by Fidel Castro Ruz for Cubanow.net
The concept of nation emerged from the combination of common elements such as history, language, culture, costumes, laws, institutions and others related to the material and spiritual life of human communities.
Bolivar, who worked the great heroic deeds that made him be known as ‘The Liberator’ during his struggle for the freedom of the peoples of the Americas, urged them to create what he called “the greatest nation in the world: less for its extension and riches than for its liberty and glory.”
In Ayacucho, Antonio José de Sucre waged the last battle against the empire that for more than 300 years had transformed much of this continent into a royal property of the Spanish Crown.
That was the same America that tens of years later, after being divided in part by the rising Yankee imperialism, was called by Martí ‘Our America.’
We should remember once again that on May 19, 1895, a few hours before dying in combat for the independence of Cuba -the last bastion of Spanish colonialism in the Americas-, Jose Marti prophetically wrote that everything he had done and would do was to “…timely prevent, with the independence of Cuba, that the United States could expand over the Antilles and fall with that additional force over our American lands."
In the United States, the recently liberated thirteen colonies did not take long to engage in a disorderly expansion to the West in their quest for land and gold -while exterminating indigenous populations- until they reached the Pacific coast. The agricultural and slave States of the South competed with the industrial States of the North that exploited wage labor in an attempt to create other States to protect their economic interests.
In 1848 Mexico was robbed of more than 50 per cent of its territory during a war of conquest launched against that country that was then militarily weak. The conquerors occupied the capital and imposed humiliating peace conditions. Mexico’s big reserves of oil and gas, which remained in the territory that was robbed, would later on be supplied to the United States for more than a century and in part they continue to be so now.
The Yankee filibuster William Walker, encouraged by “the manifest destiny” declared by his country, landed in Nicaragua in 1855 and proclaimed himself as President, until he was expelled by the Nicaraguans and other Central American patriots in 1856.
Our National Hero realized how the destiny of Latin American countries was being shattered by the rising United States Empire.
After Marti’s death in combat there was a military intervention in Cuba at a time when the Spanish army had already been defeated.
The Platt Amendment, which granted that powerful country the right to intervene in the Island, was imposed on Cuba.
The occupation of Puerto Rico - which has lasted for 111 years now- a country nowadays called “Free Associated State” that is neither free nor a State, was another consequence of that intervention.
The worst was still to come for Latin America, as was confirmed by the brilliant premonitions of Marti. The rising empire had already decided that the canal that would connect the two oceans would go through Panama and not through Nicaragua. The Panama isthmus, the Corinth dreamed of by Bolivar as the capital of the biggest Republic of the world he had envisaged, would become a Yankees’ property.
Despite that, there were worst consequences that occurred in the course of the 20th century. With the support of the national political oligarchies, the United States became the owner of the resources and the economies of Latin American countries. Military interventions multiplied; the armies and police forces fell under the US aegis. The Yankee transnationals took control over the fundamental productions and services, banks, insurance companies, foreign trade, railways, ships, warehouses, electricity and telephone services. Others, to a greater or lesser degree, were also finally controlled by them.
It is true that the sharp social inequities led to the emergence of the Mexican Revolution in the second decade of the 20th century -which became a source of inspiration for other countries. The Revolution made it possible for Mexico to make progress in different areas. But the same empire that in the past devoured much of the Mexican territory, is also devouring today important natural resources that still remain in that country, imports cheap labor and is even forcing the Mexican people to shed its own blood.
NAFTA is the most brutal economic agreement ever imposed on a developing country. For the sake of brevity, it will suffice it to point out that the US Government has recently stated that in this moment, when Mexico has been hit by a double blow, not only because of its economic slowdown, but also because of the effects of the AH1N1 virus, the US would probably want to see a more stable economy there before engaging in a long discussion about new commercial negotiations. And of course, not a single word is said about the fact that, as a consequence of the war unleashed by drug trafficking - for which Mexico has deployed 36 000 troops-, almost 4 000 Mexicans have died in 2009. The same phenomenon repeats itself to a greater or lesser degree in the rest of Latin America. Drugs not only cause serious health problems; they also give rise to violence which is causing lot of pain in Mexico and Latin America as a consequence of the insatiable appetite of US markets, which are an undepletable source of the hard currency that is used to foment the production of cocaine and heroine. The US is the country that supplies the weapons that are used in that ferocious and unadvertised war.
Those who die in the territory between Rio Grande and the farthest corners of South America are all Latin Americans. Thus, general violence is breaking new records of deaths and the victims, resulting mostly from drugs and poverty, surpass the figure of 100 000 a year in Latin America.
The empire does not wage the war on drugs within its borders; it does so in the Latin American countries.
In our country we do not grow coca or poppy. We efficiently combat those who attempt to introduce drugs in our country or use Cuba as a transit point. The number of persons who die as a result of violence is decreasing every year. And for that we do not need Yankee soldiers. The war on drugs is a pretext to establish military bases in the whole hemisphere.
Since when the vessels of the Fourth Fleet and modern combat planes are used to combat drugs?
The true objective the US pursues is to control the economic resources, the markets, and to struggle against social changes. Was there any need to reactivate that fleet, which was demobilized after the Second World War, now, more than 60 years later, after the cold war is over and the USSR no longer exists? The arguments used for the installation of seven air and naval bases in Colombia are an insult to intelligence.
History will not forgive those who have been so disloyal to their own peoples, or those who resort to the exercise of sovereignty as a pretext to legitimize the presence of Yankee troops. What type of sovereignty they refer to? Is it the one conquered by Bolivar, Sucre, San Martin, O’Higgins, Morelos, Juárez, Tiradentes and Martí? None of them would have accepted such a repugnant argument to justify the granting of military bases to the Armed Forces of the United States, an empire far more dominant, powerful and universal than the Crowns of the Iberian Peninsula.
If as a consequence of such agreements promoted illegally and unconstitutionally by the United States, any government in that country uses those bases, as was done by Reagan during the dirty war, and Bush at the time of the Iraq war, to provoke an armed conflict between two sister nations, this would be a big tragedy. Venezuela and Colombia were born together in the history of the Americas, after the battles of Boyacá and Carabobo, under the leadership of Simon Bolivar. The Yankee forces could promote a dirty war as they did in Nicaragua, and even recruit soldiers of foreign nationalities who are trained by them and attack any country. But the combative, brave and patriotic people of Colombia would hardly let itself be dragged into a war against a people from a sister nation like Venezuela.
The imperialists would be making a mistake if they equally underestimate the other Latin American peoples. None of them would agree with the presence of Yankee military bases; none of them will fail to express its solidarity with any other Latin American people that is attacked by imperialism.
Martí felt great admiration for Bolivar, and he was not wrong when he said: “And that is how Bolivar is in the sky of America: vigilant and frowning…still wearing his campaign boots; because what he did not do, still remains undone today: because Bolivar still has things to do in the Americas.”
Fidel Castro Ruz
August 9, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Nader Was Right: Liberals Are Going Nowhere With Obama
By Chris Hedges for Truthdig
The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or “extraordinary rendition,” restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens. It will not push through significant environmental reform, regulate Wall Street or end our relationship with private contractors that provide mercenary armies to fight our imperial wars and produce useless and costly weapons systems.
The sad reality is that all the well-meaning groups and individuals who challenge our permanent war economy and the doctrine of pre-emptive war, who care about sustainable energy, fight for civil liberties and want corporate malfeasance to end, were once again suckered by the Democratic Party. They were had. It is not a new story. The Democrats have been doing this to us since Bill Clinton. It is the same old merry-go-round, only with Obama branding. And if we have not learned by now that the system is broken, that as citizens we do not matter to our political elite, that we live in a corporate state where our welfare and our interests are irrelevant, we are in serious trouble. Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans. If we fail to do this, we will continue to undergo a corporate coup d’etat in slow motion that will end in feudalism.
We owe Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party an apology. They were right. If a few million of us had had the temerity to stand behind our ideals rather than our illusions and the empty slogans peddled by the Obama campaign, we would have a platform. We forgot that social reform never comes from accommodating the power structure but from frightening it. The Liberty Party, which fought slavery, the suffragists who battled for women’s rights, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement knew that the question was not how do we get good people to rule—those attracted to power tend to be venal mediocrities—but how do we limit the damage the powerful do to us. These mass movements were the engines for social reform, the correctives to our democracy and the true protectors of the rights of citizens. We have surrendered this power. It is vital to reclaim it. Where is the foreclosure movement? Where is the robust universal health care or anti-war movement? Where is the militant movement for sustainable energy?
“Something is broken,” Nader said when I reached him at his family home in Connecticut. “We are not at the Bangladesh level in terms of passivity, but we are getting there. No one sees anything changing. There is no new political party to give people a choice. The progressive forces have no hammer. When they abandoned our campaign, they told the Democrats we have nowhere to go and will take whatever you give us. The Democrats are under no heat in the electoral arena from the left.
“There comes a point when the public imbibes the ultimatum of the plutocracy,” Nader said when asked about public apathy. “They have bought into the belief that if it protests, it will be brutalized by the police. If they have Muslim names, they will be subjected to Patriot Act treatment. This has scared the hell out of the underclass. They will be called terrorists.
“This is the third television generation,” Nader said. “They have grown up watching screens. They have not gone to rallies. Those are history now. They hear their parents and grandparents talk about marches and rallies. They have little toys and gizmos that they hold in their hands. They have no idea of any public protest or activity. It is a tapestry of passivity.
“They have been broken,” Nader said of the working class. “How many times have their employers threatened them with going abroad? How many times have they threatened the workers with outsourcing? The polls on job insecurity are record-high by those who have employment. And the liberal intelligentsia have failed them. They [the intellectuals] have bought into carping and making lecture fees as the senior fellow at the institute of so-and-so. Look at the top 50 intelligentsia—not one of them supported our campaign, not one of them has urged for street action and marches.”
Our task is to build movements that can act as a counterweight to the corporate rape of America. We must opt out of the mainstream. We must articulate and stand behind a viable and uncompromising socialism, one that is firmly and unequivocally on the side of working men and women. We must give up the self-delusion that we can influence the power elite from the inside. We must become as militant as those who are seeking our enslavement. If we remain passive as we undergo the largest transference of wealth upward in American history, our open society will die. The working class is being plunged into desperation that will soon rival the misery endured by the working class in China and India. And the Democratic Party, including Obama, is a willing accomplice.
“Obama is squandering his positive response around the world,” Nader said. “In terms of foreign and military policy, it is a distinct continuity with Bush. Iraq, Afghanistan, the militarization of foreign policy, the continued expansion of the Pentagon budget and pursuing more globalized trade agreements are the same.”
This is an assessment that neoconservatives now gleefully share. Eliot A. Cohen, writing in The Wall Street Journal, made the same pronouncement.
“Mostly, though, the underlying structure of the policy remains the same,” Cohen wrote in an Aug. 2 opinion piece titled “What’s Different About the Obama Foreign Policy.” “Nor should this surprise us: The United States has interests dictated by its physical location, its economy, its alliances, and above all, its values. Naive realists, a large tribe, fail to understand that ideals will inevitably guide American foreign policy, even if they do not always determine it. Moreover, because the Obama foreign and defense policy senior team consists of centrist experts from the Democratic Party, it is unlikely to make radically different judgments about the world, and about American interests in it, than its predecessors.”
Nader said that Obama should gradually steer the country away from imperial and corporate tyranny.
“You don’t just put out policy statements of congeniality, but statements of gradual redirection,” Nader said. “You incorporate in that statement not just demilitarization, not just ascension of smart diplomacy, but the enlargement of the U.S. as a humanitarian superpower, and cut out these Soviet-era weapons systems and start rapid response for disaster like earthquakes and tsunamis. You expand infectious disease programs, which the U.N. Developmental Commission says can be done for $50 billion a year in Third World countries on nutrition, minimal health care and minimal shelter.”
Obama has expanded the assistance to our class of Wall Street extortionists through subsidies, loan guarantees and backup declarations to banks such as Citigroup. His stimulus package does not address the crisis in our public works infrastructure; instead it doles out funds to Medicaid and unemployment compensation. There will be no huge public works program to remodel the country. The president refuses to acknowledge the obvious—we can no longer afford our empire.
“Obama could raise a call to come home, America, from the military budget abroad,” Nader suggested. “He could create a new constituency that does not exist because everything is so fragmented, scattered, haphazard and slapdash with the stimulus. He could get the local labor unions, the local Chambers of Commerce and the mayors to say the more we cut the military budget, the more you get in terms of public works.”
“They [administration leaders] don’t see the distinction between public power and corporate power,” Nader said. “This is their time in history to reassert public values represented by workers, consumers, taxpayers and communities. They are creating a jobless recovery, the worst of the worst, with the clear specter of inflation on the horizon. We are heading for deep water.”
The massive borrowing acts as an anesthetic. It prevents us from facing the new limitations we must learn to cope with domestically and abroad. It allows us to live in the illusion that we are not in a state of irrevocable crisis, that our decline is not real and that catastrophe has been averted. But running up the national debt can work only so long.
“No one can predict the future,” Nader added hopefully. “No one knows the variables. No one predicted the move on tobacco. No one predicted gay rights. No one predicted the Berkeley student rebellion. The students were supine. You never know what will light the fire. You have to keep the pressure on. I know only one thing for sure: The whole liberal-progressive constituency is going nowhere.”
The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or “extraordinary rendition,” restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens. It will not push through significant environmental reform, regulate Wall Street or end our relationship with private contractors that provide mercenary armies to fight our imperial wars and produce useless and costly weapons systems.
The sad reality is that all the well-meaning groups and individuals who challenge our permanent war economy and the doctrine of pre-emptive war, who care about sustainable energy, fight for civil liberties and want corporate malfeasance to end, were once again suckered by the Democratic Party. They were had. It is not a new story. The Democrats have been doing this to us since Bill Clinton. It is the same old merry-go-round, only with Obama branding. And if we have not learned by now that the system is broken, that as citizens we do not matter to our political elite, that we live in a corporate state where our welfare and our interests are irrelevant, we are in serious trouble. Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans. If we fail to do this, we will continue to undergo a corporate coup d’etat in slow motion that will end in feudalism.
