Mali, justify their acts ofterror and violence in the name of Islam¯ albeit a distorted and pervertedinterpretation of the religion.

A R T I C L E S


3

continued from page 2Different armed groups in Iraq atdifferent times in the course of the USled occupation of that country havealso, it is alleged, received materialassistance from countries in the regionand the US. It is an established fact thatthe US under Ronald Reagan gaveenormous financial and military aid toso-called “jihadist” groups fighting theSoviet occupation of Afghanistan. TheUS has often condoned acts of terrorperpetrated by its close ally, Israel,against Palestinians and other Arabs.Indeed, the US itself is regarded in somecircles as a “terrorist state”, given itsrecord of killing innocent civilians invarious parts of the world, includingLatin America, West Asia and SoutheastAsia.

What this shows is that there isterrorism that is condoned andterrorism that is condemned byWestern powers and other states. Ifviolence serves their interests, it isacceptable. If it doesn’t, the militantsare targeted. In other words, there are‘good terrorists’ and ‘bad terrorists’.

One of the main reasons why themilitants in Mali have to be defeated ̄from France’s standpoint ̄ is becauseFrance imports huge amounts ofuranium from that country for itsnuclear plants that generate 80% of itselectricity. It is not because Franceabhors violence or seeks to protecthuman life! Besides, France wants tomaintain its hegemonic grip upon WestAfrica and parts of North Africa at atime when resource rich Africa is

becoming increasingly important to theglobal economy.

The ulterior motives for Westernmilitary action in Libya; for their covertoperations in Syria; for theirhobnobbing with militant groups inIraq; and for their collusion withJihadists in Afghanistan have beenexposed in numerous studies. Thereis no need to repeat them here. Sufficeto note that that they have very little todo with defending human rights orupholding democracy. It is theoverwhelming desire to perpetuatetheir military, political, economic andcultural hegemony over the worldwhich is the real reason why the USand its allies seek to crush terrorismin one instance and consort with it inanother instance.

Why is it that this irrefutable truthabout the attitude of the centres ofpower in the West to terrorism is notwidely known? Why is it that citizensin Western democracies who aresupposed to be informed and educatedare not ashamed of the doublestandards and the hypocrisy thatsurround the war on terror? One ofthe primary reasons is because themedia ¯ both the old and the new ¯does not want to tell the whole truth.

More often than not, the mediaregurgitates the propaganda put out bythe centres of power in the West. If itis the ‘bad terrorists’ that say Frenchtroops are pursuing, the latter areprojected in the media as heroes on anoble mission, without any analysis ofthe root causes of the conflict or whatthe motives are for launching theassault. If, on the other hand, it is the‘good terrorists’ sponsored by theWest who are responsible for somemerciless slaughter somewhere, theirbarbarity is either played down by themedia or the whole incident is turnedand twisted to present the adversary

as the perpetrator of the killing.

This has been happening in the case ofSyria. In one of the most recentepisodes the ‘good terrorists’, therebels, claimed that the horrendousattack on Aleppo University on 15January 2013 that killed 87 people,many of them students, was the workof the Bashar government. This wasthe story that most media carriedthough a number of newspapers andtelevision channels also reported thegovernment’s denial. However, whenevidence emerged that showed that the‘good terrorists’ were the actualculprits and independent journalists andstudent groups in Syria, apart from anumber of foreign governments,condemned the ‘good terrorists’ fortheir savagery, very few media outletsgave any prominence to their remarks.

It is through distorted reporting andanalysis of this sort that the mediaconceals the double standards andhypocrisy of the centres of power inthe West. This is why we should onour own look for alternative sourcesof news and analysis and use theinformation at our command tochallenge the powerful to be honest andconsistent about the fight againstterrorism.

28 January, 2013

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President ofInternational Movement for a Just World

(JUST).

A R T I C L E S


4

continued next page

A R T I C L E S

By Jean Bricmont

“RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT” AS IMPERIAL TOOL: THE CASE FOR A

NON-INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY

The events in Syria, after those inLibya last year, are accompanied bycalls for a military intervention, in orderto “protect civilians”, claiming that itis our right or our duty to do so. And,just as last year, some of the loudestvoices in favor of intervention are heardon the left or among the Greens, whohave totally swallowed the concept of“humanitarian intervention”. In fact, therare voices staunchly opposed to suchinterventions are often associated withthe right, either Ron Paul in the US orthe National Front in France. The policythe left should support is non-intervention.

