just commentary september 2013
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
Vol 13, No.09 September 2013
Turn to next page
ARTICLES
GLOBAL PEACE MARCH TODAMASCUS PLANNED
.BEYOND THE SURAU INCIDENT BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.................................P4
.COMMERCIAL COLONISATION OF AFRICA: THE NEW WILD
WEST (PART II)BY GRAHAM PEEBLES..........................................P 10
STATEMENTS
.THE SHIA ISSUE IN PERSPECTIVE
BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR......................................P 6
.SYRIA: A 12 POINT CASE AGAINST MILITARY INTERVENTION
BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR......................................P 2
By Marinella Corriegga, Vanessa Beeley, Feroze Mithiborwala & Roohulla Rezvi
.A NATION BLEEDS
BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR......................................P 5
Say No to US War on Syria!!“Syria you are not alone, we shall not letyou down”
The world yet again waits with batedbreath, as the clouds of war threaten todrown the voices of peace. The US isonce again threatening a sovereigncountry, under a false pretext & fabricatedlies. After Afghanistan, Iraq and Libyawhere millions of innocent civilians died,now it is the turn of Syria.
Once again US is going to use its lethalweapons and ‘save’ the people, bybombing them under the dubious pretextof ‘humanitarian intervention’. TheAmerican unilateralism poses a threat &
a challenge to the overwhelming majorityof nations that oppose the war. Yet againthe US is complicit in destroying &undermining the international politicalstructures & legal framework, even as ittries to speak in the name of theinternational community. But eventhough the US stands in splendidisolation, but yet persists with the war.
Thus once again innocent children &entire populations are going to besubjected to the role of helpless guineapigs, whilst the latest weaponry is yetagain tested. Once again residentialareas, hospitals, schools, bridges, watersupply systems, electric plants, will betargeted by the Cruise missiles, even as
the entire civilian & social infrastructureof an entire nation is degraded &destroyed. Once again apache helicoptersare going to display their accuracy oncivilians, their graves to be marked ascollateral damage.
The impending Imperialist-Zionist war onSyria is a threat to the entire region & willsoon envelop the entire world into afratricidal world war, where hundreds ofmillions of innocents will lose their lives.The very survival of humanity is at stake& thus this is a clarion call for peace.
Enough is enough!!
The overwhelming majority of the people
.SRI LANKA: THE FORGOTTEN LESSON IN GOOD GOVERNANCE
BY SALMA YUSUF.................................................P 8.GLOBALISATION ISN’T JUST ABOUT PROFIT. IT’S ABOUT
TAXES TOO
BY JOSEPH STIGLITZ.................................................P 9
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
2
continued next page
continued from page 1
L E A D A R T I C L E
are opposed to the war & are protesting
across every nation across the world. The
true international community, the comity
of nations has spoken out against the
attack, but the US imperialist pays no
heed due to sheer arrogance & the brute
force that it commands.
But this time we are not going to
demonstrate & protest in our cities only.
We are not going to follow the news of
destruction, death & war through the
satellite channels any more. We are not
ready to sit by & watch a new Iraq and
Afghanistan, even as the occupation &
destruction of Palestine carries on.
This time, we are going to be there with
the people of Syria. This time, for the sake
of global peace and justice, we are going
to March to Damascus from across the
nations of the world, to bring the message
of peace & stand in solidarity with the
Syrian nation, which is one of the most
ancient human civilizations.
Our objective is to resist, to defy & stop
the US led war on Syria.
Our objective is to stand witness to the
destruction that will be wrecked on this
nation & let the world know about the
true reality of the genocidal war.
Our objective is to act as a deterrent &
protect the civilian & social
infrastructure.
Our objective is to stand in solidarity with
the Syrian people.
The very fate of humanity is at stake,
where the choice is between peace & a
global war, a war which will spell certain
doom for all of humanity.
Join us from across the world in our
collective endeavor for peace!
Join us in the “Global Peace March to
Damascus”!
In solidarity
Marinella Corriegga, Vanessa Beeley,
Feroze Mithiborwala & Roohulla Rezvi
(For the International Coordination
Committee - GPMD)
Contact us on Facebook:
Contact us via message to this page if
you wish to take part and we can help
you to organise your participation.
Contact us via https://
www.facebook.com/pages/Global-Peace-
M a r c h - t o - D a m a s c u s /
597025893693258?fref=ts if you wish to
participate.
Thank you
10 September, 2013
Source: Countercurrents.org
SYRIA: A 12 POINT CASE AGAINSTMILITARY INTERVENTION
By Chandra Muzaffar
The House of Representatives and the
Senate of the United States of America
should reject any form of US military
intervention in Syria.
Rejection would be a clear statement
against war. It would be a lucid message
on behalf of peace.
There are at least 12 reasons why the US
Congress, and the people of the world,
should adopt such a stand.
One, if the two houses represent the
voice of the American people, it is
significant that 50% of the people are
against military intervention in Syria
according to a NBC poll conducted on
the 28-29 of August 2013. Only 42%
support military action. It is also important
to bear in mind that the people in countries
regarded as the US’s ‘comrades-in-arms’
are also opposed to military force. In
France it is 64% of the citizenry. In Britain,
the House of Commons, reflecting
popular sentiment, has voted against
military intervention in Syria.
Two, since the United Nations’
investigation team has just begun its
analysis of the alleged chemical attack
near Damascus on 21 August, the US
Congress should insist that President
Obama wait until its findings are made
public, before any multilateral — not
unilateral—decision under the aegis of
the UN is taken on Syria. Though the UN
report will not tell us directly who was
responsible for the attack, there may be
enough circumstantial evidence in it to
indicate the likely culprit. Obama’s
disdainful attitude towards the UN’s
investigation is an affront to the world’s
most important international institution.
Former US president George Bush junior
was also guilty of such disdain when he
ignored the UN Security Council (UNSC)
in his arrogant march to war in Iraq in
2003.