We owe Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party an apology. They were right. If a few million of us had had the temerity to stand behind our ideals rather than our illusions and the empty slogans peddled by the Obama campaign, we would have a platform. We forgot that social reform never comes from accommodating the power structure but from frightening it. The Liberty Party, which fought slavery, the suffragists who battled for women’s rights, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement knew that the question was not how do we get good people to rule—those attracted to power tend to be venal mediocrities—but how do we limit the damage the powerful do to us. These mass movements were the engines for social reform, the correctives to our democracy and the true protectors of the rights of citizens. We have surrendered this power. It is vital to reclaim it. Where is the foreclosure movement? Where is the robust universal health care or anti-war movement? Where is the militant movement for sustainable energy?
“Something is broken,” Nader said when I reached him at his family home in Connecticut. “We are not at the Bangladesh level in terms of passivity, but we are getting there. No one sees anything changing. There is no new political party to give people a choice. The progressive forces have no hammer. When they abandoned our campaign, they told the Democrats we have nowhere to go and will take whatever you give us. The Democrats are under no heat in the electoral arena from the left.
“There comes a point when the public imbibes the ultimatum of the plutocracy,” Nader said when asked about public apathy. “They have bought into the belief that if it protests, it will be brutalized by the police. If they have Muslim names, they will be subjected to Patriot Act treatment. This has scared the hell out of the underclass. They will be called terrorists.
“This is the third television generation,” Nader said. “They have grown up watching screens. They have not gone to rallies. Those are history now. They hear their parents and grandparents talk about marches and rallies. They have little toys and gizmos that they hold in their hands. They have no idea of any public protest or activity. It is a tapestry of passivity.
“They have been broken,” Nader said of the working class. “How many times have their employers threatened them with going abroad? How many times have they threatened the workers with outsourcing? The polls on job insecurity are record-high by those who have employment. And the liberal intelligentsia have failed them. They [the intellectuals] have bought into carping and making lecture fees as the senior fellow at the institute of so-and-so. Look at the top 50 intelligentsia—not one of them supported our campaign, not one of them has urged for street action and marches.”
Our task is to build movements that can act as a counterweight to the corporate rape of America. We must opt out of the mainstream. We must articulate and stand behind a viable and uncompromising socialism, one that is firmly and unequivocally on the side of working men and women. We must give up the self-delusion that we can influence the power elite from the inside. We must become as militant as those who are seeking our enslavement. If we remain passive as we undergo the largest transference of wealth upward in American history, our open society will die. The working class is being plunged into desperation that will soon rival the misery endured by the working class in China and India. And the Democratic Party, including Obama, is a willing accomplice.
“Obama is squandering his positive response around the world,” Nader said. “In terms of foreign and military policy, it is a distinct continuity with Bush. Iraq, Afghanistan, the militarization of foreign policy, the continued expansion of the Pentagon budget and pursuing more globalized trade agreements are the same.”
This is an assessment that neoconservatives now gleefully share. Eliot A. Cohen, writing in The Wall Street Journal, made the same pronouncement.
“Mostly, though, the underlying structure of the policy remains the same,” Cohen wrote in an Aug. 2 opinion piece titled “What’s Different About the Obama Foreign Policy.” “Nor should this surprise us: The United States has interests dictated by its physical location, its economy, its alliances, and above all, its values. Naive realists, a large tribe, fail to understand that ideals will inevitably guide American foreign policy, even if they do not always determine it. Moreover, because the Obama foreign and defense policy senior team consists of centrist experts from the Democratic Party, it is unlikely to make radically different judgments about the world, and about American interests in it, than its predecessors.”
Nader said that Obama should gradually steer the country away from imperial and corporate tyranny.
“You don’t just put out policy statements of congeniality, but statements of gradual redirection,” Nader said. “You incorporate in that statement not just demilitarization, not just ascension of smart diplomacy, but the enlargement of the U.S. as a humanitarian superpower, and cut out these Soviet-era weapons systems and start rapid response for disaster like earthquakes and tsunamis. You expand infectious disease programs, which the U.N. Developmental Commission says can be done for $50 billion a year in Third World countries on nutrition, minimal health care and minimal shelter.”
Obama has expanded the assistance to our class of Wall Street extortionists through subsidies, loan guarantees and backup declarations to banks such as Citigroup. His stimulus package does not address the crisis in our public works infrastructure; instead it doles out funds to Medicaid and unemployment compensation. There will be no huge public works program to remodel the country. The president refuses to acknowledge the obvious—we can no longer afford our empire.
“Obama could raise a call to come home, America, from the military budget abroad,” Nader suggested. “He could create a new constituency that does not exist because everything is so fragmented, scattered, haphazard and slapdash with the stimulus. He could get the local labor unions, the local Chambers of Commerce and the mayors to say the more we cut the military budget, the more you get in terms of public works.”
“They [administration leaders] don’t see the distinction between public power and corporate power,” Nader said. “This is their time in history to reassert public values represented by workers, consumers, taxpayers and communities. They are creating a jobless recovery, the worst of the worst, with the clear specter of inflation on the horizon. We are heading for deep water.”
The massive borrowing acts as an anesthetic. It prevents us from facing the new limitations we must learn to cope with domestically and abroad. It allows us to live in the illusion that we are not in a state of irrevocable crisis, that our decline is not real and that catastrophe has been averted. But running up the national debt can work only so long.
“No one can predict the future,” Nader added hopefully. “No one knows the variables. No one predicted the move on tobacco. No one predicted gay rights. No one predicted the Berkeley student rebellion. The students were supine. You never know what will light the fire. You have to keep the pressure on. I know only one thing for sure: The whole liberal-progressive constituency is going nowhere.”
Monday, August 10, 2009
Mousavi accused of helping 'foreign spies'
Press TV reports:
A prominent lawmaker accuses the campaign headquarters of defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi of aiding and abetting foreign intelligence operatives in Iran.
Ali-Asghar Zarei, a senior parliamentarian and an advisor to newly re-elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed on Sunday that the Mousavi camp had candidly supported foreign espionage activities to advance its political agenda before and after the June 12 election.
“Our intelligence sources say that the Mousavi camp not only laid the foundation for a coup, but also offered their full support to foreign intelligence agents in Iran,” he said.
Zarei claimed that Mousavi and his associates were well aware that foreign spies had infiltrated their election headquarters. “They had full knowledge and yet they did nothing to prevent them from acting against Iranian interests.”
At some point, Zarei also accused the former prime minister of cooperating with Western media outlets in casting doubt on the legitimacy of the presidential poll.
“Without the help of foreign media outlets such as the BBC and VOA, Mousavi could have never spread such baseless rumors about the election conduct,” said Zarei.
He went on to charge that Mousavi had coordinated his efforts with foreign embassies in Tehran, particularly Britain. “If it wasn't for the help extended by Mousavi, British diplomats could not have interfered in the post-election events.”
However, Qorban Behzadian-Nejad, the head of the Mousavi campaign headquarters, dismissed the accusations as “absurd.”
“We have said it before and we will say it again, there were absolutely no meetings between the headquarters [of Mousavi] and foreign embassies,” he said.
Hundreds of thousands of people in Iran took to the streets after the victory of President Ahmadinejad with nearly two-thirds of the vote, which his rivals term as “fraudulent.”
Iran blames the post-election protests on foreign 'interference' and accuses certain Western countries, particularly Britain, for inciting violence during the unrest.
-------
Commentary: while there is no doubt in my mind that Imperial intelligence agencies were deeply involved in the "Gucci Revolution", I don't believe for one second that these acted through the local Western embassies or directly through the Mousavi campaign headquarters. This is just not how such kind of things are done. Frankly, I am even dubious whether there is any formal collaboration or conspiracy between Rafsanjani's Guccis and Imperial intelligences agencies. It is far more likely that the very real collaboration between Rafsanjani and the West is the result of a tacitly acknowleged community of interests and the opposition to a common enemy (Ali Khamenei). Unlike a conspiracy, this type of collusion is impossible to prove or break-up.
What is clear from this report, as well as from the one about a purge of the intelligence services, is that the Iranian intelligence community is being drawn in into the infighting taking place between the various Iranian elites and that is very bad news indeed.
The Saker
A prominent lawmaker accuses the campaign headquarters of defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi of aiding and abetting foreign intelligence operatives in Iran.
Ali-Asghar Zarei, a senior parliamentarian and an advisor to newly re-elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed on Sunday that the Mousavi camp had candidly supported foreign espionage activities to advance its political agenda before and after the June 12 election.
“Our intelligence sources say that the Mousavi camp not only laid the foundation for a coup, but also offered their full support to foreign intelligence agents in Iran,” he said.
Zarei claimed that Mousavi and his associates were well aware that foreign spies had infiltrated their election headquarters. “They had full knowledge and yet they did nothing to prevent them from acting against Iranian interests.”
At some point, Zarei also accused the former prime minister of cooperating with Western media outlets in casting doubt on the legitimacy of the presidential poll.
“Without the help of foreign media outlets such as the BBC and VOA, Mousavi could have never spread such baseless rumors about the election conduct,” said Zarei.
He went on to charge that Mousavi had coordinated his efforts with foreign embassies in Tehran, particularly Britain. “If it wasn't for the help extended by Mousavi, British diplomats could not have interfered in the post-election events.”
However, Qorban Behzadian-Nejad, the head of the Mousavi campaign headquarters, dismissed the accusations as “absurd.”
“We have said it before and we will say it again, there were absolutely no meetings between the headquarters [of Mousavi] and foreign embassies,” he said.
Hundreds of thousands of people in Iran took to the streets after the victory of President Ahmadinejad with nearly two-thirds of the vote, which his rivals term as “fraudulent.”
Iran blames the post-election protests on foreign 'interference' and accuses certain Western countries, particularly Britain, for inciting violence during the unrest.
-------
Commentary: while there is no doubt in my mind that Imperial intelligence agencies were deeply involved in the "Gucci Revolution", I don't believe for one second that these acted through the local Western embassies or directly through the Mousavi campaign headquarters. This is just not how such kind of things are done. Frankly, I am even dubious whether there is any formal collaboration or conspiracy between Rafsanjani's Guccis and Imperial intelligences agencies. It is far more likely that the very real collaboration between Rafsanjani and the West is the result of a tacitly acknowleged community of interests and the opposition to a common enemy (Ali Khamenei). Unlike a conspiracy, this type of collusion is impossible to prove or break-up.
What is clear from this report, as well as from the one about a purge of the intelligence services, is that the Iranian intelligence community is being drawn in into the infighting taking place between the various Iranian elites and that is very bad news indeed.
The Saker
Iran's president purges Intelligence Ministry
The LA Times reports:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad replaces longtime officials with loyalists. The son of a former intelligence chief accuses the president of retaliation against those who have not supported his reelection.
By Borzou Daragahi
Reporting from Beirut — Iran's president has conducted a purge of the nation's Intelligence Ministry, sweeping aside ranking officials with decades of experience in favor of loyalists, said a lawmaker, several news websites and a former intelligence chief's son.
The move, chronicled by news outlets Sunday, underscores the deep rifts and disarray within the highest echelons of the country's security apparatus since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed June 12 reelection.
Analysts say the purge does away with decades of intelligence experience. Even after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, chose to co-opt the shah's clandestine services into his new government rather than start from scratch.
"Ahmadinejad has practically taken command of the most significant security organ in the country and is embarking on a retaliation project," Hassan Younesi, the son of former Intelligence Minister Ali Younesi, wrote in letter posted on his blog late Saturday. "Never has the Intelligence Ministry witnessed such a politically motivated purge since its establishment. This gesture will certainly inflict heavy damage on the management of the ministry."
Officials in the Revolutionary Guard allied with the president have moved to rid the powerful Ministry of Intelligence and Security of senior officers deemed disloyal to Ahmadinejad and his allies, the analysts say.
Ahmad Avai, the lawmaker, accused Ahmadinejad of "settling scores" with ministry officials who had showed unspecified disloyalty to him, according to an interview published by the news website Fararu.com.
"We have to be worried about the ongoing cleanup at the Intelligence Ministry, and the persistence of this trend will irreparably harm the ministry," he said, describing the dismissed officials as "pious, experienced and law-abiding."
Among those sacked were the ministry's No. 2 official and the chief of counterintelligence, Younesi said. News website Alef.ir, close to conservative lawmaker Ahmad Tavakoli, said those leaving include the head of the ministry's technology department, a 25-year veteran; its parliamentary liaison; and the chief of ministry security, who is said to be a confidant of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Some analysts say Ahmadinejad was enraged at the ministry after its leader, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, opposed the airing of taped confessions extracted from detained election protesters and politicians. The president fired Mohseni-Ejei last month.
Analysts have also said that many in the ministry supported presidential challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi over Ahmadinejad, and that Mohseni-Ejei allowed a group of intelligence personnel to deliver a report to Khamenei chronicling massive fraud in the election.
Ahmadinejad last month made himself temporarily de facto chief of the agency, which has operatives and offices across Iran. Hossein Taeb and Ahmad Salek, two hard-line clerics loyal to the president and close to the Revolutionary Guard, now control the vast human intelligence and electronic monitoring infrastructure, Younesi wrote.
Ahmadinejad said he would seek parliament's approval for a new Cabinet, including an intelligence minister, by mid-August. By law, the post must be filled by a cleric. Traditionally, Khamenei must also give his blessing to the person filling the crucial position.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad replaces longtime officials with loyalists. The son of a former intelligence chief accuses the president of retaliation against those who have not supported his reelection.
By Borzou Daragahi
Reporting from Beirut — Iran's president has conducted a purge of the nation's Intelligence Ministry, sweeping aside ranking officials with decades of experience in favor of loyalists, said a lawmaker, several news websites and a former intelligence chief's son.
The move, chronicled by news outlets Sunday, underscores the deep rifts and disarray within the highest echelons of the country's security apparatus since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed June 12 reelection.
Analysts say the purge does away with decades of intelligence experience. Even after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, chose to co-opt the shah's clandestine services into his new government rather than start from scratch.
"Ahmadinejad has practically taken command of the most significant security organ in the country and is embarking on a retaliation project," Hassan Younesi, the son of former Intelligence Minister Ali Younesi, wrote in letter posted on his blog late Saturday. "Never has the Intelligence Ministry witnessed such a politically motivated purge since its establishment. This gesture will certainly inflict heavy damage on the management of the ministry."