The main target of the humanitarianinterventionists is the concept ofnational sovereignty, on which thecurrent international law is based, andwhich they stigmatize as allowingdictators to kill their own people at will.The impression is sometimes given thatnational sovereignty is nothing but aprotection for dictators whose onlydesire is to kill their own people.

But in fact, the primary justification ofnational sovereignty is precisely toprovide at least a partial protection ofweak states against strong ones. A statethat is strong enough can do whateverit chooses without worrying aboutintervention from outside. Nobodyexpects Bangladesh to interfere in theinternal affairs of the United States.Nobody is going to bomb the UnitedStates to force it to modify itsimmigration or monetary policiesbecause of the human consequencesof such policies on other countries.Humanitarian intervention goes onlyone way, from the powerful to theweak.

The very starting point of the United

Nations was to save humankind from“the scourge of war”, with referenceto the two World Wars. This was tobe done precisely by strict respect fornational sovereignty, in order to preventGreat Powers from interveningmilitarily against weaker ones,regardless of the pretext. Theprotection of national sovereignty ininternational law was based onrecognition of the fact that internalconflicts in weak countries can beexploited by strong ones, as wasshown by Germany’s interventions inCzechoslovakia and Poland, ostensibly“in defense of oppressed minorities”.That led to World War II.

Then came decolonization. FollowingWorld War II, dozens of newlyindependent countries freedthemselves from the colonial yoke. Thelast thing they wanted was to seeformer colonial powers openlyinterfering in their internal affairs (eventhough such interference has oftenpersisted in more or less veiled forms,notably in African countries). Thisaversion to foreign interferenceexplains why the “right” ofhumanitarian intervention has beenuniversally rejected by the countriesof the South, for example at the SouthSummit in Havana in April 2000.Meeting in Kuala Lumpur in February2003, shortly before the US attack onIraq, “The Heads of State or

Government reiterated the rejection bythe Non-Aligned Movement of the so-called ‘right’ of humanitarianintervention, which has no basis eitherin United Nations Charter or ininternational law” and “also observedsimilarities between the new expression‘responsibility to protect’ and‘humanitarian intervention’ andrequested the Co-ordinating Bureau tocarefully study and consider theexpression ‘the responsibility toprotect’ and its implications on the basisof the principles of non-interferenceand non-intervention as well as therespect for territorial integrity andnational sovereignty of States.”

The main failure of the United Nationshas not been that it did not stop dictatorsfrom murdering their own people, butthat it failed to prevent powerfulcountries from violating the principlesof international law: the United Statesin Indochina and Iraq, South Africa inAngola and Mozambique, Israel in itsneighboring countries, Indonesia inEast Timor, not to speak of all thecoups, threats, embargoes, unilateralsanctions, bought elections, etc. Manymillions of people lost their lives becauseof such repeated violation ofinternational law and of the principleof national sovereignty.

In a post-World War II history thatincludes the Indochina wars, theinvasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, ofPanama, even of tiny Grenada, as wellas the bombing of Yugoslavia, Libyaand various other countries, it isscarcely credible to maintain that it isinternational law and respect fornational sovereignty that prevent theUnited States from stopping genocide.If the US had had the means and the


5A R T I C L E S


continued next page

desire to intervene in Rwanda, it wouldhave done so and no international lawwould have prevented that. And if a“new norm” is introduced, such as theright of humanitarian intervention or theresponsibility to protect, within thecontext of the current relationship ofpolitical and military forces, it will notsave anyone anywhere, unless theUnited States sees fit to intervene, fromits own perspective.

US interference in the internal affairsof other states is multi-faceted butconstant and repeatedly violates thespirit and often the letter of the UNCharter. Despite claims to act onbehalf of principles such as freedomand democracy, US intervention hasrepeatedly had disastrousconsequences: not only the millions ofdeaths caused by direct and indirectwars, but also the lost opportunities,the “killing of hope” for hundreds ofmillions of people who might havebenefited from progressive socialpolicies initiated by leaders such asArbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil,Allende in Chile, Lumumba in theCongo, Mossadegh in Iran, theSandinistas in Nicaragua, or PresidentChavez in Venezuela, who have beensystematically subverted, overthrownor killed with full Western support.