Three, an attack on Syria would also be a
violation of international law since Syria
has not attacked the US. Like Bush,
Obama has decided to bypass the UNSC.
In fact, on a number of occasions in the
last three decades, the US has, without
going through the UNSC, invaded other
sovereign states.
Four, the US Congress should in all
fairness accord due consideration to the
facts and arguments advanced by those
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
3
continued from page 2
continued next page
who insist that Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad could not have been responsible for
the chemical weapons attack. Why would
he want to use such a weapon in the
presence of the UN investigation team that
he himself had invited to ascertain the truth
about earlier chemical gas attacks? More
importantly, what does Bashar gain from a
chemical attack when he has already scored
a series of victories on the battle-ground in
recent months?
Five, in contrast to Bashar, the armed
opposition in Syria appears to have
compelling motives for launching a
chemical weapons assault. It would serve
to draw the US and its allies into a direct
military involvement in Syria especially
since Obama had declared repeatedly that
the use of chemical weapons by Bashar
would be the red line that would provoke
a US response. There have been other
occasions in the course of the 30 month
conflict when the armed rebels have
manipulated incidents and events to elicit
some reaction or other from Western
powers or the UN. Often, incidents linked
to heinous mass killings committed by the
rebels are blamed upon the Bashar
government via a biased global media.
The 21 August chemical gas incident has
all the markings of a meticulously planned
and executed false flag operation.
Six, indeed the US is guilty of fabricating
various false flag operations since it
emerged as a colonial power at the end of
the nineteenth century. From the
battleship Maine incident in Havana in
1898 to the Gulf of Tonkin episode in 1964
to the Kuwait incubator event in 1990 to
the Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) myth in Iraq in 2003, US
intelligence and security outfits have
become adept at creating situations and
circumstances which are then
manipulated to undermine ‘the enemy.’
Seven, the hypocrisy of US political and
security elites is not confined to false flag
operations. Even when it comes to the
use of chemical weapons, it is obvious
that what the elites preach often
contradicts their actual behaviour. Today,
US leaders condemn the use of chemical
weapons as morally reprehensible. We
ask, who used agent orange in Vietnam
which led to the death of thousands?
Who supplied through oblique channels
mustard gas to Saddam Hussein in his
aggression against Iran — gas which he
employed in Halabjah in March 1988
killing 5000 defenceless people? And
what about the depleted uranium widely
used in Iraq in the wake of the Anglo-
American invasion of that land in 2003?
To this day, hundreds of babies continue
to be born deformed as a result of the
impact of DU. US leaders have no moral
authority to pontificate about the
obscenity of chemical weapons.
Eight, that the moral fig-leaf is a cover
for motives which are related to power
and politics is borne out by yet another
dimension of the chemical weapons
issue. If Obama has chosen to be
bellicose on the issue, it is partly
because his Administration sees it as an
assertion of power against Russia in
light of a number of recent developments
in which the latter has stood up to the
US. Through the Syrian conflict, the US
elite aims to show President Vladimir
Putin that the US is still the world’s sole
military superpower and not to be trifled
with.
Nine, the conflict raises yet another
question of morality and power. The US
and its Western allies, like its regional
partners such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
Turkey and Israel, are funding, arming,
providing intelligence and offering
logistical assistance to groups totally
committed to violence and terror as a
method of achieving their goal of ousting
the Bashar government. The Jahbat al-
Nusra, linked to Al-Qaeda — arguably
the strongest of the armed groups ̄ is a
case in point. On the hand, the US and
the others proclaim that they are all
opposed to violence and terrorism and
yet on the other hand they
unscrupulously use terror outfits in
pursuit of their power.
Ten, the Syrian conflict has also
reinforced longstanding sectarian and
tribal divisions in West Asia and North
Africa (WANA). Actors within and
without WANA are exploiting the Sunni-
Shia dichotomy in particular as a way of
playing the majority sect in Islam against
the minority with the aim of weakening
Muslim solidarity. Sectarian violence is
now rearing its ugly head not just in Syria
but also ¯ and for a much longer while
¯ in Lebanon, Bahrain and Iraq.
Eleven, needless to say, sectarian clashes
in WANA benefit Israel which views
turmoil and upheaval in its
neighbourhood as a boon to its goal of
remaining the dominant force in the
region. For the Israeli elite, the ability of
their nation to perpetuate its dominance
is sine qua non for the security of the
state which is their primary obsession. It
is significant that Israel and Zionism have
been able to ensure that US and Western
policy as a whole in WANA is dovetailed
to meet the core interests of the Israeli
state. Taking military action against Syria
with the objective of overthrowing
Bashar is what Israel wants because
Bashar is an important link in the axis of
resistance to Israeli dominance which
includes Iran and Hezbollah. Israel has
conducted three air strikes within Syria
in the last six months and its commandos
have been training segments of the armed
opposition. It is believed that the so-
called ‘independent’ intelligence on the
21 August chemical weapons incident
that is being hawked around by the US
and Britain is actually from Israel. In this
regard, it is worth reiterating that Israel is
the hidden hand in much of the politics
of other states in WANA such as Egypt,
Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Sudan.
Twelve, by taking military action against
WANA states ¯ partly at the urging of
L E A D A R T I C L E
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
4
continued from page 3
continued next page
BEYOND THE SURAU INCIDENT - THE VALUES THAT BIND USBy Chandra Muzaffar
Israel ̄ the US has brought nothing but
misery and suffering to the people. The
classic example is of course Iraq. 10 years
after its conquest by the US and Britain,
Iraq is a totally devastated nation,
wrecked by perpetual sectarian violence,
first ignited by the invasion itself in 2003.