Officials in the Revolutionary Guard allied with the president have moved to rid the powerful Ministry of Intelligence and Security of senior officers deemed disloyal to Ahmadinejad and his allies, the analysts say.
Ahmad Avai, the lawmaker, accused Ahmadinejad of "settling scores" with ministry officials who had showed unspecified disloyalty to him, according to an interview published by the news website Fararu.com.
"We have to be worried about the ongoing cleanup at the Intelligence Ministry, and the persistence of this trend will irreparably harm the ministry," he said, describing the dismissed officials as "pious, experienced and law-abiding."
Among those sacked were the ministry's No. 2 official and the chief of counterintelligence, Younesi said. News website Alef.ir, close to conservative lawmaker Ahmad Tavakoli, said those leaving include the head of the ministry's technology department, a 25-year veteran; its parliamentary liaison; and the chief of ministry security, who is said to be a confidant of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Some analysts say Ahmadinejad was enraged at the ministry after its leader, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, opposed the airing of taped confessions extracted from detained election protesters and politicians. The president fired Mohseni-Ejei last month.
Analysts have also said that many in the ministry supported presidential challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi over Ahmadinejad, and that Mohseni-Ejei allowed a group of intelligence personnel to deliver a report to Khamenei chronicling massive fraud in the election.
Ahmadinejad last month made himself temporarily de facto chief of the agency, which has operatives and offices across Iran. Hossein Taeb and Ahmad Salek, two hard-line clerics loyal to the president and close to the Revolutionary Guard, now control the vast human intelligence and electronic monitoring infrastructure, Younesi wrote.
Ahmadinejad said he would seek parliament's approval for a new Cabinet, including an intelligence minister, by mid-August. By law, the post must be filled by a cleric. Traditionally, Khamenei must also give his blessing to the person filling the crucial position.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Iranian Guccis scream "death to Russia"
Check out this al-Jazeera report:
Does anybody in Iran seriously think that Russia's stance towards the Iranian Gucci Revolution can influence the outcome of the struggle for power in Iran?
Of course not.
Sure, Russia sells technology and weapons to Iran, but such contracts are dwarfed by the oil contracts many other countries signed with Iran. So what is the big deal here?
The big deal is, of course, that the top Guccis are all actively courting the rabidly russophobic regimes in the USA and Israel, while the "street-level" demonstrators have clearly fully absorbed the anti-Russian propaganda of the West. "Death to Russia" is not so much an expression of grievances (real or imagined) towards Russia's policies, as it is a kind of oblique "pledge of allegiance" to the USraelien empire and its political agenda.
Does anybody in Iran seriously think that Russia's stance towards the Iranian Gucci Revolution can influence the outcome of the struggle for power in Iran?
Of course not.
Sure, Russia sells technology and weapons to Iran, but such contracts are dwarfed by the oil contracts many other countries signed with Iran. So what is the big deal here?
The big deal is, of course, that the top Guccis are all actively courting the rabidly russophobic regimes in the USA and Israel, while the "street-level" demonstrators have clearly fully absorbed the anti-Russian propaganda of the West. "Death to Russia" is not so much an expression of grievances (real or imagined) towards Russia's policies, as it is a kind of oblique "pledge of allegiance" to the USraelien empire and its political agenda.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Building the US Gulag one case at a time
For a partial list of political prisoners held in US jails, please check:
The Jericho Movement's list
The Prison Activist Ressource Center's list
Also, for some background info check out this 2002 article:
The Reality of Political Prisoners in the USA (PDF format)
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Iran in the crosshairs (again). Ditto for Latin America.
The Islamic Republic is in trouble, no doubt. Following the failure of the coup attempt against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei by Rafsanjani and his "Guccis" (via Mousavi) one could have somewhat naively hoped that things would settle down, but this is clearly not the case.
It now appears that Intelligence Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie has been sacked and replaced by Majid Alavi. There are also reports of other ministers resigning. The Iranian Parliament is also appears to be involved in the crisis. There are also reports of direct disagreements between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei not only on the issue of the Vice Presidency but also on the issue of how the crackdown on the Guccis should be handled.
While it is impossible for me to ascertain what is really going on, one thing is sure: this is definitely a bad sign.
In the meantime, the Empire issued what is, in essence, an ultimatum to Iran: "either deal with us or be bombed". For course, this is not how this was presented to the world. The official version is that the "US proposal to negotiate with Iran is not open-ended". Ditto from Obama's bosses in Israel.
As for Obama, his trip to Russia was just like his trip to Egypt: replete with great speeches and absolutely lacking in any kind of concrete changes from Dubya's imperial policies. Even the absolutely useless "missile shield" in Europe (whose only imaginable purpose is to alienate Russia) is still officially on the US agenda.
Generally, is is quite clear that Obama is nothing more than a very charming and smart salesman for the exact same policies as the ones implemented by the USA since Clinton's election (and the Neocon takeover of power which followed it). "More of the same, only worse, but better packaged" appears to be the motto of theRahm Obama Administration. Either that, or simply "No we can't [change]!".
Or take a look at the coup in Honduras. It literally *reeks* of Eliot Abrams and the rest of the Reagan's "crazies" and their murderous policies in Central America. Oh sure, the Obama Administration is (cautiously) condemned the coup, but the fact is that since the USA controls Honduras and the Honduran military at about 99.999999999999% it could have stopped the coup and restored Zelaya in 24-36 hours tops! So all that talk of the coup being "illegal" is just another new climax of US hypocrisy (at least the Reaganites would have been open about whom they support).
To top it all, the USA is now opening three bases in Colombia. Needless to say, Chavez got the message loud and clear.
Bottom line: the USraelian Empire is threatening military action against Iran and Latin America. In a way, the new US Administration is even more bellicose than the previous one. Dubya, having started three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia) and lost all three of them could hardly be expected to start another three (Pakistan, Iran and Latin America) without triggering a massive outrage in the US (and worldwide) public opinion. However, Obama, with his "young and smart" image and with the full support of the Democratic Party in the USA is going to do just that.
Add to this another "cold" war with Russia and that's a grand total of SEVEN(!!) wars that the Empire is seriously pondering. Of course, Somalia is pretty much over, at least for now. For the time being, Iraq is more or less "frozen", and in Pakistan there is the illusion of "success" in the SWAT area. The cold war with Russia is not going to go "hot" and the same is true for Venezuela and Latin America. The Empire even has the option of choosing not to strike at Iran. Still, it is exceedingly unlikely that all these "minimal" options will be exercised by the US administration simultaneously. A far more likely approach is a one-by-one series of conflicts.
What is certain is that more wars are coming. Soon.
The Saker
PS: while I was writing this piece I got a phone call from Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty asking me to support an audit of the Fed. In itself, this is a very sound idea, in particular since, here too, Obama is making things much worse. What worries me is the somewhat naive hope of the US libertarians that stuff like auditing the Fed could make a difference. It won't. The only chance for the USA to avoid a complete collapse (not unlike the one of the Soviet Union in 1991) is to bring down the entire Zionist-run imperial superstructure which drains it from all its resources (human and material) and the prerequisite first step to achieve that would be to openly denounce it. And that ain't gonna happen any time soon.
It now appears that Intelligence Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie has been sacked and replaced by Majid Alavi. There are also reports of other ministers resigning. The Iranian Parliament is also appears to be involved in the crisis. There are also reports of direct disagreements between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei not only on the issue of the Vice Presidency but also on the issue of how the crackdown on the Guccis should be handled.
While it is impossible for me to ascertain what is really going on, one thing is sure: this is definitely a bad sign.
In the meantime, the Empire issued what is, in essence, an ultimatum to Iran: "either deal with us or be bombed". For course, this is not how this was presented to the world. The official version is that the "US proposal to negotiate with Iran is not open-ended". Ditto from Obama's bosses in Israel.
As for Obama, his trip to Russia was just like his trip to Egypt: replete with great speeches and absolutely lacking in any kind of concrete changes from Dubya's imperial policies. Even the absolutely useless "missile shield" in Europe (whose only imaginable purpose is to alienate Russia) is still officially on the US agenda.
Generally, is is quite clear that Obama is nothing more than a very charming and smart salesman for the exact same policies as the ones implemented by the USA since Clinton's election (and the Neocon takeover of power which followed it). "More of the same, only worse, but better packaged" appears to be the motto of the
Or take a look at the coup in Honduras. It literally *reeks* of Eliot Abrams and the rest of the Reagan's "crazies" and their murderous policies in Central America. Oh sure, the Obama Administration is (cautiously) condemned the coup, but the fact is that since the USA controls Honduras and the Honduran military at about 99.999999999999% it could have stopped the coup and restored Zelaya in 24-36 hours tops! So all that talk of the coup being "illegal" is just another new climax of US hypocrisy (at least the Reaganites would have been open about whom they support).
To top it all, the USA is now opening three bases in Colombia. Needless to say, Chavez got the message loud and clear.
Bottom line: the USraelian Empire is threatening military action against Iran and Latin America. In a way, the new US Administration is even more bellicose than the previous one. Dubya, having started three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia) and lost all three of them could hardly be expected to start another three (Pakistan, Iran and Latin America) without triggering a massive outrage in the US (and worldwide) public opinion. However, Obama, with his "young and smart" image and with the full support of the Democratic Party in the USA is going to do just that.
Add to this another "cold" war with Russia and that's a grand total of SEVEN(!!) wars that the Empire is seriously pondering. Of course, Somalia is pretty much over, at least for now. For the time being, Iraq is more or less "frozen", and in Pakistan there is the illusion of "success" in the SWAT area. The cold war with Russia is not going to go "hot" and the same is true for Venezuela and Latin America. The Empire even has the option of choosing not to strike at Iran. Still, it is exceedingly unlikely that all these "minimal" options will be exercised by the US administration simultaneously. A far more likely approach is a one-by-one series of conflicts.
What is certain is that more wars are coming. Soon.
The Saker
PS: while I was writing this piece I got a phone call from Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty asking me to support an audit of the Fed. In itself, this is a very sound idea, in particular since, here too, Obama is making things much worse. What worries me is the somewhat naive hope of the US libertarians that stuff like auditing the Fed could make a difference. It won't. The only chance for the USA to avoid a complete collapse (not unlike the one of the Soviet Union in 1991) is to bring down the entire Zionist-run imperial superstructure which drains it from all its resources (human and material) and the prerequisite first step to achieve that would be to openly denounce it. And that ain't gonna happen any time soon.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The speech delivered by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on the first Anniversary of Ridwan Swap Operation
In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, The Lord of the world. Peace be on our Master and Prophet – The Seal of Prophets – Abi Al Qassem Mohamad Bin Abdullah and on his chaste and kind Household, chosen companions and all the prophets and messengers. Peace be upon you and Allah's blessing and mercy.
We commemorate with you today the first anniversary of one of the victories of the Resistance and one of the fruits of the sacrifices of our people, resistance, army, nation and fighters. It's the first anniversary of the Ridwan Operation. It goes without saying that the days from 12 to 14 July are very special days for you and us in their characteristics, memory, stances, challenges, difficulties and harshness and also in the scenes of faithfulness, altruism, steadfastness, firmness, might, determination, courage, gallantry, honor, pride, dignity and victory they bring along. Thus it was one of Al Mighty Allah's blessings on us that the Ridwan Operation took place in the very timing and on the very days in which we were entangled in a tough battle and confrontation with the enemy and in which we were paying the tax of resistance and our national, moral, humanistic and jihadi commitment to the resistance.
I will not tackle what concerns these days and I will leave handling the aggressive war of July or Lebanon War II (which is the term they agreed to refer to with), the repercussions of this war and the upcoming Israeli regional challenge to the festival to be held on August 14th which we see as the closing day that sealed the sacrifices and steadfastness witnessed in that war and the beginning of a new stage in the struggle. We really see it as the day of Divine Victory – the victory which Allah promised the sacrificing, faithful and truthful believers and fighters. This victory was interpreted by the whole world, everyone according to his intellectual and convictional background and according to his private school. So allow us to stress on interpreting it as well according to our intellectual background and private school and say that what took place in July and on August 14th was a true evident divine victory. Anyway, we will tackle the whole issue on August 14th.
Today I would like to stick solely to the Ridwan Operation and the horizons of this file. When we talk about the Ridwan Operation we all recall that we mean the swap operation that resulted in the liberation of our brethren Lebanese detainees from Israeli prisons on top of whom is the chief of detainees who became the chief of the freed (Samir al Qintar) and the other brethren fighters in the Islamic Resistance who were then captured during the war. Also a great number of Lebanese, Palestinian and Arab martyrs' bodies and remains was restored. Still we have the cause of brethren Yahya Skaff and other issues. Well today we have many issues which might be handled: July War, the regional statue quo, the developments of the so called settlement operation, the escalation in the Israeli stance and the evident clarity in the US stance. Still I chose two issues: the first issue is that of the detainees and the other is the Lebanese internal issue and the government in particular. As for the detainees the issue is in fact essentially linked to how we view the detainee, how we used to view and how we are supposed to view the detainee. This background is the foundation that judges our conduct, movements, activities, stance, speech and dealing with the detainees' cause whether in the past or in the future. This does not concern us in particular. I am talking in general. Resorting to the definitions and terms of external facts, we say that a detainee is a citizen from a definite people. We say a Lebanese detainee, a Palestinian detainee… So let's say we have a Palestinian citizen or a citizen from whatever people who has a just cause and who has rights usurped by the enemy. This citizen believed in his people, the just cause of this people and the fairness of his usurped rights. Thus he antagonized the enemy of his people and got involved in his cause. He was not content with his faith, knowledge and perception of the cause. He rather had the motive as well as the determination and will to struggle and get involved in a long military, security, political, media and civil strife (call them what you like). So he got involved in a long struggle to defend his people and his people's dignity and just cause to restore his usurped rights. Thus he is confronted by this enemy. Some of these strugglers, fighters, rebels (call them what you want) are confronted with bullets and thus are killed. Some are arrested and hurled in prisons behind the bars and become detainees in the common courtesies. You might call them prisoners, captives, arrested… That does not change the fact and the truth about such people and their stances. There are millions of prisoners around the world for various reasons and backgrounds. Some are imprisoned for killing unjustly, stealing, dealing with drugs, violating the public order, having special opinions, being political opponents or being resistance fighters. These prisoners are not equal. The latter group of prisoners who are arrested are in fact called detainees. This is what is agreed on by the world peoples all through history. Thus detainees have special rights and special laws observed by states and peoples all through history. The detainee also has a special moral, spiritual and political status among the people of this detainee as well as his enemy. Even the enemy views these prisoners who were arrested for resistance reasons in a way that differs from viewing other prisoners who were arrested on criminal grounds.