But that is not all. Every aggressiveaction led by the United States createsa reaction. Deployment of an anti-missile shield produces more missiles,not less. Bombing civilians – whetherdeliberately or by so-called “collateral

damage” – produces more armedresistance, not less. Trying tooverthrow or subvert governmentsproduces more internal repression, notless. Encouraging secessionistminorities by giving them the oftenfalse impression that the soleSuperpower will come to their rescuein case they are repressed, leads tomore violence, hatred and death, notless. Surrounding a country withmilitary bases produces more defensespending by that country, not less, andthe possession of nuclear weapons byIsrael encourages other states of theMiddle East to acquire such weapons.If the West hesitates to attack Syria orIran, it is because these countries arestronger and have more reliable alliesthan Yugoslavia or Libya. If the Westcomplains about the recent Russianand Chinese vetoes about Syria, it hasonly to blame itself: indeed, this is theresult of the blatant abuse by Nato ofResolution 1973, in order to effectregime change in Libya, which theresolution did not authorize. So, themessage sent by our interventionistpolicy to “dictators” is: be betterarmed, make less concessions andbuild better alliances.

Moreover, the humanitarian disastersin Eastern Congo, which are probablythe largest in recent decades, aremainly due to foreign interventions(mostly from Rwanda, a US ally), notto a lack of them. To take a mostextreme case, which is a favoriteexample of horrors cited by advocatesof the humanitarian interventions, it ismost unlikely that the Khmer Rougewould ever have taken power inCambodia without the massive “secret”US bombing followed by US-engineered regime change that left thatunfortunate country totally disruptedand destabilized.

Another problem with the “right ofhumanitarian intervention” is that itfails to suggest any principle to replace

national sovereignty. When NATOexercised its own self-proclaimed rightto intervene in Kosovo, wherediplomatic efforts were far from havingbeen exhausted, it was praised by theWestern media. When Russia exercisedwhat it regarded as its ownresponsibility to protect in SouthOssetia, it was uniformly condemnedin the same Western media. WhenVietnam intervened in Cambodia, to putan end to the Khmer Rouge, or Indiaintervened to free Bangladesh fromPakistan, their actions were also harshlycondemned in the United States. So,either every country with the means todo so acquires the right to intervenewhenever a humanitarian reason can beinvoked as a justification, and we areback to the war of all against all, oronly an all-powerful state, namely theUnited States (and its allies) are allowedto do so, and we are back to a form ofdictatorship in international affairs.

It is often replied that the interventionsare not to be carried out by one state,but by the “international community”.But the concept of “internationalcommunity” is used primarily by theUnited States and its allies to designatethemselves and whoever agrees withthem at the time. It has grown into aconcept that both rivals the UnitedNations (the “international community”claims to be more “democratic” thanmany UN member states) and tends totake it over in many ways.

In reality, there is no such thing as agenuine international community.NATO’s intervention in Kosovo was notapproved by Russia and Russianintervention in South Ossetia wascondemned by the West. There wouldhave been no Security Council approvalfor either intervention. The AfricanUnion has rejected the indictment bythe International Criminal Court of thePresident of Sudan. Any system ofinternational justice or police, whether

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S6


it is the responsibility to protect or theInternational Criminal Court, wouldneed to be based on a relationship ofequality and a climate of trust. Today,there is no equality and no trust,between West and East, betweenNorth and South, largely as a result ofthe record of US policies. For someversion of the responsibility to protectto be consensually functional in thefuture, we need first to build arelationship of equality and trust.

The Libyan adventure has illustratedanother reality conveniently overlookedby the supporters of humanitarianintervention, namely that without thehuge US military machine, the sort ofsafe no-casualty (on our side)intervention which can hope to gainpublic support is not possible. TheWestern countries are not willing torisk sacrificing too many lives of theirtroops, and waging a purely aerial warrequires an enormous amount of hightechnology equipment. Those whosupport such interventions aresupporting, whether they realize it ornot, the continued existence of the USmilitary machine, with its bloatedbudgets and its weight on the nationaldebt. The European Greens and SocialDemocrats who support the war inLibya should have the honesty to telltheir constituents that they need toaccept massive cuts in public spendingon pensions, unemployment, healthcare and education, in order to bringsuch social expenses down to anAmerican level and use the hundredsof billions of euros thus saved to builda military machine that will be able tointervene whenever and wherever thereis a humanitarian crisis.

If it is true that the 21st century needsa new United Nations, it does not needone that legitimizes such interventionsby novel arguments, such asresponsibility to protect, but one thatgives at least moral support to those

who try to construct a world lessdominated by a single militarysuperpower. The United Nations needsto pursue its efforts to achieve itsfounding purpose before setting a new,supposedly humanitarian priority,which may in reality be used by theGreat Powers to justify their ownfuture wars by undermining theprinciple of national sovereignty.