Outside WANA there is the other tragic
case of Afghanistan which 12 years after
the US-NATO occupation is still mired in
the agony of chaos. Why should Syria
be any different? Some advocates of
military intervention in Syria are of the
opinion that since the military action that
Obama is planning is limited in scope and
duration, Syria will not end up like Iraq or
Afghanistan. There is no guarantee. Once
it commences, the military operation could
assume a life of its own. The response from
the Syrian military command, and the
reaction of Iran and Russia could be
decisive. Besides, there are individuals and
groups in Obama’s trench who are
determined to oust Bashar, to achieve
regime change. That could lead to a
prolonged campaign.
Instead of travelling further down the
military route, the US House of
Representatives and the Senate should
urge Obama to lend his weight to the
proposed US-Russia meeting on Syria to
be attended by all the other regional and
international actors connected to the
Syrian conflict. Securing an immediate
ceasefire would be the meeting’s
principal goal. The US and its allies
should cease providing military,
monetary and all other forms of
assistance to the armed opposition on
the ground. As the opposition’s
benefactors turn off the tap, so should
Bashar’s Russian and Iranian backers.
The ceasefire should be supervised by
the UN and would set the stage for the
establishment of an interim national
unity government comprising
representatives from Bashar’s Baath
Party, the legitimate Syrian opposition
and independent individuals. The unity
government will draft a new constitution
which will provide for a parliamentary
election to be followed immediately by a
presidential election. Both elections, and
the referendum on the constitution,
should be conducted and monitored by
the UN.
These are ideas which have been on the
table before but they have not
materialised. Both Bashar and his
opponents and their respective
supporters should prove, through deeds,
that this time they will make a determined
effort to achieve results. They should
realise that the alternative to a peaceful
resolution of the conflict through
negotiations is a continuous, brutal,
bloody civil-cum-proxy war without
winners.
2 September, 2013
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President
of International Movement for a Just
World (JUST)
STATEMENT
Muslims and Buddhists in Malaysia
should not allow the Surau incident to
have a negative impact upon relations
between the two communities. There are
at least two reasons why they should be
vigilant about protecting what has been
generally a harmonious relationship.
One, given the deterioration in Malay-
non-Malay ties in recent times, the Surau
incident may be perceived in some
quarters as further proof of a worsening
communal milieu. Two, since the incident
has come in the midst of a series of
negative episodes involving Buddhists
and Muslims in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and
Indonesia ¯ apart from Thailand ¯
there may be a tendency to view what
happened at the Tanjung Sutera Resort
in Johor on 10 August 2013 as part of an
emerging pattern of tension and friction
between the two communities in Asia.
Muslims and Buddhists in Malaysia are
by and large aware of inter-religious
sensitivities. The very fact that the Chief
Buddhist High Priest of Malaysia, Datuk
K. Sri Dhammaratana apologised
immediately to “our Muslim brothers and
sisters” for the actions of a group of
Buddhists from Singapore who had used
the Surau for Buddhist meditation and
chanting testifies to this. The Adviser to
the Johor State Religious Council
expressed his appreciation of the
Buddhist apology and described it as a
“praiseworthy measure.”
The Surau incident reminds us that
performing the religious ritual of a
particular community within the sacred
space of another community is not
acceptable in Malaysia. True, it has been
done, on rare occasions, in other parts of
the world but the norm everywhere is to
preserve and protect what is perceived
as the sanctity of one’s own sacred space
for those within the fold. This in itself is
not a barrier to inter-religious
understanding and empathy.
It is when the notion of the sanctity and
purity of one’s place of worship is carried
to extremes that it becomes a challenge.
L E A D A R T I C L E
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
5
continued from page 4
In that context, demolishing the Surau
simply because it had been misused on a
single occasion would be a radical move,
at variance with the past practices of a
religion which had allowed people of
other faiths into its sacred space. Besides,
demolishing the Surau because it had
been “defiled” sends a wrong message
to our multi-religious society.
Rather than taking punitive measures of
this sort, religious authorities should be
embarking upon programmes to educate
Muslims and Buddhists about the values
and principles that they share in common.
For the last seventeen years, the
International Movement for a Just World
(JUST) has been engaged in dialogues
with Buddhist groups such as the
International Network of Engaged
Buddhists (INEB), Soka Gakkai and the
Museum of World Religions on how
shared universal spiritual and moral
values and principles can help to shape
a just and peaceful world. In the process,
ARTICLES
Why is Egypt bleeding? Because its
security forces are re-asserting their power
and authority and the Ikhwan-al- Muslimin(
Muslim Brotherhood) is resisting.
Since the police with the backing of the
powerful military began a brutal crackdown
on the Ikhwan and its supporters on 14
August 2013, at least 800 people have been
killed. This includes a small number of
police personnel allegedly executed by the
Ikhwan.
The on-going tussle for power between the
military and the Ikhwan has a long history
behind it. For a brief moment in 1952 they
joined hands in the overthrow of King
Farouk but soon they parted company and
for decades there has been bitter
antagonism and animosity between these
two actors who have dominated Egyptian
politics for so long. The Ikhwan was in fact
banned by Gamal Abdul Nasser, then
Deputy Prime Minister, in 1954, following
an attempt by members of the movement to
assassinate him. Nasser became President
in 1956. The Ikhwan remained outlawed
under his successors, Anwar Sadat and
Hosni Mubarak, who like Nasser, were
military officers.
During this period there were frequent
crackdowns against Ikhwan members and
leaders. Imprisonment, arbitrary
detention and torture characterised the
lives of these Ikhwan activists.
Nonetheless, they managed to sustain
their support base and organisational
structure. The social services that they
provided and their welfare work endeared
them to the people especially the poor
and disadvantaged who constitute such
a huge portion of Egyptian society.
After Mubarak was ousted by a popular
uprising in February 2011, Ikhwan was
legalised. It entered the political process
through a party called the Freedom and
Justice Party. It was this party that won
the largest number of seats in the
Parliamentary Election held at the end of
2011 and the beginning of 2012. In the
June 2012 Presidential Election — the
first free and fair presidential election in
Egypt’s history — it was the candidate
from the Freedom and Justice Party, Dr.