If we knew that a detainee has these characteristics, we become sure of talking about a person who was detained not for a personal or familial struggle or for revenge reasons but rather for national struggle reasons and for defending a just and fair national and humanistic cause. When a prisoner is arrested on such grounds, we call him a detainee and the responsibility of freeing him won't become that of his family only. So the cause of Samir Al Qintar wasn't that of the respectful Al Qintar family; the cause of Sheikh Abdulkarim Obeid wasn't that of the respectful Obeid family alone; and the cause of Dirani or any of the brethrens who were or are still in prisons and today the cause of detainee Yahya Skaff is not that of the respectful Skaff family. Rather the cause of any detainee is the cause of a people, nation, country and lively consciences. Much argument used to be evoked on whether liberating a number of detainees deserves such efforts, sacrifices, struggle and blood. The issue is linked to our view towards the prisoner. Yes if there were prisoners arrested for personal reasons, the issue does not deserve all such sacrifices. But that's not true for such persons who have quit the whole world and got involved in a war for the sake of the homeland and the nation and were ready to be martyrs. Well what is the difference between a detainee and a martyr in their motives and presence in the battlefield, in facing bullets, shells, bombarding and facing death? Some fighters become martyrs and some are wounded while some are detained. What is the difference? Allah chooses this to be a martyr and that for another track.
These detainees hold in their hearts the spirit of martyrdom and sacrifices. They offered sacrifices for the sake of all of us and for us to be alive, free and dignified and so our families enjoy the blessing of having us among them. Some ended up in tombs and some in prisons. Blessed are martyrs in their Afterworld. It is not demanded that we restore the martyrs to this world and if they were offered the chance to return to this world they would return only to fall as martyrs again. But we have a responsibility towards detainees who are in prison. We assume the responsibility of liberating them as they sought to make us free, of guarding their dignity as they sought to reserve our dignity and of making their families happy as they sought to make our families happy. This is the starting point, the foundation and the essential truth which is in fact part of the culture of the resistance.
On such basis we view things differently. As in elections we say this is an electoral key, we say that this is the key for such a viewpoint and all the following concepts and causes. In other words, when we believe in the cause of our people and the justice and fairness of this cause, we know that we must resist, struggle and offer sacrifices for this cause and we might as well hold arms as when confronting occupation. That was the conduct of the peoples of the whole world all through history in facing occupations. If this is our belief, the battle becomes a noble national battle and not a cycle of violence. I want to draw your attention to one point. Even in some local, Arab and international media outlets we at time criticize the courtesies. How do they refer to the martyr who falls in the South or in Gaza as being killed? This is shameful. They must be referred to as martyrs. This is a detail but the issue has to do with the essential original key. How do we view this battle? If we view it as a noble, holy, humanistic and legitimate battle, the combatant in this battle becomes a resistance fighter and struggler. So in mental courtesies, moral status and spiritual outlook, the person killed in this battle is not viewed as the another person who is killed but as a martyr – the martyr of the country, the nation, the people and the sanctuaries. The wounded is not viewed as someone injured in war but rather as the wounded of the resistance and the nation while loses are viewed as sacrifices which lead to victory making and not as loses which we lament. So the issue has to do with this fact based on such grounds. Similarly the prisoner arrested in such struggle is seen as a detainee and not as other millions of prisoners around the world.
Some say that they are like the other prisoners around the world. But surely they aren't like the other prisoners around the world. They are the detainees of the nation, the cause and the resistance. Their motives, hopes, souls and spiritual, emotional and intellectual concepts, their pains and their goals do differ. This makes their families, peoples, country and nation assume different responsibilities. Indeed we are not talking to make theories or to interpret the past. We are still before an open battle. There are still in Israeli prisoners thousands of Palestinian detainees, scores of Syrian and Jordanian detainees and still there are Lebanese who are missing. We don't know if they are alive detainees or martyrs. After this reading, we, in Hezbollah and the resistance forces in Lebanon, believe in the resistance. Thus our view used always to be based on this ground. Thus we consider ourselves as responsible for every detainee whether he belonged to Hezbollah or to any other resistance faction. We considered ourselves responsible for every missing Lebanese or Palestinian who was missed on the Lebanese territories. Now we are talking on the Lebanese level. We are responsible for every Arab who fell in the hands of the enemy and we have data that he is in the grip of the enemy. On this basis we acted with a human, moral, national and jihadi basis. We still consider ourselves in this very position. Should others have assumed this responsibility we would not have assumed it. As I will say later in this speech, we are not competing or quarrelling with anyone. We don't want to take anyone's post. Since 1982 Invasion until our day, we think that this is an obligation that we must assume. In jurisprudential terms, we say it is a Kifai obligation which means if some of our people, our state, or some of our political forces assume this responsibility, it will be lift from our shoulders. We might have participated. Our fighter might have continued then their studies, university, business… But we have noticed that this is a necessary obligation which has been laid on our shoulder. We have to assume it in the light of these conditions which you all know. We have assumed this responsibility thanks Allah. Through the Ridwan Operation, the detainees were restored. Still there is the cause of brethren Yahya Skaff. The data that we received from the Israelis was not convincing whether on the legal or religious perspective to say he is a martyr. Based on the legal, jurisprudential and religious rules, we must say he is alive and thus we should deal with this case as if there is an alive captive in Israeli jails called Yahya Skaff. As in the cases of all the previous detainees whom Allah blessed with freedom, we - as Lebanese - must assume its responsibility beside the family of detainee Yahya Skaff. Still there is a number of bodies and remains of martyrs. It's true that the Israeli enemy claimed in the Ridwan Operation that what they handed over was the whole number of martyrs' bodies. But there was a previous claim before the Ridwan Operation which reveals the presence of hundreds of martyrs' bodies. We can't give in to the Israeli allegation. We will seek and work to restore the other bodies and remains of martyrs. So as far as the missed are concerned, we have to settle their fate. If they are martyrs we want their bodies and remains. If they were alive we want to restore them to freedom. In the cases we are following, we assert that we will follow the cases of the missed whom we have evidences that the Israelis have arrested or kidnapped or were handed in to the Israelis by militias collaborating or coordinating then with Israel. So the cases of such missed are all one file which we are following up with.
In this framework also the cause of the four Iranian diplomats is still open not because they are Iranians but because they are diplomats who were kidnapped on Lebanese territories and the Lebanese government and people assume their responsibility. The government represents the people. They were diplomats accredited by Lebanon and the Lebanese government. We will follow up with these issues. It was always said that we must not get involved with such issues. Why are you complicating issues? Let them say so. Unfortunately in the past – though we don't want to go back to the past – all do know how the state acted. The successive governments dealt in an inadequate and inappropriate way with such causes. This is if we want to use kind words. If we wanted to increase the tone a little we may say that they acted with indifference. They did not consider these causes among their responsibilities. Now should the upcoming government which will be formed God willing assume its responsibilities and worked seriously, we – in Hezbollah – will be under the service of the government. Let it assume its responsibility. Neither in this issue nor in others have we presented ourselves as an alternative to the state, authority or government. I rather call on the upcoming government to assume its responsibility. We will be an assistant element with all the might we have in this perspective. On this level also and in the very atmosphere, we must praise the efforts of the detainees' families all through the past stages whether the fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, sisters, children or relatives. They are responsible families who were really concerned. They were families who used to work day and night. They had media and public presence. They presented evidences, assumed responsibility and thought fully in the cause. All through the past years, we witnessed the efforts of these families which must carry on. We must praise the factional and pubic efforts as well as the men of media, politics, letters and art. We must praise everyone who sought to keep the cause of the detainees alive, defend it and give it its true status whether in Lebanon or in the nation and also to assume every act needed for liberating them. In the peak was July War. All did cooperate. All were present in the scene. Their assumption of responsibility made the cause of detainees after 2000 the dominant part in the resistance scene. Before 2000 there were many parts in the resistance scene. One of the parts was the detainees' cause. After 2000, the detainees' scene was the first and most forcefully file. But as we are still offering our praise, after our praise to Allah Almighty, the praise is first and above all to the sun-burned fists of the heroic fighters of the Islamic Resistance as well as their martyrs, detainees, wounded and to their leader great martyr Hajj Ridwan – Hajj Imad Moghniyah (May Allah's mercy be on him). Still as we are handling the issue of detainees and in this dear, great and happy occasion – the liberation of the detainees – we must recall and salute thousands of Palestinian and scores of Syrian and Jordanian detainees in Israeli prisons. We salute their steadfastness, patience, firmness and sacrifices and we praise the families of these detainees – the patient, firm and agonized families who are enduring harsh and hard suffering.
I tell you brothers and sisters, the remaining of such a great number of Palestinian and Arab detainees in Israeli prisons is like the remaining of Al Qods and the other sanctities under occupation. It is even more harsh and painful. Man might bear the occupation of land. He fights with the hope of liberating land for long years. But standing the occupation of land is different from families (fathers and mothers) enduring being away from their children, wives and children being away from their dear ones, relatives being away from their family members and friends being away from their pals… Here we are talking about two poles and two human axes. Consequently when we talk about the detainees' cause, we have two parts. We have the detainees themselves and their sufferings and the second pole is their families (and this is the important and painful part). I don’t know how the Arab world deals with this issue at the level of governments, peoples, political forces and the media. I admit that I am an emotional person and this is not a point of weakness. This is a good point anyway. I am one of the persons who used to cry whenever I used to meet the children of detainees. When meeting them, I feel more sympathetic even than when meeting the orphans of martyrs. That's because the orphans of children know that their fathers are martyred and that they joined Heavens. So they don't spend their night and day with the hope of their fathers' return to freedom and with the hope of meeting them. We all know what the pain of waiting is like. Now the same emotions are kindled when I watch on TV screens the sons and daughters of Palestinian and Arab detainees. How must we as a nation deal with this issue? What’s more painful is to see those detainees still behind Israeli bars and what’s more humiliating for the whole Arab nation of hundreds of millions of Arabs and a billion and a half Muslim is the scene of those captives still in Israeli jails. This is a stigma on the face of this nation which we are part of and we feel this shame. See brothers and sisters, the whole world understands the Israeli aggression on Lebanon during July War. For 33 days it destroyed, killed thousands, inflicted wounds and displaced more than a million people. The G8, the industrial countries, the Security Council and the whole world sympathized with that. Why? If the real reason is the two prisoners, why does Israel have the right to destroy Lebanon for two prisoners that Hezbollah had captured against the international law as they claim? Israel has the right to do that. The Palestinian resistance captured Shalit. Israel closes its siege on a million and a half people in Gaza. The whole world also understands that. Instead of pressuring Israel to lift the siege, they pressure Hamas and the Palestinians to release Shalit or give up their conditions. This is our world!
Israel is a fabricated, fake apartheid nation that was implanted in our region and which the whole world sympathizes with, respects and understands its crimes and savagery represented in killing thousands of people for the sake of a soldier. However, we are a nation that the world does not respect while thousands of our youths, men and even women remain captured in Israeli jails. Where is the Arab honor? Where is the Arab dignity? Yes this nation needs such martyrs who passed in the way of offering their souls not for the sake of liberating the captives only but also to consecrate the dignity of this nation which does not sleep on injustice and does not accept humiliation. This nation needs Imad Moghniyah. This nation needs every jihadi leading example that had great models in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and other places of resistance. Today on the anniversary of the Ridwan Operation, I liked to make this call because as any Lebanese, Arab and Muslim, I have these feelings and experience this embarrassment and pose this question on myself and on all.
Before moving to the local part of my speech and on the occasion of talking about captives, I like to hint to a topic related to this file in nature though it does not concern the Israelis. At the time in which we in Lebanon think of the captives in the enemy's prisons, in fact we – whether we shared in the government or our brethren deputies in the parliament, the political forces, the public community and the civil community- must consider a very hard topic at the meanwhile. What is the cause of the detainee in Israeli prisons? He is an oppressed human being. Well, this is concerning captives in Israeli prisons. Let's see the prisoners in Lebanese jails. Are there oppressed in prisons? If there isn't, indeed we are with punishing the aggressors, killers, thieves, robbers, corrupters and spies. That's unquestionable. But we fear there are victims of injustice in Lebanese jails. The incident that evoked this concept forcefully is that of the Palestinian brethren Yussef Shaaban who was set free days ago following a general amnesty issued by His Excellence the President of the Republic. In this occasion, I thank the President for this general amnesty and on this just and sound position. But in fact, all through this passed period, we as Lebanese – in the government, the Parliament, political forces, the whole country - were perplexed. A person who is a father of a family who is oppressed and persecuted is imprisoned in a Lebanese jail. His guiltlessness was made clear. Why wasn't he set free yet? They said there is a judicial sentence ratified by the judiciary council for which they couldn't find a solution. But the man is oppressed. It is clear he is oppressed. This is indeed a catastrophe. The catastrophe of Yussef Shaaban came to an end praise be to Allah. Even in the case of Yussef Shaaban if his family did not make a move, people called for setting him free, the media showed concern, political forces took action and the President of the Republic reacted, the man might have remained behind the bars for another eight years again and again without anyone addressing this legal dilemma.
Do we have in Lebanese prisons others like Yussef Shaaban or not? I don't know. I am making a supposition. What is our responsibility as Lebanese, as a government, parliament, political forces and public community? Even if we did not share in the government and parliament, we are Lebanese and the country is ours. The state is ours and this is a prisoner in Lebanese prisons. So we assume a part of the responsibility. We might not manage to set him free but we may speak out and shout. We may reveal the story. This is something which must be taken into consideration.