The left should support an active peacepolicy through internationalcooperation, disarmament, and non-intervention of states in the internalaffairs of others. We could use ouroverblown military budgets toimplement a form of globalKeynesianism: instead of demanding“balanced budgets” in the developingworld, we should use the resourceswasted on our military to financemassive investments in education,health care and development. If thissounds utopian, it is not more so thanthe belief that a stable world willemerge from the way our current “waron terror” is being carried out.

Moreover, the left should strivetowards strict respect for internationallaw on the part of Western powers,implementing the UN resolutionsconcerning Israel, dismantling theworldwide US empire of bases as wellas NATO, ceasing all threatsconcerning the unilateral use of force,stopping all interference in the internalaffairs of other States, in particular alloperations of “democracy promotion”,“color” revolutions, and the exploitationof the politics of minorities. Thisnecessary respect for nationalsovereignty means that the ultimatesovereign of each nation state is thepeople of that state, whose right toreplace unjust governments cannot betaken over by supposedly benevolentoutsiders.

It will be objected that such a policywould allow dictators to “murder their

own people”, the current sloganjustifying intervention. But if non-intervention may allow such terriblethings to happen, history shows thatmilitary intervention frequently has thesame result, when cornered leadersand their followers turn their wrath onthe “traitors” supporting foreignintervention. On the other hand, non-intervention spares domesticoppositions from being regarded asfifth columns of the Western powers– an inevitable result of ourinterventionist policies. Activelyseeking peaceful solutions would allowa reduction of military expenditures,arms sales (including to dictators whomay use them to “murder their ownpeople”) and use of resources toimprove social standards.

Coming to the present situation, onemust acknowledge that the West hasbeen supporting Arab dictators for avariety of reasons, ranging from oil toIsrael, in order to control that region,and that this policy is slowly collapsing.But the lesson to draw is not to rushinto yet another war, in Syria, as wedid in Libya, claiming this time to beon the right side, defending the peopleagainst dictators, but to recognize thatit is high time for us to stop assumingthat we must control the Arab world.At the dawn of the 20th century, mostof the world was under Europeancontrol. Eventually, the West will losecontrol over that part of the world, asit lost it in East Asia and is losing it inLatin America. How the West willadapt itself to its decline is the crucialpolitical question of our time;answering it is unlikely to be eithereasy or pleasant.

20 February, 2012

Jean Bricmont teaches physics at the

University of Louvain in Belgium. He is the

author of Humanitarian Imperialism.

Source: Counterpunch.org

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S 7

continued next page

MUSLIM SOCIETIES, ISRAEL AND THE WEST (PART III)We publish below the final part of an email interview which the well known Iranian journalist Kourosh Ziabariconducted with Dr. Chandra Muzaffar. The first & second parts of this interview appeared in the December2012 & January 2013 issues of the JUST Commentary. –editor

7- On the political level, what do youthink about President Obama’spolicy toward the Muslim world inhis first term? Has he succeeded inrealizing what he had promised tothe Muslim nations, especially in his2009 Cairo speech? What’s yourevaluation of his second term?

Answer: There were some promisingelements in President Obama’s 2009Cairo Speech especially hisacknowledgement of the suffering ofthe Palestinian people. But he did verylittle to translate his rhetoric into action.He not only failed to move thePalestine-Israel Peace Process forwardbut he also allowed himself to behumiliated by one of the most bellicoseIsraeli leaders ever, BenjaminNetanyahu. Iraq, in spite of US troopwithdrawal, remains a tragic tale of anation mired in unending violence.Afghanistan is another sordid mess.

The US drive for hegemony has notceased under Obama as evidenced byUS involvement in Libya and Syria.Iran is still in his crosshairs. Hecontinues to prop up the Saudi andQatari elite and elites in other feudal,autocratic kingdoms in the Gulf, whilepretending that the US is a championof democracy.

Will Obama’s second term bedifferent? I suspect that the USeconomy will absorb most of hisenergies in the second term.Nonetheless, he will have to payattention to international issues too.Since he does not have to worry abouta third term, will he be courageousenough to push aside all the powerfullobbies in the US, including the Zionistand Christian Right lobbies, and do

what is right and true in West Asiaand the rest of the world? There isnothing in Obama’s personality or hispolitics that appears to suggest that hewill go all out to fight for justiceregardless of the consequences.