Mohamed Morsi, who secured 52% of the
popular vote. As a democratically elected
President, Morsi initiated a referendum on
a new national constitution. 64% of those
who voted endorsed the Constitution.
Morsi’s and the Ikhwan’s proven
democratic credentials frightened the
military. The military elite saw Ikhwan’s
popularity as a direct challenge to its
power. This is why it used Egypt’s High
Constitutional Court made up of judges
inclined towards the military to order the
dissolution of the democratically elected
parliament on 14 June 2012. The judiciary
was also manipulated to curb the powers
of the President in matters pertaining to
security, defence, foreign policy and the
national budget. A number of policy
decisions that Morsi made also angered
the military top brass.
The military with its strong grip over the
economy also sought to undermine
efforts by the Morsi government to
address various economic issues facing
the people. It explains to some extent why
the long queues of people waiting to
purchase certain essentials that marked
Morsi’s tenure disappeared shortly after
he was ousted! Of course, Morsi himself
failed to formulate effective solutions to
critical problems such as unemployment
By Chandra MuzaffarA NATION BLEEDS
continued next page
we have discovered how even on issues
that appear to pit Buddhists against
Muslims such as the conflict in Southern
Thailand or the clashes between
Buddhists and Rohingyas in Myanmar,
Muslim and Buddhist advocates of
dialogue are able to adopt common
positions based upon justice and inspired
by compassion ¯ values that are at the
heart of both religions.
15 August, 2013
S T A T E M E N T
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
6
continued next page
A R T I C L E Scontinued from page 5
and inflation. His administration was by
and large inept. Because some of
Ikhwan’s most prominent leaders such as
its spiritual guide, Mohammed Badie, and
Khairat el-Shater were the ones who
actually wielded influence in Morsi’s
administration, some of its policies
veered towards exclusiveness alienating
a significant segment of the non-Ikhwan
populace.
All this provided ammunition to the
military and other groups when they
began to mobilise the masses against
Morsi for the 3rd July coup. But Morsi’s
shortcomings do not in any way justify
the coup against a democratically elected
leadership. If Morsi had to be removed,
there was only one avenue available to
the people: through a free and fair
election. That is a fundamental principle
in a democracy. Street demonstrations,
however massive, do not legitimise coups.
Besides, we now know that the “15 to 20
millions” who were supposed to have taken
to the streets — as the veteran journalist
Robert Fisk has pointed out — is a gross
exaggeration which defies logic.
That US and some European leaders can
use such outrageous claims to rationalise
their reluctance to condemn a blatant
military coup against a democratically
elected leader is testimony to their
hypocrisy as defenders of democracy.
What explains their reluctance? It stems
largely from their fear that Ikhwan, given
its policy position on Israel, will not be as
accommodative as the Egyptian military
elite has been since the eighties on issues
pertaining to their intimate ally’s “security
concerns.” It is not surprising therefore
that a number of US Senators and
members of the Congress have
emphasised over and over again that their
most trustworthy partner in Egypt
remains the military. They have also
reminded President Obama that in the
wake of the Egyptian turmoil, Israel must
remain the US’s primary commitment.
The Israeli regime itself had made it
explicitly clear the moment Ikhwan re-
surfaced as a political force to reckon
with in the post-Mubarak era that it was
suspicious of the movement.
Seen within this context, one should not
attach any significance to criticisms from
Washington, London and other Western
capitals about the military’s “excessive
force” and its killing of civilians. They
are meant to mollify human rights groups
at home and to project their international
image as opponents of merciless killings.
The litmus test is whether the US
government will demand that Morsi be
restored to his legitimate position as
President of Egypt.
What this means is that it is unlikely that
there will be strong pressure from the US
upon the 3rd July coup makers to
relinquish their power. At the most, the
principal architect of the coup, General
Abdul- Fattah al-Sisi, will exercise some
restraint in his operations against
Ikhwan. The fighting and the killing will
go on. Ikhwan will not give up. If
anything, the Ikhwan leadership and its
rank-and-file may become even more
determined to achieve justice for Morsi
if the military decides to ban the Ikhwan
— a proposal which may well exacerbate
the situation.
If that happens, and the conflict between
the military and Ikhwan continues,
bloodshed and mayhem may plague
Egypt for many years to come. The
nation will sink into a morass. Such a
prospect will be a disaster for the people.
On the other hand, if in the midst of the
conflict, Egypt makes some economic
progress and resolves at least a portion
of its economic woes, the situation may
eventually stabilise.
However, the long-term consequences of
suppressing Ikhwan will continue to
challenge the nation and Muslims
everywhere. Islamic groups and even
states will conclude that democracy does
not offer any hope. If their aspirations
cannot be achieved through the
democratic process, it would be better
for them to resort to other means,
including violent methods to realise their
goals.
This is why it is so important for a
democratic experiment in a major Arab-
Muslim state like Egypt to succeed. For
now, that experiment has suffered a
colossal setback.
19 August, 2013
THE SHIA ISSUE IN PERSPECTIVEBy Chandra Muzaffar
For more than three weeks now, the
Bahasa Malaysia media has raised the
spectre of a Shia threat to Islam and
Muslims in the country. Day in and day
out articles speak of Shia proselytization
among Sunni Muslims; of widespread
conversions which allegedly have
increased the Shia population in
Malaysia to almost 250,000.
Though empirical evidence of Shia
proselytization is scant, it is true that any
organised attempt to propagate Shia
teachings in largely Sunni societies, and
vice versa, will have repercussions.
Malaysia, like the rest of the Malay
world, has been Sunni for centuries.
When an individual or family converts
to a minority sect that has no deep roots
in the region, uneasiness develops
within the larger community and tensions
rise.
Proselytization should be discouraged in
an intelligent and mature manner. Sunni
religious functionaries and scholars
should engage with Shias allegedly
involved in proselytization. The adverse
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S 7
continued next page
continued from page 6
consequences of their activity should be
conveyed to them and their followers. At
the same time, one should respect the
beliefs of those few families in our midst
who have been Shia for generations.