Another issue to which we must point is the cause of hundreds of arrested from Islamic groups. I am handling this point from the very humanistic and moral background. Well they have been arrested for a long period of time. Let tribunals try them. No one is saying set them free all the same. No some are accused of bombing, killing, of being engaged in Al Bared River incidents…Try them and set free whoever is found innocent and punish whoever is guilty. The calls of families and whoever is raising this issue is rightful, normal and fair.
We must put an end for the phenomenon of hurling people in prisons for a long period of time without trial. This is one of the responsibilities put on us all.
Still more there is the case of the missing Lebanese in Syria and the missing Syrians in Lebanon. This is also a just case. A panel was formed to follow this cause. Where is this panel? Who is following up with it? Who did follow up with the Lebanese-Syrian panel? Did the previous government follow it up? To what limit it followed up this case? This must also be among the priorities of the upcoming government. This cause must be followed to the end. Frankly speaking, if the Lebanese missing in Syria don't exist or were existing and they don't anymore, this must be revealed. The case must be settled. The same applies to the Syrians missed in Lebanon. This case must be decisively settled by whatever means which are indeed rightful and factual to put an end to the sufferings of their families.
As for the Lebanese local affair, after the elections all of us acted on the grounds of accepting the outcome whether it be on the parliamentary, popular and political levels. The country ushered into a stage of calmness and expectation. Indeed the positive position of the Opposition and its acceptance of the outcome of the elections led the country to calmness, expectation and a positive atmosphere. The positive and calm conduct of the main Loyalists political forces also led the country towards appeasement. So it was the conduct of both parties in general that led to this statue quo. The positive atmosphere has to prevail all through the country. Welcomed meetings took place especially between us and main leaderships in Lebanon. Religious meetings also took place in more than one region besides popular and factional movements. Such meetings had positive and good repercussions what helped to a great extent - we don't want to exaggerate in evaluating things- in addressing the state of congestion which prevailed in the previous stage.
As Lebanese we were before the challenge of electing the Speaker. Praise be to Allah, this took place and Mr. Nabih Berri was elected as the Speaker. We were before the challenge of charging the Premier to form the government and this also took place. Most deputies named MP Saad Hariri to form the government. We also dealt with this naming positively and openly. We all in the Opposition announced our readiness to cooperate, make dialogue, meet and exert all possible efforts to form a national unity government. Dialogue and contacts are still taking place on more than one level. On this great challenge, I will talk about two points:
The first point pertains to Hezbollah and the formation of the government. I have read in many newspapers and analysis articles that as a condition for the formation of the government, Hezbollah – as Hezbollah or as Opposition – wants guarantees related to the arms of the resistance or legalizing the resistance arms and this is one of the obstacles before the formation of the government. This is not true at all. Here I am announcing that and through my meeting with Prime Minister-designate –and before he was charged - I told him that we do not want guarantees for the arms of the resistance. Here I am saying on the TV before the whole world: We don't want from the government or from anyone else in this world guarantees for the resistance arms. We have agreed on this, and it’s behind us now because we both agreed that this issue should be discussed at the dialogue table where we are supposed to discuss the resistance arms in the framework of discussing a national defense strategy. This issue is not by any means for discussion in any meeting between us and the designate Premier or any political leadership held in the framework of forming the government.
The other point is: It is said that Hezbollah has certain concerns about the Special Tribunal for Lebanon over what is evoked now on the STL activity in the upcoming stage. Therefore the party is obstructing or impeding the formation of the new government because it wants guarantees. Here again I say this is baseless. We are not demanding any guarantees on the issue of the Tribunal. In fact, I have never discussed this with the designate Premier nor any of our brethrens discussed it with the designate Premier. In fact we did not evoke this issue for discussion at all. Here I am telling you. On the STL, we do not demand guarantees from the government or from anyone else in this world. As for the resistance arms, it is known that it's on the dialogue table. As for the STL, I call that no one makes anticipations. Some people like to make anticipations. Some people might make anticipation because they care for the country. But others make anticipations because they want to push the country to another kind of settlement. Let's not make anticipations and let everything take place when it's due time. I like to add: In all our dialogues and discussions we did not ask for guarantees over any topic related to Hezbollah. Here I am saying on the personal level, if the other parties in the Opposition agreed with the designate Premier on forming a national unity government, we won't be dissatisfied. I myself as Hassan Nasrallah won't be unhappy. Rather we will support it and give it our confidence. So as far as we are concerned in this issue, neither the party, nor its arms nor its resistance nor the STL is causing any impediment.
What is the point then? There are parties in the Opposition which are negotiating now the formation of the government under the ceiling of effectual participation. After all, the country has essential forces. Elections have proved that there are essential and important forces in the country. Neglecting them is wrong while inter-cooperation pushes the country forward. The opposition considers itself concerned in everything through which the country would be run from now all through the next four years. There is a parliament with four–year tenure and a government which will be formed and which will run the country. There are great events to come.
On the financial level, how are we to face the forty or fifty or sixty billion dollar debt? The decision to be taken by the government concerns all the Lebanese. Should the government increase taxes? This concerns all the Lebanese. If it wanted to sell a part of the state's properties, this also concerns all the Lebanese. There is a dangerous and great challenge. No sole party might say this is its own concern and it will rule and run the country by itself.
There is the economic and social issue. The overwhelming majority of the Lebanese people are suffering from miseries, hardships, deprivation, hunger and poverty. This does not concern one party and not the other or one side and not the other. So what is the plan through which we'll address this cause together? They say that'll be through crossing towards being a state. Good. Let's all cross towards the state which will achieve in two years what needs ten years to take place.
Security challenges and Israeli spy networks have caused much media clamor in the country. Unfortunately this issue has not been yet adequately evaluated on the security and political levels. Those networks are not done with yet. I call on some security apparatuses to exert the same effort as before elections to dismantle spy networks. The very conduct as before the elections must be restored in face of spying networks. This is an important and a serious and not a trivial challenge.
Moving to the regional situation and what is plotted to the region, I stress on the statements made by Netanyahu and Lieberman, the speech of the US administration, the new American demands made on the Arab states, the settlements of Palestinians, normalization, the threats of judaizing Palestine on all levels, threats to transform Palestine into a Jewish state and threats to displace the Palestinians living in territories occupied since 1948. These are major regional issues and Lebanon is part of this region and even more Lebanon is the most effective and effected part in the region whether we liked it or not and even if we hid our heads in sand.
This is why we need a government of real partnership. We did not make any suggestions beforehand not to exert any pressure. We went to negotiations while being open to many options. Here words come to an end recalling the Prophetic Tradition that says: "Resort to secrecy until what you are seeking is accomplished." Yes, there are various options suggested for reaching our goals. What’s important is that we reach a real formula that leads to partnership and cooperation and not to retrogressive and annulling participation. I suggested something to designate Premier and here I am saying it on the media to all who are worried about the suggested formulas. You constitute the majority in parliament. A government of real partnership might be formed despite the fact that the previous government – with the acknowledgement of His Excellence the President and the Premier himself – in its final sessions took a great number of decisions and made a great number of achievements. It was not then a crippling government. Still it was a government waiting until parliamentary elections were due. It was a government of challenge and waylay. Every one of us was waylaying the other with the aim or recording points on the other party because there were parliamentary elections. Now there are not parliamentary elections anymore. Let's make a trial now. It's not only that you will try the Opposition but also the Opposition will try you. So let's try each other in a government ruled by the spirit of cooperation, joint liability and national responsibility to face internal and external dangers as a united national front. We may get engaged in such an experience. Now whenever the Prime Minister wants, he may resign and the government will become invalid. Moreover, the majority in parliament can give its vote of no confidence at any time and the government will be toppled. The key is in your hands. Let no one say there is Doha agreement and we are to be committed to each other. Showing the good will by both parties is required at this stage. It's not the story of the winner and the defeated. It's not that of morals. Our country has lived through dangerous divisions and faced serious challenges. Today we need to cooperate with each other to face these challenges and dangers so as to save our country from these divisions. The chance is before us today but we need courage to take the decision.
As for us, I stress that we are open, cooperative and positive. I advise that no one pressure designate Premier with a time limit. Forming the government is worth taking all the time needed. There is no need for any uncalculated step or not a fully considered move. Today the country is enjoying calmness. People are talking to each other, sitting with each other and meeting with each other. This atmosphere must be generalized. We back every meeting between any party in the Opposition with any party in the Loyalists. We see in that a great positive national interest for Lebanon, the people and the general atmosphere. Today the overwhelming popular majority wants calmness in the country. People want calmness. They want meeting with each other, talking to each other and understanding each other. To whoever backs the majority today we say the overwhelming majority of the Lebanese people want this atmosphere to prevail and nothing else but understanding.
Still unfortunately, there are certain personalities and sides that are not at ease with the atmosphere of calm. They don't want it to continue. The same applies to political parties, personalities and media outlets also. They want to return to media escalation, insults, abuses and accusations. They want going back to the negative atmosphere. My opinion is that the people must first identify them and second they must reassess their choices. I ask also: Whose viewpoint they are expressing? Is it true that the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese people is that we reinstall barricades and attack one another and challenge one another, or the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese people is that we sit and talk with one another and reach an understanding? The priorities called for by the political leaderships and parties are different from the priorities of some of these political sides. Well with and without any reason you find them making speeches, shouting and evoking the cause of Hezbollah. What's the story? Is it that they think the elections aren't over yet? No, it seems they have nothing else to address the people with. Still I like to tell you what reassures you. We in Hezbollah took a decision not to be provoked. Let whoever wants to make insults, criticize or even say poetry be at ease. He is trying in vain. But really this is the atmosphere which appeals to some people. Whenever two figures meet they start making analysis and criticizing. Indeed here I mean figures from the Loyalists because if someone from the Opposition meets with someone from the Loyalists the issue is settled. The Opposition has rules which say it doesn't want to annul anyone. I want partnership. The Opposition before the elections used to say that if it gained the majority it will give the Loyalists the guaranteeing one third because it wanted them to participate. Thus the masses of the Opposition have no problem in that. Now if some leaderships in the Loyalists (the majority) and their masses are responsive and took a decision of being open and cooperative why are you tightening over them in such a way? If people are confident of their alliances, there is no need for a hundred phone calls if someone wants to meet with another. At least I may tell you that Hezbollah is at ease as far as this issue is concerned. Hezbollah does not need to reassure its allies and to call them after any meeting or measure because they are confident of this alliance.
I wanted to stress in the local affair on the call for calmness, dialogue and meeting. I watched some media outlets saying where are the martyrs? Now I ask: Do martyrs want us to kill each other? Do the martyrs from both parties in local incidents want the country to be ruined or divided or to antagonize each other, or do they have another view point which we have to follow? Thus is my call for calmness, dialogue and meeting. I call on these parties to be calm and act rationally for what they are doing is by no means fruitful. Now it's summertime. Let people feel at ease and go to villages for refreshment. They might say now: Look how far the Resistance has gone! No I tell you we like living and the culture of living. Let no one chase anyone and let's have patience with each other. Let the big chance available take place. Forming a national free country with true cooperation and partnership is a great chance indeed to the revival of our country and to guard its unity, capacity and power to face challenges.
I thank all of you for your attendance to commemorate this occasion with us. Congratulations for the freedom of the liberated captives. I leave you with the hope of meeting again with all the other captives so that they be free as Sami Qintar and his brethren liberated captives.
We commemorate with you today the first anniversary of one of the victories of the Resistance and one of the fruits of the sacrifices of our people, resistance, army, nation and fighters. It's the first anniversary of the Ridwan Operation. It goes without saying that the days from 12 to 14 July are very special days for you and us in their characteristics, memory, stances, challenges, difficulties and harshness and also in the scenes of faithfulness, altruism, steadfastness, firmness, might, determination, courage, gallantry, honor, pride, dignity and victory they bring along. Thus it was one of Al Mighty Allah's blessings on us that the Ridwan Operation took place in the very timing and on the very days in which we were entangled in a tough battle and confrontation with the enemy and in which we were paying the tax of resistance and our national, moral, humanistic and jihadi commitment to the resistance.
I will not tackle what concerns these days and I will leave handling the aggressive war of July or Lebanon War II (which is the term they agreed to refer to with), the repercussions of this war and the upcoming Israeli regional challenge to the festival to be held on August 14th which we see as the closing day that sealed the sacrifices and steadfastness witnessed in that war and the beginning of a new stage in the struggle. We really see it as the day of Divine Victory – the victory which Allah promised the sacrificing, faithful and truthful believers and fighters. This victory was interpreted by the whole world, everyone according to his intellectual and convictional background and according to his private school. So allow us to stress on interpreting it as well according to our intellectual background and private school and say that what took place in July and on August 14th was a true evident divine victory. Anyway, we will tackle the whole issue on August 14th.
Today I would like to stick solely to the Ridwan Operation and the horizons of this file. When we talk about the Ridwan Operation we all recall that we mean the swap operation that resulted in the liberation of our brethren Lebanese detainees from Israeli prisons on top of whom is the chief of detainees who became the chief of the freed (Samir al Qintar) and the other brethren fighters in the Islamic Resistance who were then captured during the war. Also a great number of Lebanese, Palestinian and Arab martyrs' bodies and remains was restored. Still we have the cause of brethren Yahya Skaff and other issues. Well today we have many issues which might be handled: July War, the regional statue quo, the developments of the so called settlement operation, the escalation in the Israeli stance and the evident clarity in the US stance. Still I chose two issues: the first issue is that of the detainees and the other is the Lebanese internal issue and the government in particular. As for the detainees the issue is in fact essentially linked to how we view the detainee, how we used to view and how we are supposed to view the detainee. This background is the foundation that judges our conduct, movements, activities, stance, speech and dealing with the detainees' cause whether in the past or in the future. This does not concern us in particular. I am talking in general. Resorting to the definitions and terms of external facts, we say that a detainee is a citizen from a definite people. We say a Lebanese detainee, a Palestinian detainee… So let's say we have a Palestinian citizen or a citizen from whatever people who has a just cause and who has rights usurped by the enemy. This citizen believed in his people, the just cause of this people and the fairness of his usurped rights. Thus he antagonized the enemy of his people and got involved in his cause. He was not content with his faith, knowledge and perception of the cause. He rather had the motive as well as the determination and will to struggle and get involved in a long military, security, political, media and civil strife (call them what you like). So he got involved in a long struggle to defend his people and his people's dignity and just cause to restore his usurped rights. Thus he is confronted by this enemy. Some of these strugglers, fighters, rebels (call them what you want) are confronted with bullets and thus are killed. Some are arrested and hurled in prisons behind the bars and become detainees in the common courtesies. You might call them prisoners, captives, arrested… That does not change the fact and the truth about such people and their stances. There are millions of prisoners around the world for various reasons and backgrounds. Some are imprisoned for killing unjustly, stealing, dealing with drugs, violating the public order, having special opinions, being political opponents or being resistance fighters. These prisoners are not equal. The latter group of prisoners who are arrested are in fact called detainees. This is what is agreed on by the world peoples all through history. Thus detainees have special rights and special laws observed by states and peoples all through history. The detainee also has a special moral, spiritual and political status among the people of this detainee as well as his enemy. Even the enemy views these prisoners who were arrested for resistance reasons in a way that differs from viewing other prisoners who were arrested on criminal grounds.