We must have the audacity to hope forthis: that Obama will prove us allwrong.

8- What do you think about theeconomic sanctions imposed againstIran by the United States and itsEuropean allies? Iran is underpressure over its nuclear programwhile there’s no shred of evidenceconfirming that it has beendeveloping nuclear weapons. Wealso have Israel’s constant warthreats against Iran which havebeen intensified recently. Whatshould Iran and other Muslimnations do about such threats?

Answer: Iran is another colossaltragedy. Since the 1979 IslamicRevolution it has been undertremendous pressure from the US andother Western powers. Economicsanctions, which are nothing butinstruments of war, imposed by the UShave been in force for the last 33 years.

Iran’s ‘sin’ is that it wants to safeguard

its independence as a sovereign nation.It wants to chart its own future; shapeits own destiny. Because the IranianRevolution overthrew a US-Israeliclient, Reza Shah, both US and Israeland their European allies have notforgiven the revolutionaries.

In spite of all the difficulties it hasundergone, Iran has remainedsteadfast. It has not succumbed to theUS and its allies. It has not yielded tothe hegemon.

Unfortunately, there are very fewMuslim majority states that areprepared to stand up for Iran. If theyare silent, it is because a number ofthem are close allies of the US and willnot want to antagonise the US in anyway. Others are afraid of therepercussions if they take Iran’s side.In fact, non-Muslim states such asCuba and Venezuela have been far morevocal in their defence of Iran in themidst of all the reckless allegationsabout its nuclear weapons programme.Their expression of solidarity provesyet again that in the struggle for truthand justice, it is not one’s religiousaffiliation that is the decisive factor.

What can Iran do in this situation?Apart from continuing to cooperatewith the IAEA which is important, Iranshould speak more loudly than everbefore on behalf of a nuclear weaponsfree West Asia and North Africa(WANA). I know Iran has expressedits support for this idea before. But itshould do more. It should spearheadan international campaign for such azone in WANA. It should getgovernments, NGOs and the mediainvolved.

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

8


9- And finally; Iran has justassumed the 3-year presidency ofthe Non-Aligned Movement. What’syour viewpoint about the role thismovement can play in theinternational level? How can iteffectively contribute to worlddevelopments and help with theestablishment of a new world order?

Answer: Like other similar global andregional organisations, the effectivenessof the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)is hampered to a great extent by itsinternal ideological diversity. We shouldtherefore be realistic about ourexpectations of NAM.

Nonetheless, as NAM Chairman, Irancan utilise its leadership position to at leastinitiate some meaningful changes. Itshould work hand in hand with Venezuelawhich will assume the chair after Iran’sthree year term. This is a greatopportunity for the two countries thatshare many common aspirations vis-a-vis the international system to set a newtone for NAM over a six year period.

What are some of the goals that NAMcan pursue?

A) NAM can take a strong moralposition against speculation in theinternational financial system andmobilise global public opinion againstthis vice. It should apply pressureagainst the centres of speculative capitalsuch as London and New York.

B) NAM should also call for thestabilisation of global food prices. Hereagain it should target speculators whoseimmoral activity is responsible forperhaps 20 % of the rise in food pricesin recent months. At the same time,NAM should encourage member statesto adopt concrete measures to increasefood production.

C) NAM should also focus uponthe global environmental crisis andexplore ways and means of dovetailingdevelopment to the larger goal ofecological harmony.

D) NAM should also lend supportto efforts undertaken by various groups

VIOLENCE IN CONNECTICUT: WHY?By Robert J. Burrowes

The tragic shootings in Connecticutagain raise the perennial question ‘Whyare human beings violent?’ Are wegenetically programmed to be violent?Is violence socially learned? Or aresome individuals just ‘psychotic’?Perhaps the most important questionis this: Can we do anything to endhuman violence?

Because of the death of my two unclesin World War 11, I have been researchingthe question ‘Why are human beingsviolent?’ since 1966, including spending14 years living in seclusion from 1996to 2010 with Anita McKone,undertaking a deep psychologicalexamination of our own minds.

I have summarized our learning in thedocument ‘Why Violence?’ - http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence

In essence, human beings are violentbecause of the ‘invisible’ and ‘utterlyinvisible’ violence that we adultsunconsciously inflict on children. Andthis is in addition to the ‘visible’ violencethat we inflict on them consciously.