The overwhelmingly Sunni majority
should also be educated on some of those
Shia beliefs and practices that do not
conform to their tradition. That the Sunni-
Shia schism is essentially a product of
politics and power revolving around the
status of Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s
cousin and son-in-law, is a point that
should be emphasised clearly. The Shias
have a different record of Hadiths and
certain prayer rituals set them apart from
the Sunnis. It is also true that the majority
within the sect recognises the practice of
Muta’ah (temporary marriage).
Acknowledging Shia-Sunni differences in
an objective fashion is not the same as
misinforming the public and distorting
the truth in flagrant violation of ethics
which is what some of the media have
been doing in recent weeks. There is no
need to regurgitate those distortions.
Suffice to reiterate that all Shias subscribe
to the same Quran as the Sunnis.
(Incidentally, the translator of the most
widely read rendition of the Quran in the
English language, the late Abdullah Yusuf
Ali, was a Shia scholar). They are as loyal
to the memory of the Prophet as the
Sunnis are. They face the same Kiblah.
They perform the Hajj. They observe the
fast. And they pay the zakat — apart from
recognising the centrality of prayer in
their lives. Instead of balancing Sunni-
Shia differences with these similarities, a
huge segment of the Bahasa media has
gone on a rampage, stigmatising and
demonising Shias.
Demonization of this sort not only
spawns distrust and suspicion. It also
breeds hatred and antagonism. If left
unchecked, it may even lead to tensions
and the very violence we want to avoid.
Equally serious, when tension and hatred
heighten within the Muslim Ummah, it
would be so easy for those who want to
control the community to exploit its
internal antagonism in order to conquer
and rule the community. This is what
happened in Iraq in 2003. The US and
British invaders exploited Shia
sentiments in their bid to oust Saddam
Hussein’s minority Sunni government.
After Saddam was overthrown and the
majority Shias came to power through the
ballot-box, the US and Britain realised that
the new government in Baghdad was more
inclined towards the Shia government in
Tehran. This was inimical to their interests
and the agenda of their most intimate ally
in the region, namely, Israel. They then
began to manipulate the Sunnis against the
Shia leadership in Baghdad. It is partly
because of this manipulation and the
concomitant power struggles that there is
continuing sectarian violence in Iraq today.
Syria is another tragic example of a
bloody conflict which the global media
controlled by the centres of power in the
West, and Western allies and client states
in West Asia are trying hard to
camouflage as a Sunni-Shia struggle
when in reality it is a stark attempt by
Western powers and Israel to crush
resistance to their hegemonic control of
the region. Turkey, on the one hand, and
Saudi Arabia, on the other, have
additional reasons for plugging this line.
For Sunni Turkey, the rise of Iran and
Shia influence in the region is a challenge
to its ambition and power. For Saudi Arabia,
its ideological attachment to Wahabism
makes it an implacable foe of the Shia belief
system.
The case of Iran also exposes the
underlying political motive behind what
is presented by the Saudi elite and other
like-minded groups in West Asia as “the
Shia threat to Islam.” Before the 1979
Iranian Revolution, Sunni elites in Riyadh
and other Gulf capitals had a warm and
cosy relationship with Iran under Shah
Pahlavi in spite of its Shia orientation.
The Shah, needless to say, was a
staunch ally of the US and Britain.
When the Revolution brought to the
fore a leadership opposed to US helmed
hegemony, Saudi attitude towards Iran
also changed. Iran and Shia teachings
became a problem.
That hegemonic politics is strongly
intertwined with animosity towards
Shia states and movements is borne out
by yet another example. Though the
masses in West Asia shower accolades
upon Hezbollah for its heroic role in
protecting Lebanon’s territorial
integrity in the face of Israeli
aggression, some pro Washington
Sunni elites continue to disparage the
movement. They have now been joined
by some well-known Sunni ulama who
are incensed that the Hezbollah came
to the aid of Bashar Al- Assad’s soldiers
in freeing a Syrian-Lebanese border
town from the control of Western
sponsored, Saudi and Qatari financed
rebels. It explains the massive,
persistent attacks upon Hezbollah and
its Shia character by the ulama in the
Arab media.
It is the pronouncements of these ulama
which are largely responsible for the
upsurge of Shia bashing in Malaysia
in the last few weeks. These ulama —
especially someone like Sheikh Yusuf Al-
Qaradawi ¯ have a huge following in
the country and are highly revered by
the Muslim populace. There is almost
uncritical adulation of these ulama.
Instead of blind worship, Malaysian
Muslims should try to understand the
political dimension of the Shia issue
and cease to demonise this minority
sect within the Ummah. In fact, they
should be looking for meeting-points
between the Sunni majority and Shia
minority. Apart from those fundamental
aspects of faith that we have alluded
to, there are other important links
A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
8
continued from page 7
between the two groups that are worth
highlighting. At the theological level, it
is sometimes forgotten that Imam Abu
Hanifah (died 768), the founder of the
Hanafi mazhab, the largest doctrinal
school within the Sunni community, was
a student of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (died
757), the sixth Imam of the Shias and the
founder of the largest group within the
Shia community, known as Ithna ashariyyah,
or Twelve –Imam Shi’ism. Indeed, the links
were so pervasive at various periods in
history that the Sunni-Shia dichotomy was
often blurred.
It is also important to recall that some of
the most enlightened Muslim
personalities in the contemporary epoch,
both Sunni and Shia, like Shah Wali Allah,
Sayyid Jamaluddin Al-Afghani,
Muhammed Abduh, and Mahmud Shaltut
had sought to reconcile Sunni and Shia
teachings. So did Imam Khomeini,
contrary to what some Bahasa
newspapers have suggested. It was
Khomeini who prohibited Shias from
denigrating some of the wives of the
Prophet and the first three Caliphs. He also
inaugurated Al-Quds Day as a way of
SRI LANKA: THE FORGOTTEN LESSON IN GOOD GOVERNANCEBy Salma Yusuf
In post-war Sri Lanka, a reprioritising of
the national agenda, a change in attitude
to state structures and innovating new
approaches to embrace forgotten
stakeholders remain critical for social
change
Though social justice and the
advancement of peace has not yet
evolved to occupying centre-stage in the
corporate agenda, a significant
development in the international arena is
that businesses are no longer averse to
the idea. Moreover, there has been
acknowledgement within the
international business sector that the
credibility of its operations can be
strengthened by subscribing to altruistic
ideological pursuits and embracing its
latent social role.