If we knew that a detainee has these characteristics, we become sure of talking about a person who was detained not for a personal or familial struggle or for revenge reasons but rather for national struggle reasons and for defending a just and fair national and humanistic cause. When a prisoner is arrested on such grounds, we call him a detainee and the responsibility of freeing him won't become that of his family only. So the cause of Samir Al Qintar wasn't that of the respectful Al Qintar family; the cause of Sheikh Abdulkarim Obeid wasn't that of the respectful Obeid family alone; and the cause of Dirani or any of the brethrens who were or are still in prisons and today the cause of detainee Yahya Skaff is not that of the respectful Skaff family. Rather the cause of any detainee is the cause of a people, nation, country and lively consciences. Much argument used to be evoked on whether liberating a number of detainees deserves such efforts, sacrifices, struggle and blood. The issue is linked to our view towards the prisoner. Yes if there were prisoners arrested for personal reasons, the issue does not deserve all such sacrifices. But that's not true for such persons who have quit the whole world and got involved in a war for the sake of the homeland and the nation and were ready to be martyrs. Well what is the difference between a detainee and a martyr in their motives and presence in the battlefield, in facing bullets, shells, bombarding and facing death? Some fighters become martyrs and some are wounded while some are detained. What is the difference? Allah chooses this to be a martyr and that for another track.
These detainees hold in their hearts the spirit of martyrdom and sacrifices. They offered sacrifices for the sake of all of us and for us to be alive, free and dignified and so our families enjoy the blessing of having us among them. Some ended up in tombs and some in prisons. Blessed are martyrs in their Afterworld. It is not demanded that we restore the martyrs to this world and if they were offered the chance to return to this world they would return only to fall as martyrs again. But we have a responsibility towards detainees who are in prison. We assume the responsibility of liberating them as they sought to make us free, of guarding their dignity as they sought to reserve our dignity and of making their families happy as they sought to make our families happy. This is the starting point, the foundation and the essential truth which is in fact part of the culture of the resistance.
On such basis we view things differently. As in elections we say this is an electoral key, we say that this is the key for such a viewpoint and all the following concepts and causes. In other words, when we believe in the cause of our people and the justice and fairness of this cause, we know that we must resist, struggle and offer sacrifices for this cause and we might as well hold arms as when confronting occupation. That was the conduct of the peoples of the whole world all through history in facing occupations. If this is our belief, the battle becomes a noble national battle and not a cycle of violence. I want to draw your attention to one point. Even in some local, Arab and international media outlets we at time criticize the courtesies. How do they refer to the martyr who falls in the South or in Gaza as being killed? This is shameful. They must be referred to as martyrs. This is a detail but the issue has to do with the essential original key. How do we view this battle? If we view it as a noble, holy, humanistic and legitimate battle, the combatant in this battle becomes a resistance fighter and struggler. So in mental courtesies, moral status and spiritual outlook, the person killed in this battle is not viewed as the another person who is killed but as a martyr – the martyr of the country, the nation, the people and the sanctuaries. The wounded is not viewed as someone injured in war but rather as the wounded of the resistance and the nation while loses are viewed as sacrifices which lead to victory making and not as loses which we lament. So the issue has to do with this fact based on such grounds. Similarly the prisoner arrested in such struggle is seen as a detainee and not as other millions of prisoners around the world.
Some say that they are like the other prisoners around the world. But surely they aren't like the other prisoners around the world. They are the detainees of the nation, the cause and the resistance. Their motives, hopes, souls and spiritual, emotional and intellectual concepts, their pains and their goals do differ. This makes their families, peoples, country and nation assume different responsibilities. Indeed we are not talking to make theories or to interpret the past. We are still before an open battle. There are still in Israeli prisoners thousands of Palestinian detainees, scores of Syrian and Jordanian detainees and still there are Lebanese who are missing. We don't know if they are alive detainees or martyrs. After this reading, we, in Hezbollah and the resistance forces in Lebanon, believe in the resistance. Thus our view used always to be based on this ground. Thus we consider ourselves as responsible for every detainee whether he belonged to Hezbollah or to any other resistance faction. We considered ourselves responsible for every missing Lebanese or Palestinian who was missed on the Lebanese territories. Now we are talking on the Lebanese level. We are responsible for every Arab who fell in the hands of the enemy and we have data that he is in the grip of the enemy. On this basis we acted with a human, moral, national and jihadi basis. We still consider ourselves in this very position. Should others have assumed this responsibility we would not have assumed it. As I will say later in this speech, we are not competing or quarrelling with anyone. We don't want to take anyone's post. Since 1982 Invasion until our day, we think that this is an obligation that we must assume. In jurisprudential terms, we say it is a Kifai obligation which means if some of our people, our state, or some of our political forces assume this responsibility, it will be lift from our shoulders. We might have participated. Our fighter might have continued then their studies, university, business… But we have noticed that this is a necessary obligation which has been laid on our shoulder. We have to assume it in the light of these conditions which you all know. We have assumed this responsibility thanks Allah. Through the Ridwan Operation, the detainees were restored. Still there is the cause of brethren Yahya Skaff. The data that we received from the Israelis was not convincing whether on the legal or religious perspective to say he is a martyr. Based on the legal, jurisprudential and religious rules, we must say he is alive and thus we should deal with this case as if there is an alive captive in Israeli jails called Yahya Skaff. As in the cases of all the previous detainees whom Allah blessed with freedom, we - as Lebanese - must assume its responsibility beside the family of detainee Yahya Skaff. Still there is a number of bodies and remains of martyrs. It's true that the Israeli enemy claimed in the Ridwan Operation that what they handed over was the whole number of martyrs' bodies. But there was a previous claim before the Ridwan Operation which reveals the presence of hundreds of martyrs' bodies. We can't give in to the Israeli allegation. We will seek and work to restore the other bodies and remains of martyrs. So as far as the missed are concerned, we have to settle their fate. If they are martyrs we want their bodies and remains. If they were alive we want to restore them to freedom. In the cases we are following, we assert that we will follow the cases of the missed whom we have evidences that the Israelis have arrested or kidnapped or were handed in to the Israelis by militias collaborating or coordinating then with Israel. So the cases of such missed are all one file which we are following up with.
In this framework also the cause of the four Iranian diplomats is still open not because they are Iranians but because they are diplomats who were kidnapped on Lebanese territories and the Lebanese government and people assume their responsibility. The government represents the people. They were diplomats accredited by Lebanon and the Lebanese government. We will follow up with these issues. It was always said that we must not get involved with such issues. Why are you complicating issues? Let them say so. Unfortunately in the past – though we don't want to go back to the past – all do know how the state acted. The successive governments dealt in an inadequate and inappropriate way with such causes. This is if we want to use kind words. If we wanted to increase the tone a little we may say that they acted with indifference. They did not consider these causes among their responsibilities. Now should the upcoming government which will be formed God willing assume its responsibilities and worked seriously, we – in Hezbollah – will be under the service of the government. Let it assume its responsibility. Neither in this issue nor in others have we presented ourselves as an alternative to the state, authority or government. I rather call on the upcoming government to assume its responsibility. We will be an assistant element with all the might we have in this perspective. On this level also and in the very atmosphere, we must praise the efforts of the detainees' families all through the past stages whether the fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, sisters, children or relatives. They are responsible families who were really concerned. They were families who used to work day and night. They had media and public presence. They presented evidences, assumed responsibility and thought fully in the cause. All through the past years, we witnessed the efforts of these families which must carry on. We must praise the factional and pubic efforts as well as the men of media, politics, letters and art. We must praise everyone who sought to keep the cause of the detainees alive, defend it and give it its true status whether in Lebanon or in the nation and also to assume every act needed for liberating them. In the peak was July War. All did cooperate. All were present in the scene. Their assumption of responsibility made the cause of detainees after 2000 the dominant part in the resistance scene. Before 2000 there were many parts in the resistance scene. One of the parts was the detainees' cause. After 2000, the detainees' scene was the first and most forcefully file. But as we are still offering our praise, after our praise to Allah Almighty, the praise is first and above all to the sun-burned fists of the heroic fighters of the Islamic Resistance as well as their martyrs, detainees, wounded and to their leader great martyr Hajj Ridwan – Hajj Imad Moghniyah (May Allah's mercy be on him). Still as we are handling the issue of detainees and in this dear, great and happy occasion – the liberation of the detainees – we must recall and salute thousands of Palestinian and scores of Syrian and Jordanian detainees in Israeli prisons. We salute their steadfastness, patience, firmness and sacrifices and we praise the families of these detainees – the patient, firm and agonized families who are enduring harsh and hard suffering.
I tell you brothers and sisters, the remaining of such a great number of Palestinian and Arab detainees in Israeli prisons is like the remaining of Al Qods and the other sanctities under occupation. It is even more harsh and painful. Man might bear the occupation of land. He fights with the hope of liberating land for long years. But standing the occupation of land is different from families (fathers and mothers) enduring being away from their children, wives and children being away from their dear ones, relatives being away from their family members and friends being away from their pals… Here we are talking about two poles and two human axes. Consequently when we talk about the detainees' cause, we have two parts. We have the detainees themselves and their sufferings and the second pole is their families (and this is the important and painful part). I don’t know how the Arab world deals with this issue at the level of governments, peoples, political forces and the media. I admit that I am an emotional person and this is not a point of weakness. This is a good point anyway. I am one of the persons who used to cry whenever I used to meet the children of detainees. When meeting them, I feel more sympathetic even than when meeting the orphans of martyrs. That's because the orphans of children know that their fathers are martyred and that they joined Heavens. So they don't spend their night and day with the hope of their fathers' return to freedom and with the hope of meeting them. We all know what the pain of waiting is like. Now the same emotions are kindled when I watch on TV screens the sons and daughters of Palestinian and Arab detainees. How must we as a nation deal with this issue? What’s more painful is to see those detainees still behind Israeli bars and what’s more humiliating for the whole Arab nation of hundreds of millions of Arabs and a billion and a half Muslim is the scene of those captives still in Israeli jails. This is a stigma on the face of this nation which we are part of and we feel this shame. See brothers and sisters, the whole world understands the Israeli aggression on Lebanon during July War. For 33 days it destroyed, killed thousands, inflicted wounds and displaced more than a million people. The G8, the industrial countries, the Security Council and the whole world sympathized with that. Why? If the real reason is the two prisoners, why does Israel have the right to destroy Lebanon for two prisoners that Hezbollah had captured against the international law as they claim? Israel has the right to do that. The Palestinian resistance captured Shalit. Israel closes its siege on a million and a half people in Gaza. The whole world also understands that. Instead of pressuring Israel to lift the siege, they pressure Hamas and the Palestinians to release Shalit or give up their conditions. This is our world!
Israel is a fabricated, fake apartheid nation that was implanted in our region and which the whole world sympathizes with, respects and understands its crimes and savagery represented in killing thousands of people for the sake of a soldier. However, we are a nation that the world does not respect while thousands of our youths, men and even women remain captured in Israeli jails. Where is the Arab honor? Where is the Arab dignity? Yes this nation needs such martyrs who passed in the way of offering their souls not for the sake of liberating the captives only but also to consecrate the dignity of this nation which does not sleep on injustice and does not accept humiliation. This nation needs Imad Moghniyah. This nation needs every jihadi leading example that had great models in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and other places of resistance. Today on the anniversary of the Ridwan Operation, I liked to make this call because as any Lebanese, Arab and Muslim, I have these feelings and experience this embarrassment and pose this question on myself and on all.
Before moving to the local part of my speech and on the occasion of talking about captives, I like to hint to a topic related to this file in nature though it does not concern the Israelis. At the time in which we in Lebanon think of the captives in the enemy's prisons, in fact we – whether we shared in the government or our brethren deputies in the parliament, the political forces, the public community and the civil community- must consider a very hard topic at the meanwhile. What is the cause of the detainee in Israeli prisons? He is an oppressed human being. Well, this is concerning captives in Israeli prisons. Let's see the prisoners in Lebanese jails. Are there oppressed in prisons? If there isn't, indeed we are with punishing the aggressors, killers, thieves, robbers, corrupters and spies. That's unquestionable. But we fear there are victims of injustice in Lebanese jails. The incident that evoked this concept forcefully is that of the Palestinian brethren Yussef Shaaban who was set free days ago following a general amnesty issued by His Excellence the President of the Republic. In this occasion, I thank the President for this general amnesty and on this just and sound position. But in fact, all through this passed period, we as Lebanese – in the government, the Parliament, political forces, the whole country - were perplexed. A person who is a father of a family who is oppressed and persecuted is imprisoned in a Lebanese jail. His guiltlessness was made clear. Why wasn't he set free yet? They said there is a judicial sentence ratified by the judiciary council for which they couldn't find a solution. But the man is oppressed. It is clear he is oppressed. This is indeed a catastrophe. The catastrophe of Yussef Shaaban came to an end praise be to Allah. Even in the case of Yussef Shaaban if his family did not make a move, people called for setting him free, the media showed concern, political forces took action and the President of the Republic reacted, the man might have remained behind the bars for another eight years again and again without anyone addressing this legal dilemma.