So what is ‘invisible’ violence? It isthe ‘little things’ we do everyday,partly because we are just ‘too busy’.For example, when we do not allowtime to listen to, and value, a child’sthoughts and feelings, the child learnsto not listen to itSelf thus destroyingits internal communication system.When we do not let a child say whatit wants (or ignore it when it does),the child develops communication andbehavioral dysfunctionalities as itkeeps trying to meet its own needs(which, as a basic survival strategy,it is genetically programmed to do).

When we blame, condemn, insult,mock, embarrass, shame, humiliate,

and individuals in different parts of theworld, including Dr. MahathirMohammad, the former PrimeMinister of Malaysia, to eliminate waras a means of resolving inter-state andintra-state conflicts.

E) NAM should commenceserious discussions within themovement on the underlying spiritualand moral values that are essential forthe evolution of a just, compassionatecivilisation that is free of globalhegemony, gross inequalities, glaringsocial injustices, and religious bigotry.It is only when the underlying valuesconduce towards justice andcompassion that a new civilisation willemerge capable of enhancing humandignity and protecting the integrity ofcreation.

End18 November, 2012

Kourosh Ziabari is an award- winning

Iranian journalist. In 2010, he received the

national medal of Superior Iranian Youth

from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

continued next page


9

taunt, goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie to,bribe, blackmail, moralize with and/orjudge a child, we both undermine itssense of Self-worth and teach it toblame, condemn, insult, mock,embarrass, shame, humiliate, taunt,goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie, bribe,blackmail, moralize and/or judge.

The fundamental outcome of beingbombarded throughout its childhood bythis ‘invisible’ violence is that the childis utterly overwhelmed by feelings offear, pain, anger and sadness (amongmany others). However, parents andother adults also actively interfere withthe expression of these feelings and thebehavioral responses that are naturallygenerated by them and it is this ‘utterlyinvisible’ violence that explains why thedysfunctional behavioral outcomesactually occur.

For example, by ignoring a child whenit expresses its feelings, by comforting,reassuring or distracting a child whenit expresses its feelings, by laughing ator ridiculing its feelings, by terrorizinga child into not expressing its feelings(e.g. by screaming at it when it criesor gets angry), and/or by violentlycontrolling a behavior that is generatedby its feelings (e.g. by hitting it,restraining it or locking it into a room),the child has no choice but tounconsciously suppress its awarenessof these feelings.

However, once a child has beenterrorized into suppressing itsawareness of its feelings (rather thanbeing allowed to have its feelings andto act on them) the child has alsounconsciously suppressed itsawareness of the reality that causedthese feelings. This has manyoutcomes that are disastrous for theindividual, for society and for naturebecause the individual will now easilysuppress its awareness of the feelingsthat would tell it how to act most

functionally in any given circumstanceand it will progressively acquire aphenomenal variety of dysfunctionalbehaviors, including some that are violenttowards itself, others and/or the Earth.

From the above, it should also now beapparent that punishment should neverbe used. ‘Punishment’, of course, isone of the words we use to obscureour awareness of the fact that we areusing violence. Violence, even when welabel it ‘punishment’, scares childrenand adults alike and cannot elicit afunctional behavioural response. Ifsomeone behaves dysfunctionally, theyneed to be listened to, deeply, so thatthey can start to become consciouslyaware of the feelings (which will alwaysinclude fear and, often, terror) that drovethe dysfunctional behaviour in the firstplace. They then need to feel and expressthese feelings (including any anger) in asafe way. Only then will behaviouralchange in the direction of functionalitybe possible.

‘But these adult behaviors you havedescribed don’t seem that bad. Can theoutcome be as disastrous as you claim?’you might ask. The problem is that thereare hundreds of these ‘ordinary’,everyday behaviors - many of themperpetrated in school - that destroy theSelfhood of the child. It is ‘death by athousand cuts’ and most children simplydo not survive as Self-awareindividuals. And why do we do this?We do it so that each child will fit intoour model of ‘the perfect citizen’: thatis, obedient and hardworking student,reliable and pliant employee/soldier, andsubmissive law-abiding citizen.

The tragic reality of human life is thatfew people value the awesome powerof the individual Self with an integratedmind (that is, a mind in which memory,thoughts, feelings, sensing, conscienceand other functions work together inan integrated way) because thisindividual will be decisive in choosing

life-enhancing behavioral options(including those at variance with sociallaws and norms) and will fearlesslyresist all efforts to control it or coerceit with violence.