In Sri Lanka too, there has begun a
national momentum to raise awareness on
the need to develop the social conscience
of the private sector, following the
conclusion of the three-decade war that
ravaged the country. In this context, what
is required is a more radical reprioritising
of the national agenda in the post-war
situation to socio-economic and political
aims to facilitate such a progressive
movement.
What must be recommended is the
adoption of investment in four areas as
critical to a strategy for contributing to
reconciliation and peace-building: First,
livelihood and income generation
activities; second, training and
empowerment through capacity building
in soft-skills including those that increase
innovation, entrepreneurship and
employability; third, a need to engage
directly with individuals and communities
in war-affected regions of the country and
finally, to ensure that all endeavours
undertaken embrace the vision of
preventing economic stagnation which
has been at the root of most political
conflicts.
The attractiveness of investing in the
north of the country must not be
forgotten in this endeavour. The
availability of rich natural resources in the
region such as limestone, land,
groundwater, sea salt, fisheries and
agriculture could be tapped into in order
to create industries, income generation
and livelihood opportunities.
Additionally, the market demand for
produce and jobs is increasing with the
return of formerly displaced persons to
their original habitats. Further, there exists
potential for development of tourism-
related infrastructure as Jaffna is gaining
increasing currency as a tourist
destination, both by locals and
foreigners. It was recorded that with the
removal of travel restrictions to the north
of the country, a total of 31,000 persons
had travelled to the north in 2012 alone.
This in itself is a testament to the promise
for both local and foreign tourism in the
north of the country which would
benefit immensely from private sector
investment.
The conflict between the north and
south of Sri Lanka has been largely due
to the lack of economic opportunities.
Waiting for perfect conditions to invest
can be counter-productive to social
progress. Reflecting on the Sri Lankan
political history, both insurrections in
the south, and the north, were largely
resource, class and caste related.
Leaving behind a segment of the
community whether in the north or the
south will result in the seeds of dissent
taking root. Allowing marginalisation of
a segment of the community will result
in ethnic entrepreneurs exploiting it for
personal and political advantage.
To this end, certain considerations need
to be made when decisions to invest in
the north and the east are taken, namely,
that youth and adult populations in the
north have been deprived of basic
building solidarity between Sunnis and
Shias on behalf of the Palestinian struggle.
There was a time when even Qaradawi
committed himself to amity between
Sunnis and Shias. In a joint statement
with the Iranian Shia leader, Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani in 2007, he “stressed
the impermissibility of the fighting
between the Sunnis and Shias” and the
need to “be aware of the conspiracies
of the forces of hegemony and Zionism
which aim to weaken Islam and tear it
apart in Iraq.”
10 August, 2013
continued next page
A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
9
continued next page
continued from page 8education during the conflict. Capacity
building is a sine qua non for generating
employability and creating opportunities
for income generation.
The business community is well placed
for developing capacity of potential
entrepreneurs by playing a major role in
skill building. Hence, recognition of such
a role for the private sector and business
community must be taken seriously.
Although engagement of the business
community has been acknowledged as
essential for peace-building by both the
World Bank and the United Nations, a
system of rewards to lure early private
sector entry has yet to be devised, at the
international and national levels.
Further, it is recommended that involving
the private sector in the larger work of
formulating the post-war recovery
strategy in Sri Lanka will help generate
ownership of the process, and in turn
sustainability of outcomes. This would
require innovative thinking by both the
public and private sectors.
The challenge therefore lies in finding
new means to make such engagement
attractive by establishing appropriate
economic and non-economic incentives
for investment.
Possible incentives would be, first, to
demonstrate to businesses how early –
entry into the war – torn regions are a
test of the resilience of the sector’s ability
to navigate adverse conditions and
establish suitable conditions for
economic proclivity.
Second, it can play a crucial self-serving
role in shaping of the market for decades
to come by securing preferential rights
for early entrants and contributing to
developing the legal and regulatory
framework in which they will have to
operate. Such need to be highlighted to
the private sector in Sri Lanka who are
still weary of potential fallouts associated
with investing in the war-affected regions
of the country; and are only now being
sensitised to the critical role that they
can play in re-building the nation and
fostering durable peace.
Closely related to this is the need to
cultivate a positive attitude towards state
structures, administrative structures, public
service and international institutions.
Hence, these two considerations ought to
be integral to Sri Lanka’s foreign policy
strategy, which would necessarily involve
both direct bilateral and multilateral
engagement with relevant foreign powers
and world bodies.
In Sri Lanka, the need for economic
prosperity or at least movement away
from abject poverty and economic
hopelessness is pivotal to moving
towards reconciliation and peace
building if the spirit of peace is to not
falter and be extinguished. It is the private
sector that can provide in the long-term
economic growth opportunities, jobs and
wealth creation.
20 April, 2013
Salma Yusuf is a human rights lawyer based
in Sri Lanka and a visiting lecturer at the
University of Colombo. She is also a member
of JUST.