Do we have in Lebanese prisons others like Yussef Shaaban or not? I don't know. I am making a supposition. What is our responsibility as Lebanese, as a government, parliament, political forces and public community? Even if we did not share in the government and parliament, we are Lebanese and the country is ours. The state is ours and this is a prisoner in Lebanese prisons. So we assume a part of the responsibility. We might not manage to set him free but we may speak out and shout. We may reveal the story. This is something which must be taken into consideration.
Another issue to which we must point is the cause of hundreds of arrested from Islamic groups. I am handling this point from the very humanistic and moral background. Well they have been arrested for a long period of time. Let tribunals try them. No one is saying set them free all the same. No some are accused of bombing, killing, of being engaged in Al Bared River incidents…Try them and set free whoever is found innocent and punish whoever is guilty. The calls of families and whoever is raising this issue is rightful, normal and fair.
We must put an end for the phenomenon of hurling people in prisons for a long period of time without trial. This is one of the responsibilities put on us all.
Still more there is the case of the missing Lebanese in Syria and the missing Syrians in Lebanon. This is also a just case. A panel was formed to follow this cause. Where is this panel? Who is following up with it? Who did follow up with the Lebanese-Syrian panel? Did the previous government follow it up? To what limit it followed up this case? This must also be among the priorities of the upcoming government. This cause must be followed to the end. Frankly speaking, if the Lebanese missing in Syria don't exist or were existing and they don't anymore, this must be revealed. The case must be settled. The same applies to the Syrians missed in Lebanon. This case must be decisively settled by whatever means which are indeed rightful and factual to put an end to the sufferings of their families.
As for the Lebanese local affair, after the elections all of us acted on the grounds of accepting the outcome whether it be on the parliamentary, popular and political levels. The country ushered into a stage of calmness and expectation. Indeed the positive position of the Opposition and its acceptance of the outcome of the elections led the country to calmness, expectation and a positive atmosphere. The positive and calm conduct of the main Loyalists political forces also led the country towards appeasement. So it was the conduct of both parties in general that led to this statue quo. The positive atmosphere has to prevail all through the country. Welcomed meetings took place especially between us and main leaderships in Lebanon. Religious meetings also took place in more than one region besides popular and factional movements. Such meetings had positive and good repercussions what helped to a great extent - we don't want to exaggerate in evaluating things- in addressing the state of congestion which prevailed in the previous stage.
As Lebanese we were before the challenge of electing the Speaker. Praise be to Allah, this took place and Mr. Nabih Berri was elected as the Speaker. We were before the challenge of charging the Premier to form the government and this also took place. Most deputies named MP Saad Hariri to form the government. We also dealt with this naming positively and openly. We all in the Opposition announced our readiness to cooperate, make dialogue, meet and exert all possible efforts to form a national unity government. Dialogue and contacts are still taking place on more than one level. On this great challenge, I will talk about two points:
The first point pertains to Hezbollah and the formation of the government. I have read in many newspapers and analysis articles that as a condition for the formation of the government, Hezbollah – as Hezbollah or as Opposition – wants guarantees related to the arms of the resistance or legalizing the resistance arms and this is one of the obstacles before the formation of the government. This is not true at all. Here I am announcing that and through my meeting with Prime Minister-designate –and before he was charged - I told him that we do not want guarantees for the arms of the resistance. Here I am saying on the TV before the whole world: We don't want from the government or from anyone else in this world guarantees for the resistance arms. We have agreed on this, and it’s behind us now because we both agreed that this issue should be discussed at the dialogue table where we are supposed to discuss the resistance arms in the framework of discussing a national defense strategy. This issue is not by any means for discussion in any meeting between us and the designate Premier or any political leadership held in the framework of forming the government.
The other point is: It is said that Hezbollah has certain concerns about the Special Tribunal for Lebanon over what is evoked now on the STL activity in the upcoming stage. Therefore the party is obstructing or impeding the formation of the new government because it wants guarantees. Here again I say this is baseless. We are not demanding any guarantees on the issue of the Tribunal. In fact, I have never discussed this with the designate Premier nor any of our brethrens discussed it with the designate Premier. In fact we did not evoke this issue for discussion at all. Here I am telling you. On the STL, we do not demand guarantees from the government or from anyone else in this world. As for the resistance arms, it is known that it's on the dialogue table. As for the STL, I call that no one makes anticipations. Some people like to make anticipations. Some people might make anticipation because they care for the country. But others make anticipations because they want to push the country to another kind of settlement. Let's not make anticipations and let everything take place when it's due time. I like to add: In all our dialogues and discussions we did not ask for guarantees over any topic related to Hezbollah. Here I am saying on the personal level, if the other parties in the Opposition agreed with the designate Premier on forming a national unity government, we won't be dissatisfied. I myself as Hassan Nasrallah won't be unhappy. Rather we will support it and give it our confidence. So as far as we are concerned in this issue, neither the party, nor its arms nor its resistance nor the STL is causing any impediment.
What is the point then? There are parties in the Opposition which are negotiating now the formation of the government under the ceiling of effectual participation. After all, the country has essential forces. Elections have proved that there are essential and important forces in the country. Neglecting them is wrong while inter-cooperation pushes the country forward. The opposition considers itself concerned in everything through which the country would be run from now all through the next four years. There is a parliament with four–year tenure and a government which will be formed and which will run the country. There are great events to come.
On the financial level, how are we to face the forty or fifty or sixty billion dollar debt? The decision to be taken by the government concerns all the Lebanese. Should the government increase taxes? This concerns all the Lebanese. If it wanted to sell a part of the state's properties, this also concerns all the Lebanese. There is a dangerous and great challenge. No sole party might say this is its own concern and it will rule and run the country by itself.
There is the economic and social issue. The overwhelming majority of the Lebanese people are suffering from miseries, hardships, deprivation, hunger and poverty. This does not concern one party and not the other or one side and not the other. So what is the plan through which we'll address this cause together? They say that'll be through crossing towards being a state. Good. Let's all cross towards the state which will achieve in two years what needs ten years to take place.
Security challenges and Israeli spy networks have caused much media clamor in the country. Unfortunately this issue has not been yet adequately evaluated on the security and political levels. Those networks are not done with yet. I call on some security apparatuses to exert the same effort as before elections to dismantle spy networks. The very conduct as before the elections must be restored in face of spying networks. This is an important and a serious and not a trivial challenge.
Moving to the regional situation and what is plotted to the region, I stress on the statements made by Netanyahu and Lieberman, the speech of the US administration, the new American demands made on the Arab states, the settlements of Palestinians, normalization, the threats of judaizing Palestine on all levels, threats to transform Palestine into a Jewish state and threats to displace the Palestinians living in territories occupied since 1948. These are major regional issues and Lebanon is part of this region and even more Lebanon is the most effective and effected part in the region whether we liked it or not and even if we hid our heads in sand.
This is why we need a government of real partnership. We did not make any suggestions beforehand not to exert any pressure. We went to negotiations while being open to many options. Here words come to an end recalling the Prophetic Tradition that says: "Resort to secrecy until what you are seeking is accomplished." Yes, there are various options suggested for reaching our goals. What’s important is that we reach a real formula that leads to partnership and cooperation and not to retrogressive and annulling participation. I suggested something to designate Premier and here I am saying it on the media to all who are worried about the suggested formulas. You constitute the majority in parliament. A government of real partnership might be formed despite the fact that the previous government – with the acknowledgement of His Excellence the President and the Premier himself – in its final sessions took a great number of decisions and made a great number of achievements. It was not then a crippling government. Still it was a government waiting until parliamentary elections were due. It was a government of challenge and waylay. Every one of us was waylaying the other with the aim or recording points on the other party because there were parliamentary elections. Now there are not parliamentary elections anymore. Let's make a trial now. It's not only that you will try the Opposition but also the Opposition will try you. So let's try each other in a government ruled by the spirit of cooperation, joint liability and national responsibility to face internal and external dangers as a united national front. We may get engaged in such an experience. Now whenever the Prime Minister wants, he may resign and the government will become invalid. Moreover, the majority in parliament can give its vote of no confidence at any time and the government will be toppled. The key is in your hands. Let no one say there is Doha agreement and we are to be committed to each other. Showing the good will by both parties is required at this stage. It's not the story of the winner and the defeated. It's not that of morals. Our country has lived through dangerous divisions and faced serious challenges. Today we need to cooperate with each other to face these challenges and dangers so as to save our country from these divisions. The chance is before us today but we need courage to take the decision.
As for us, I stress that we are open, cooperative and positive. I advise that no one pressure designate Premier with a time limit. Forming the government is worth taking all the time needed. There is no need for any uncalculated step or not a fully considered move. Today the country is enjoying calmness. People are talking to each other, sitting with each other and meeting with each other. This atmosphere must be generalized. We back every meeting between any party in the Opposition with any party in the Loyalists. We see in that a great positive national interest for Lebanon, the people and the general atmosphere. Today the overwhelming popular majority wants calmness in the country. People want calmness. They want meeting with each other, talking to each other and understanding each other. To whoever backs the majority today we say the overwhelming majority of the Lebanese people want this atmosphere to prevail and nothing else but understanding.
Still unfortunately, there are certain personalities and sides that are not at ease with the atmosphere of calm. They don't want it to continue. The same applies to political parties, personalities and media outlets also. They want to return to media escalation, insults, abuses and accusations. They want going back to the negative atmosphere. My opinion is that the people must first identify them and second they must reassess their choices. I ask also: Whose viewpoint they are expressing? Is it true that the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese people is that we reinstall barricades and attack one another and challenge one another, or the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese people is that we sit and talk with one another and reach an understanding? The priorities called for by the political leaderships and parties are different from the priorities of some of these political sides. Well with and without any reason you find them making speeches, shouting and evoking the cause of Hezbollah. What's the story? Is it that they think the elections aren't over yet? No, it seems they have nothing else to address the people with. Still I like to tell you what reassures you. We in Hezbollah took a decision not to be provoked. Let whoever wants to make insults, criticize or even say poetry be at ease. He is trying in vain. But really this is the atmosphere which appeals to some people. Whenever two figures meet they start making analysis and criticizing. Indeed here I mean figures from the Loyalists because if someone from the Opposition meets with someone from the Loyalists the issue is settled. The Opposition has rules which say it doesn't want to annul anyone. I want partnership. The Opposition before the elections used to say that if it gained the majority it will give the Loyalists the guaranteeing one third because it wanted them to participate. Thus the masses of the Opposition have no problem in that. Now if some leaderships in the Loyalists (the majority) and their masses are responsive and took a decision of being open and cooperative why are you tightening over them in such a way? If people are confident of their alliances, there is no need for a hundred phone calls if someone wants to meet with another. At least I may tell you that Hezbollah is at ease as far as this issue is concerned. Hezbollah does not need to reassure its allies and to call them after any meeting or measure because they are confident of this alliance.
I wanted to stress in the local affair on the call for calmness, dialogue and meeting. I watched some media outlets saying where are the martyrs? Now I ask: Do martyrs want us to kill each other? Do the martyrs from both parties in local incidents want the country to be ruined or divided or to antagonize each other, or do they have another view point which we have to follow? Thus is my call for calmness, dialogue and meeting. I call on these parties to be calm and act rationally for what they are doing is by no means fruitful. Now it's summertime. Let people feel at ease and go to villages for refreshment. They might say now: Look how far the Resistance has gone! No I tell you we like living and the culture of living. Let no one chase anyone and let's have patience with each other. Let the big chance available take place. Forming a national free country with true cooperation and partnership is a great chance indeed to the revival of our country and to guard its unity, capacity and power to face challenges.
I thank all of you for your attendance to commemorate this occasion with us. Congratulations for the freedom of the liberated captives. I leave you with the hope of meeting again with all the other captives so that they be free as Sami Qintar and his brethren liberated captives.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
When will the USA be done with Bonaparte?
Done with Bonaparte
by Mark Knopfler
We've paid in hell since Moscow burned
As Cossacks tear us piece by piece
Our dead are strewn a hundred leagues
Though death would be a sweet release
And our grande armee is dressed in rags
A frozen starving beggar band
Like rats we steal each other's scraps
Fall to fighting hand to hand
Save my soul from evil, Lord
And heal this soldier's heart
I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord
I'm done with Bonaparte
What dreams he made for us to dream
Spanish skies, Egyptian sands
The world was ours, we marched upon
Our little Corporal's command
And I lost an eye at Austerlitz
The sabre slash yet gives me pain
My one true love awaits me still
The flower of the aquitaine
Save my soul from evil, Lord
And heal this soldier's heart
I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord
I'm done with Bonaparte
I pray for her who prays for me
A safe return to my belle France
We prayed these wars would end all wars
In war we know is no romance
And I pray our child will never see
A little Corporal again
Point toward a foreign shore
Captivate the hearts of men
Save my soul from evil, Lord
And heal this soldier's heart
I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord
I'm done with Bonaparte
by Mark Knopfler
We've paid in hell since Moscow burned
As Cossacks tear us piece by piece
Our dead are strewn a hundred leagues
Though death would be a sweet release
And our grande armee is dressed in rags
A frozen starving beggar band
Like rats we steal each other's scraps
Fall to fighting hand to hand
Save my soul from evil, Lord
And heal this soldier's heart
I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord
I'm done with Bonaparte
What dreams he made for us to dream
Spanish skies, Egyptian sands
The world was ours, we marched upon
Our little Corporal's command
And I lost an eye at Austerlitz
The sabre slash yet gives me pain
My one true love awaits me still
The flower of the aquitaine
Save my soul from evil, Lord
And heal this soldier's heart
I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord
I'm done with Bonaparte
I pray for her who prays for me
A safe return to my belle France
We prayed these wars would end all wars
In war we know is no romance
And I pray our child will never see
A little Corporal again
Point toward a foreign shore
Captivate the hearts of men
Save my soul from evil, Lord
And heal this soldier's heart
I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord
I'm done with Bonaparte
Thursday, July 2, 2009
A PERSONAL NOTE TO MY READERS
Dear friends,
Tomorrow I will be leaving for a two-weeks long trip. I will have my laptop with me and I will try to keep working on this blog, but I will probably have little time for that. I apologize in advance if I do not promptly respond to your comments and emails or if I fail to cover an important topic.
I have a suggestion though: you all can keep posting and talking with each other in the comments section below this post. Please feel free to post on any and all topics of interest to you. I might even try to find the time to participate in any discussion.