So how do we end up with people likeAdolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and allthose other perpetrators of violence,including political leaders who conductwars and those who perpetrate theirviolence in our homes and on ourstreets? We create them.

And can we do anything to end humanviolence? Yes we can. Each one of us.Here is the formula, briefly stated:

If you want a child who is nonviolent,truthful, compassionate, considerate,patient, thoughtful, respectful,generous, loving of itself and others,trustworthy, honest, dignified,determined, courageous and powerful,then the child must be treated with -and experience - nonviolence, truth,compassion, consideration, patience,thoughtfulness, respect, generosity,love, trust, honesty, dignity,determination, courage and power.

And if you need an incentive, askyourself this: Do you think it is possibleto successfully tackle the manymanifestations of violence - war,terrorism, street violence, the ongoingclimate catastrophe, the ongoingexploitation of Africa, Asia and Central/South America ... – without addressingits fundamental cause?It’s a big task. But we have a world tosave. Literally.

15 December, 2012

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime

commitment to understanding and ending

human violence. He has done extensieve

research since 1966 in an effort to understand

why human beings are violent and has been a

nonviolent activist since 1981.



10

continued next page

THE GRAVEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACEBy Noam Chomsky

Reporting on the final U.S.presidential campaign debate, onforeign policy, The Wall Street Journalobserved that “the only countrymentioned more (than Israel) was Iran,which is seen by most nations in theMiddle East as the gravest securitythreat to the region.”

The two candidates agreed that anuclear Iran is the gravest threat to theregion, if not the world, as Romneyexplicitly maintained, reiterating aconventional view.

On Israel, the candidates vied indeclaring their devotion to it, but Israeliofficials were nevertheless unsatisfied.They had “hoped for more ‘aggressive’language from Mr. Romney,”according to the reporters. It was notenough that Romney demanded thatIran not be permitted to “reach a pointof nuclear capability.”

Arabs were dissatisfied too, becauseArab fears about Iran were “debatedthrough the lens of Israeli securityinstead of the region’s,” while Arabconcerns were largely ignored – againthe conventional treatment.

The Journal article, like countlessothers on Iran, leaves critical questionsunanswered, among them: Whoexactly sees Iran as the gravestsecurity threat? And what do Arabs (andmost of the world) think can be doneabout the threat, whatever they take itto be?

The first question is easily answered.The “Iranian threat” is overwhelminglya Western obsession, shared by Arabdictators, though not Arab populations.As numerous polls have shown,although citizens of Arab countriesgenerally dislike Iran, they do notregard it as a very serious threat.

Rather, they perceive the threat to beIsrael and the United States; and many,sometimes considerable majorities,regard Iranian nuclear weapons as acounter to these threats.

In high places in the U.S., someconcur with the Arab populations’perception, among them Gen. LeeButler, former head of the StrategicCommand. In 1998 he said, “It isdangerous in the extreme that in thecauldron of animosities that we call theMiddle East,” one nation, Israel, shouldhave a powerful nuclear weaponsarsenal, which “inspires other nationsto do so.”

Still more dangerous is the nuclear-deterrent strategy of which Butler wasa leading designer for many years.Such a strategy, he wrote in 2002, is“a formula for unmitigated catastrophe,”and he called on the United States andother nuclear powers to accept theircommitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to make“good faith” efforts to eliminate theplague of nuclear weapons.

Nations have a legal obligation topursue such efforts seriously, theWorld Court ruled in 1996: “Thereexists an obligation to pursue in goodfaith and bring to a conclusionnegotiations leading to nucleardisarmament in all its aspects understrict and effective internationalcontrol.” In 2002, George W. Bush’sadministration declared that the UnitedStates is not bound by the obligation.

A large majority of the world appearsto share Arab views on the Iranianthreat. The Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) has vigorously supported Iran’sright to enrich uranium, most recentlyat its summit meeting in Tehran lastAugust.

India, the most populous member ofthe NAM, has found ways to evadethe onerous U.S. financial sanctions onIran. Plans are proceeding to link Iran’sChabahar port, refurbished with Indianassistance, to Central Asia throughAfghanistan. Trade relations are alsoreported to be increasing. Were it notfor strong U.S. pressures, these naturalrelations would probably improvesubstantially.

China, which has observer status atthe NAM, is doing much the same.China is expanding developmentprojects westward, including initiativesto reconstitute the old Silk Road fromChina to Europe. A high-speed rail lineconnects China to Kazakhstan andbeyond. The line will presumably reachTurkmenistan, with its rich energyresources, and will probably link withIran and extend to Turkey and Europe.