GLOBALISATION ISN’T JUST ABOUT PROFITS. IT’S ABOUT TAXES TOOBy Joseph Stiglitz
Big corporates are gaming one nation’s
taxpayers against another’s: we need a
global deal to make them pay their way
The world looked on agog as Tim Cook,
the head of Apple, said his company had
paid all the taxes owed - seeming to say
that it paid all the taxes it should have
paid. There is, of course, a big difference
between the two. It’s no surprise that a
company with the resources and
ingenuity of Apple would do what it
could to avoid paying as much tax as it
could within the law. While the supreme
court, in its Citizens United case seems
to have said that corporations are people,
with all the rights attendant thereto, this
legal fiction didn’t endow corporations
with a sense of moral responsibility; and
they have the Plastic Man capacity to be
everywhere and nowhere at the same time
- to be everywhere when it comes to
selling their products, and nowhere when
it comes to reporting the profits derived
from those sales.
Apple, like Google, has benefited
enormously from what the US and other
western governments provide: highly
educated workers trained in universities
that are supported both directly by
government and indirectly (through
generous charitable deductions). The
basic research on which their products
rest was paid for by taxpayer-supported
developments - the internet, without
which they couldn’t exist. Their
prosperity depends in part on our legal
system - including strong enforcement
of intellectual property rights; they asked
(and got) government to force countries
around the world to adopt our standards,
in some cases, at great costs to the lives
and development of those in emerging
markets and developing countries. Yes,
they brought genius and organisational
skills, for which they justly receive kudos.
But while Newton was at least modest
enough to note that he stood on the
shoulders of giants, these titans of
industry have no compunction about
being free riders, taking generously from
the benefits afforded by our system, but
not willing to contribute commensurately.
Without public support, the wellspring
from which future innovation and growth
will come will dry up - not to say what will
happen to our increasingly divided society.
It is not even true that higher corporate tax
rates would necessarily significantly
decrease investment. As Apple has shown,
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
10
continued from page 9
it can finance anything it wants to with debt
- including paying dividends, another ploy
to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
But interest payments are tax deductible -
which means that to the extent that
investment is debt-financed, the cost of
capital and returns are both changed
commensurately, with no adverse effect on
investment. And with the low rate of
taxation on capital gains, returns on equity
are treated even more favorably. Still more
benefits accrue from other details of the tax
code, such as accelerated depreciation and
the tax treatment of research and
development expenditures.
It is time the international community faced
the reality: we have an unmanageable,
unfair, distortionary global tax regime. It is
a tax system that is pivotal in creating the
increasing inequality that marks most
advanced countries today - with America
standing out in the forefront and the UK
not far behind. It is the starving of the public
sector which has been pivotal in America
no longer being the land of opportunity
with a child’s life prospects more dependent
on the income and education of its parents
than in other advanced countries.
Globalisation has made us increasingly
interdependent. These international
corporations are the big beneficiaries of
globalisation - it is not, for instance, the
average American worker and those in
many other countries, who, partly under
the pressure from globalisation, has seen
his income fully adjusted for inflation,
including the lowering of prices that
globalisation has brought about, fall year
after year, to the point where a fulltime male
worker in the US has an income lower than
four decades ago. Our multinationals have
learned how to exploit globalisation in every
sense of the term - including exploiting the
tax loopholes that allow them to evade their
global social responsibilities.
The US could not have a functioning
corporate income tax system if we had
elected to have a transfer price system
(where firms “make up” the prices of goods
and services that one part buys from
another, allowing profits to be booked to
one state or another). As it is, Apple is
evidently able to move profits around to
avoid Californian state taxes. The US has
developed a formulaic system, where
global profits are allocated on the basis of
employment, sales and capital goods. But
there is plenty of room to further fine-tune
the system in response to the easier ability
to shift profits around when a major source
of the real “value-added” is intellectual
property.
Some have suggested that while the
sources of production (value added) are
difficult to identify, the destination is less
so (though with reshipping, this may not
be so clear); they suggest a destination-
based system. But such a system would
not necessarily be fair - providing no
revenues to the countries that have borne
the costs of production. But a destination
system would clearly be better than the
current one.
Even if the US were not rewarded for its
global publicly supported scientific
contributions and the intellectual
property built on them, at least the
country would be rewarded for its
unbridled consumerism, which provides
incentives for such innovation. It would
be good if there could be an international
agreement on the taxation of corporate
profits. In the absence of such an
agreement, any country that threatened
to impose fair corporate taxes would be
punished - production (and jobs) would
be taken elsewhere. In some cases,
countries can call their bluff. Others may
feel the risk is too high. But what cannot
be escaped are customers.
The US by itself could go a long way to
moving reform along: any firm selling goods
there could be obliged to pay a tax on its
global profits, at say a rate of 30%, based
on a consolidated balance sheet, but with
a deduction for corporate profits taxes paid
in other jurisdictions (up to some limit). In
other words, the US would set itself up as
enforcing a global minimum tax regime.
Some might opt out of selling in the US,
but I doubt that many would.
The problem of multinational corporate
tax avoidance is deeper, and requires
more profound reform, including dealing
with tax havens that shelter money for
tax-evaders and facilitate money-
laundering. Google and Apple hire the
most talented lawyers, who know how to
avoid taxes staying within the law. But
there should be no room in our system
for countries that are complicitous in tax
avoidance. Why should taxpayers in
Germany help bail out citizens in a
country whose business model was
based on tax avoidance and a race to the
bottom - and why should citizens in any
country allow their companies to take
advantage of these predatory countries?
To say that Apple or Google simply took
advantage of the current system is to let
them off the hook too easily: the system
didn’t just come into being on its own. It
was shaped from the start by lobbyists
from large multinationals. Companies like
General Electric lobbied for, and got,
provisions that enabled them to avoid
even more taxes. They lobbied for, and
got, amnesty provisions that allowed
them to bring their money back to the US
at a special low rate, on the promise that
the money would be invested in the
country; and then they figured out how
to comply with the letter of the law, while
avoiding the spirit and intention. If Apple
and Google stand for the opportunities
afforded by globalisation, their attitudes
towards tax avoidance have made them
emblematic of what can, and is, going
wrong with that system.
28 May, 2013
Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Laureate is
economics.