China has also taken over the majorGwadar port in Pakistan, enabling it toobtain oil from the Middle East whileavoiding the Hormuz and Malaccastraits, which are clogged with trafficand U.S.-controlled. The Pakistanipress reports that “Crude oil importsfrom Iran, the Arab Gulf states andAfrica could be transported overlandto northwest China through the port.”

At its Tehran summit in August, theNAM reiterated the long-standing

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

11


proposal to mitigate or end the threatof nuclear weapons in the Middle Eastby establishing a zone free of weaponsof mass destruction. Moves in thatdirection are clearly the moststraightforward and least onerous wayto overcome the threats. They aresupported by almost the entire world.A fine opportunity to carry suchmeasures forward arose last month,when an international conference wasplanned on the matter in Helsinki.

A conference did take place, but notthe one that was planned. Onlynongovernmental organizationsparticipated in the alternate conference,hosted by the Peace Union of Finland.The planned international conferencewas canceled by Washington inNovember, shortly after Iran agreed toattend.

The Obama administration’s officialreason was “political turmoil in theregion and Iran’s defiant stance onnonproliferation,” the Associated Pressreported, along with lack of consensus“on how to approach the conference.”That reason is the approved referenceto the fact that the region’s only nuclearpower, Israel, refused to attend, callingthe request to do so “coercion.”

Apparently, the Obama administrationis keeping to its earlier position that“conditions are not right unless all

members of the region participate.”The United States will not allowmeasures to place Israel’s nuclearfacilities under international inspection.Nor will the U.S. release informationon “the nature and scope of Israelinuclear facilities and activities.”

The Kuwait news agency immediatelyreported that “the Arab group of statesand the Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) member states agreed tocontinue lobbying for a conference onestablishing a Middle East zone free ofnuclear weapons and all other weaponsof mass destruction.”

Last month, the U.N. General Assemblypassed a resolution calling on Israel tojoin the NPT, 174-6. Voting no was theusual contingent: Israel, the UnitedStates, Canada, Marshall Islands,Micronesia and Palau.

A few days later, the United States carriedout a nuclear weapons test, again banninginternational inspectors from the test sitein Nevada. Iran protested, as did themayor of Hiroshima and some Japanesepeace groups.

Establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone of course requires thecooperation of the nuclear powers: Inthe Middle East, that would include theUnited States and Israel, which refuse.The same is true elsewhere. Suchzones in Africa and the Pacific await

To All Our JUST Commentary Readers

If you are receiving a hardcopy of the Commentary and would prefer to receive your copyelectronically via email alert please inform

[email protected]

For latest articles, videos, events and information please follow us onFacebook: JUST Imjw http://www.facebook.com/just.international;

Twitter: JUST INTERNATIONAL https://twitter.com/JUSTINTERNATION

implementation because the U.S. insistson maintaining and upgrading nuclearweapons bases on islands it controls.

As the NGO meeting convened inHelsinki, a dinner took place in NewYork under the auspices of theWashington Institute for Near EastPolicy, an offshoot of the Israeli lobby.

According to an enthusiastic report onthe “gala” in the Israeli press, DennisRoss, Elliott Abrams and other “formertop advisers to Obama and Bush”assured the audience that “the presidentwill strike (Iran) next year if diplomacydoesn’t succeed” – a most attractiveholiday gift.

Americans can hardly be aware of howdiplomacy has once again failed, for asimple reason: Virtually nothing isreported in the United States about thefate of the most obvious way toaddress “the gravest threat” – Establisha nuclear-weapon-free zone in theMiddle East.

6 January, 2013Noam Chomsky is an American linguist,

philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician,

historian, political critic, and activist. He is

an Institute Professor and Professor

(Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics

& Philosophy at MIT. In addition to his work

in linguistics, he has written on war, politics,

and mass media. He is also a member of the

JUST International Advisory Panel (IAP).

Source: Znet

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

Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid

Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur

MalaysiaNo. WP 1385

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Chequeaddressed to:

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

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

Account No. 5141 6917 0716

Donations from outside Malaysia should be madeby Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$

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

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

JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed tosimilar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

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

TERBITAN BERKALA

just commentary february 2013

Documents

n t e r n

t i o n

global temperature

global warming

global monetaryarrangements

e n t f o r

muchtalk of global imbalances

fundamental change