Source: Readersupportednews.org
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S
11
The Alliance offers a combination of
public and private money to African
countries willing to take the G8 plunge
into international political-economic
duplicity, with, ACB and “the large
multinational seed, fertiliser and
agrochemical companies setting the
agenda … and philanthropic institutions
(like AGRA and others) establishing the
institutional and infrastructural
mechanisms to realise this agenda”.
Britain has pledged £395 million of foreign
aid whilst, according to the UN “over 45
local and multinational companies have
expressed their intent to invest over $3
billion across the agricultural value chain
in Grow Africa countries [a Programme of
the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD) established by the
African Union in 2003.].” In order to get
their hands on some of the corporations,
billions however, African nations are
required to “change their seed laws, trade
laws and land ownership in order to
prioritise corporate profits over local food
needs”, Mozambique for example is
contracted, the Guardian tells us to
“systematically cease distribution of free
and unimproved seeds”, and is drawing
up new laws granting intellectual property
rights (IPR) of seeds, that will “promote
private sector investment”. In other
words, laws are being written that allow
foreign companies – ‘investors’ (a word
used to mislead and bestow legitimacy) -
to grab the land of their African ‘partners’,
patent their seeds and monopolise their
food markets. In Ghana, Tanzania and
Ivory Coast, similar regulations sit on the
table waiting to be rubber-stamped.
The re-writing of seed laws, along with
the fact that these unbalanced deals allow
“big multinational seed, fertiliser and
agrochemical companies such as Yara,
Monsanto, Syngenta and Cargill to set
the agenda”, is a major concern expressed
by environmental NGO’s and
campaigners, Reuters (20/06/2013) report.
These are concerns that the initiating G8
governments, were they at all troubled by
the impact of their meddling, should share.
The wide ownership, by a small number
of huge agro-chemical companies of the
rights to seeds and fertilisers, is creating,
the UN in its report on the Right to Food,
state: “monopoly privileges to plant
breeders and patent-holders through the
tools of intellectual property”. This
growing trend, facilitated through the
support of the G8 governments is placing
more and more control of the worldwide
food supply in their hands, and is causing,
“the poorest farmers [to] become
increasingly dependent on expensive
inputs, creating the risk of indebtedness in
the face of unstable incomes.” India is a
case in question where farmers strangled
by debt are committing suicide at a rate of
two per hour.
Investment Support Sharing
African farmers, and civil society along
with 25 British campaign groups including
War on Want (WoW), Friends of the
Earth (FoE), The Gaia Foundation and the
World Development Movement, have
declared their objections to the New
Alliance and asked that the government
withhold the £395 million so generously
pledged by Prime Minister David
Cameron. African civil societies are in no
doubt that “opening markets and creating
space for multinationals to secure profits
lie at the heart of the G8 intervention”,
they “recognise the New Alliance is a
poisoned chalice, and they are right to
reject it”, asserts Kirtana Chandrasekaran
of Friends of the Earth (FoE).
Having made a continental mess of their
own countries’ economies, not to
mention the environmental mayhem
caused by their neo-liberal economic
policies, it is with unabashed colonial
arrogance that the G8 governments deem
to tell African countries what to do with
their land and how best to do it. Not only
do they have no genuine interest in
Africa, save what can be gained from it,
but they have “no legitimacy to intervene
in matters of food, hunger and land tenure
in Africa or any other part of the world”,
as WoW make clear. The New Alliance,
according to David Cameron, is “a great
combination of promoting good
governance and helping Africa to feed
its people”. He and the rest of the G8 are
as FoE states, “pretending to be tackling
hunger and land grabbing in Africa while
backing a scheme that will ruin the lives
of hundreds of thousands of small
farmers”. This new deal is “a pro-
corporate assault on African nations”,
providing ‘investment and support‘
opportunities for greedy investors,
looking to further expand their corporate
assets with the support of participating
governments obliged to provide a
selection box of state incentives.
The ending of hunger in sub-Saharan
Africa, India and elsewhere, will not be
brought about by allowing large tracts
of land to be bought up by corporations
whose only interest is in maximizing
return on investment. Far from providing
investment and support for the people
of Africa, The Alliance is a mask for
exploitation and profiteering. True
investment in Africa is, investment in the
people of Africa; the smallholder farmers,
the women and children, the communities
across the continent. It involves working
collectively, consulting, encouraging
participation and crucially sharing.
Sharing of knowledge, experience and
technology, sharing the natural
resources – the land, food and water, the
minerals and other resources equitably
amongst the people of Africa and indeed
the wider world. Such radical,
commonsense ideas would go a long way
to creating not only food security but
harmony, trust and social justice which
just might bring about peace.
27 June, 2013
Part I of this article appeared in the August
2013 JUST Commentary.
Graham Peebles is Director of The Create
Trust, www.thecreatetrust.org.
Source: Countercurrents.org
COMMERCIAL COLONISATION OF AFRICA: THE NEW WILD WEST (PART II)By Graham Peebles
INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTFOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)P.O BOX 288Jalan Sultan46730 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMALAYSIAwww.just-international.org
Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid
Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur
MalaysiaNo. WP 1385
Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Chequeaddressed to:
International Movement for a Just WorldP.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
or direct to our bank account:Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya MainBranch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya,Selangor Darul Ehsan,MALAYSIA
Account No. 5141 6917 0716
Donations from outside Malaysia should be madeby Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$
The International Movement for a Just World isa nonprofit international citizens’ organisationwhich seeks to create public awareness aboutinjustices within the existing global system.It a lso attempts to develop a deeperunderstanding of the struggle for social justiceand human dignity at the global level, guided byuniversal spiritual and moral values.
In furtherance of these objectives, JUST hasundertaken a number of activities includingconducting research, publishing books andmonographs, organising conferences andseminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.
JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed tosimilar objectives in different parts of the world.
About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)
It would be much appreciated if youcould share this copy of the JUST Com-mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-ter still invite him/her to write to JUSTso that we can put his/her name on ourCommentary mailing list.
TERBITAN BERKALA