The big story in June was, of course, the attempt to steal the election in Iran. By that I, of course, mean the attempt by Rasfanjani to use the election to overthrow the Islamic Republic. It appears that they failed to achieve that either "by the ballot" or "by the bullet" and that their coup is now gradually fizzling out (Mousavi's call for a general strike was totally ignored and, subsequently, rescinded).
Still, my contacts tell me that the situation is tense and that violence might resume. Please keep us all informed about developments in Iran by posting any information you might have in the comments section.
I should be back on the 20th of July.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Tomorrow I will be leaving for a two-weeks long trip. I will have my laptop with me and I will try to keep working on this blog, but I will probably have little time for that. I apologize in advance if I do not promptly respond to your comments and emails or if I fail to cover an important topic.
I have a suggestion though: you all can keep posting and talking with each other in the comments section below this post. Please feel free to post on any and all topics of interest to you. I might even try to find the time to participate in any discussion.
The big story in June was, of course, the attempt to steal the election in Iran. By that I, of course, mean the attempt by Rasfanjani to use the election to overthrow the Islamic Republic. It appears that they failed to achieve that either "by the ballot" or "by the bullet" and that their coup is now gradually fizzling out (Mousavi's call for a general strike was totally ignored and, subsequently, rescinded).
Still, my contacts tell me that the situation is tense and that violence might resume. Please keep us all informed about developments in Iran by posting any information you might have in the comments section.
I should be back on the 20th of July.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Plunge into the depths until you reach the truth
by "Ya_Baqiyatullah"
We live in a world where the media helps shape our lives; be it for social, economical, political or entertainment purposes the importance of media cannot be underestimated. It is something which builds our personalities due to the information it feeds us. We are in many ways attached to this source and make it our comfort zone. Today, where the World has reached a critical stage in every aspect due to the economical situation as well as the political situation, the Media has become a very important tool. A tool which has replaced religion as the opium of masses in many ways. Today there are millions of people who are addicted to it by being hooked through the slim line flashy television sets in their homes. Our personalities are defined through the programs that are aired, our views and perceptions are built upon the reports that are broadcasted and our lifestyle is based around the characters of a certain hit series. The Media has become this comfort zone for people who do not wish to delve to see the true reality and are happy with what is being fed to them through their television set.
In most recent example of Iranian elections, the Media became the force of this election for the Reformists, who used the internet as a tool for their campaigning. The Mousavi Group on Facebook boasts 89,000 users, many of them from Iran, who update the rest of the world with the latest news on the happenings in Iran as well as the speeches of Mr Mousavi himself. On the other hand, the social networking site Twitter is being used to get information regarding the aftermath of the elections. Then there are the Western Channels and their reporting stories on the elections and different groups that are competing in it. One thing that stood out from this recent episode is how easy it is for the Media to manipulate and present a totally different perception to that which is reality.
Let us cast our minds back to early this year when the Israel siege was happening around Gaza. Israel barred Foreign Media reporters from Gaza, instead they were reporting from the 'Hill of Shame', as Jon Snow called it. There was no widespread condemnation of the Israeli policy then by either US analyst or British reporters as there is now to Iran's policy of restricting the Foreign reporters. In US, the Congress voted 405-1 condemning the approach Iran had taken. I wonder if the Israelis received such a strong protest too as they barred the reporters from the Gaza strip and slayed hundreds of civilians?
In the UK, the Iranian Ambassador was summoned to explain the remarks of the Wilayatul Faqee, Ayatollah Ali Khamenai regarding the BBC coverage. The remarks were nothing short of what the BBC deserved for their half baked reporting and their manipulations, the BBC were guilty of much more than what they got told. One such example is that during the Friday Sermon of Ayatollah Ali Khamenai the BBC Radio Service indicated a number of times that the slogans being shouted during the sermon are anti-Khamenai. In reality the slogans were actually supporting the Wilayatul Faqee and the system of Iran. One can accept that a mishap happens once but for it to happen a number of times in the same coverage is far from a mishap. Another example of BBC misinformation is the report by Jon Leyne who offered his interpretation of the blast at the Shrine of Ayatollah Khomeini to be the work of the Iranian government, in order to help their cause. What followed was a swift action by Iran in asking the reporter to leave the country and rightly so. These are only certain example of how BBC were guilty as charged however the masses rejected it calling it a weak attempt by the Iranians to cover up their shortcomings.
Mr Brown went a step further in his statement stating that "The whole of the world is speaking out." One has to ask how does Mr Brown come to this conclusion? Many countries of the world congratulated Ahmedinijad and accepted the result of the elections. Many of them have actually condemned the view of the Western powers regarding their rhetoric towards Iran and there was no comment from China or Russia. However the point to note here is that why was the world quiet as the Palestinians died in Gaza? Why did Mr Brown fail to say such a statement then? Is it easy to condemn an nation because their ideology is not conformed with his ideology?
January 2009 witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the Israeli forces in Gaza killing over 1400 civilians and damaging the strip by attacking the infrastructure, yet there was no public outcry as bodies laid of innocents. There was no condemnation of this aggression nor on the restrictions of reporting by the US President Mr Obama nor there was there criticism by UK Prime Minister Mr Brown. June 2009 saw the Iranian people go to the polls and re-elect Ahmedinijad. The propoganda machines came into work in distorting the will of the people who chose Ahmedinijad by indoctrinating people with constant reports of 'stolen elections', 'rigging' and 'fraud'. The manipulations and the spin by the Western Media continued to weave a particular image into the minds of the people around the World regarding Iran. They portrayed an image that displayed Iran to be an oppressive dictatorial regime which had rejected the 'rightful' choice of the people by endorsing Ahmedinijad. The platform of misinformation provided the Politicians of the Western countries to take advantage and add their rhetoric too. The minds of people accepted it all as they were blinded to reality, their perception was based on what the Media reported and showed.
In leaving no stone uncovered, the Western Media jumped at the tragic death of Neda Soltan. A lady who had allegiance to neither camps and was tragically killed on the streets of Tehran, but what followed afterwards was a trail of exploitation of her death. The Western Media symbolized her as the Martyr of the Reformist Revolution. Her death was aired again and again to incite the emotions of people all over, to display how brutal the Iranian Government is in dealing with its own people, to portray how the Iranian Government oppresses women. The reality was left aside as emotions bought the propaganda coming from the box set. The Media acted as the judge, jury and the executioner in her case without stopping to consider or in certain aspects reporting the unaswered questions surrounding her death. One has to ask where was this added coverage when 500 children died in the assault on Gaza? Where was such emotion when the bombs dropped on civilians in the Gaza strip? What happened to humanity when BBC refused to air the Gaza appeal commercial? Where did this garb of judge, jury and executioner disappear to in the light of these crimes? The answer will come with a dose of self righteousness. What you see in this article are two situations with an air of similarity in some aspects around it but what you also see are two vastly different reactions and perceptions from both the Media and the Western Governments, the question remains; why has the aspect of justice and equality been lost? Why the differentiation in responses when both; friend and foe are guilty of the same act of censure?
We live in a world which is connected to the Media, we seek and are content with the surface of everything that is given to us. We refuse to devlve further because we fear. We fear that we may not be comfortable anymore if we find the truth and it does not conform to our beliefs. We fear that we may not fit into the society anymore if we know the truth. Let me finish with a quote from the first Shi'ite Leader Ali ibn Abi Talib [a] who has said 'Plunge into the depths until you reach the truth'.
We live in a world where the media helps shape our lives; be it for social, economical, political or entertainment purposes the importance of media cannot be underestimated. It is something which builds our personalities due to the information it feeds us. We are in many ways attached to this source and make it our comfort zone. Today, where the World has reached a critical stage in every aspect due to the economical situation as well as the political situation, the Media has become a very important tool. A tool which has replaced religion as the opium of masses in many ways. Today there are millions of people who are addicted to it by being hooked through the slim line flashy television sets in their homes. Our personalities are defined through the programs that are aired, our views and perceptions are built upon the reports that are broadcasted and our lifestyle is based around the characters of a certain hit series. The Media has become this comfort zone for people who do not wish to delve to see the true reality and are happy with what is being fed to them through their television set.
In most recent example of Iranian elections, the Media became the force of this election for the Reformists, who used the internet as a tool for their campaigning. The Mousavi Group on Facebook boasts 89,000 users, many of them from Iran, who update the rest of the world with the latest news on the happenings in Iran as well as the speeches of Mr Mousavi himself. On the other hand, the social networking site Twitter is being used to get information regarding the aftermath of the elections. Then there are the Western Channels and their reporting stories on the elections and different groups that are competing in it. One thing that stood out from this recent episode is how easy it is for the Media to manipulate and present a totally different perception to that which is reality.
Let us cast our minds back to early this year when the Israel siege was happening around Gaza. Israel barred Foreign Media reporters from Gaza, instead they were reporting from the 'Hill of Shame', as Jon Snow called it. There was no widespread condemnation of the Israeli policy then by either US analyst or British reporters as there is now to Iran's policy of restricting the Foreign reporters. In US, the Congress voted 405-1 condemning the approach Iran had taken. I wonder if the Israelis received such a strong protest too as they barred the reporters from the Gaza strip and slayed hundreds of civilians?
In the UK, the Iranian Ambassador was summoned to explain the remarks of the Wilayatul Faqee, Ayatollah Ali Khamenai regarding the BBC coverage. The remarks were nothing short of what the BBC deserved for their half baked reporting and their manipulations, the BBC were guilty of much more than what they got told. One such example is that during the Friday Sermon of Ayatollah Ali Khamenai the BBC Radio Service indicated a number of times that the slogans being shouted during the sermon are anti-Khamenai. In reality the slogans were actually supporting the Wilayatul Faqee and the system of Iran. One can accept that a mishap happens once but for it to happen a number of times in the same coverage is far from a mishap. Another example of BBC misinformation is the report by Jon Leyne who offered his interpretation of the blast at the Shrine of Ayatollah Khomeini to be the work of the Iranian government, in order to help their cause. What followed was a swift action by Iran in asking the reporter to leave the country and rightly so. These are only certain example of how BBC were guilty as charged however the masses rejected it calling it a weak attempt by the Iranians to cover up their shortcomings.
Mr Brown went a step further in his statement stating that "The whole of the world is speaking out." One has to ask how does Mr Brown come to this conclusion? Many countries of the world congratulated Ahmedinijad and accepted the result of the elections. Many of them have actually condemned the view of the Western powers regarding their rhetoric towards Iran and there was no comment from China or Russia. However the point to note here is that why was the world quiet as the Palestinians died in Gaza? Why did Mr Brown fail to say such a statement then? Is it easy to condemn an nation because their ideology is not conformed with his ideology?
January 2009 witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the Israeli forces in Gaza killing over 1400 civilians and damaging the strip by attacking the infrastructure, yet there was no public outcry as bodies laid of innocents. There was no condemnation of this aggression nor on the restrictions of reporting by the US President Mr Obama nor there was there criticism by UK Prime Minister Mr Brown. June 2009 saw the Iranian people go to the polls and re-elect Ahmedinijad. The propoganda machines came into work in distorting the will of the people who chose Ahmedinijad by indoctrinating people with constant reports of 'stolen elections', 'rigging' and 'fraud'. The manipulations and the spin by the Western Media continued to weave a particular image into the minds of the people around the World regarding Iran. They portrayed an image that displayed Iran to be an oppressive dictatorial regime which had rejected the 'rightful' choice of the people by endorsing Ahmedinijad. The platform of misinformation provided the Politicians of the Western countries to take advantage and add their rhetoric too. The minds of people accepted it all as they were blinded to reality, their perception was based on what the Media reported and showed.
In leaving no stone uncovered, the Western Media jumped at the tragic death of Neda Soltan. A lady who had allegiance to neither camps and was tragically killed on the streets of Tehran, but what followed afterwards was a trail of exploitation of her death. The Western Media symbolized her as the Martyr of the Reformist Revolution. Her death was aired again and again to incite the emotions of people all over, to display how brutal the Iranian Government is in dealing with its own people, to portray how the Iranian Government oppresses women. The reality was left aside as emotions bought the propaganda coming from the box set. The Media acted as the judge, jury and the executioner in her case without stopping to consider or in certain aspects reporting the unaswered questions surrounding her death. One has to ask where was this added coverage when 500 children died in the assault on Gaza? Where was such emotion when the bombs dropped on civilians in the Gaza strip? What happened to humanity when BBC refused to air the Gaza appeal commercial? Where did this garb of judge, jury and executioner disappear to in the light of these crimes? The answer will come with a dose of self righteousness. What you see in this article are two situations with an air of similarity in some aspects around it but what you also see are two vastly different reactions and perceptions from both the Media and the Western Governments, the question remains; why has the aspect of justice and equality been lost? Why the differentiation in responses when both; friend and foe are guilty of the same act of censure?
We live in a world which is connected to the Media, we seek and are content with the surface of everything that is given to us. We refuse to devlve further because we fear. We fear that we may not be comfortable anymore if we find the truth and it does not conform to our beliefs. We fear that we may not fit into the society anymore if we know the truth. Let me finish with a quote from the first Shi'ite Leader Ali ibn Abi Talib [a] who has said 'Plunge into the depths until you reach the truth'.
Absolutely brilliant piece by Eric Walberg - MUST READ!
June was a busy month for two of Washington’s real ‘Axis of Evil’. Venezuela’s Chavez completed his nationalisation of oil and Iran’s Ahmedinejad stemmed a Western-backed colour revolution, leaving both bad boys in place, muses Eric Walberg
What drives US foreign policy? Is it primarily the domestic economy, as it logically should be, or, as many argue, the powerful Israel lobby, or as other argue, the need to secure energy sources? Of course, the answer is all three, in varying degrees depending on the geopoltical importance of the country in question. And woe to any country that threatens any of the above.
Russia is perhaps a special case, as US politics was dependent for so long on the anti-communist Cold War that ideologues found it impossible to dispense with this useful bugaboo even after the collapse of Communism. But it was not only Sovietologists like Condoleezza Rice that perversely prospered from this obsession, but the US domestic economy itself, which was transformed into what is best described as the military-industrial complex (MIC). It would take very little to placate today’s Russia -- pull in NATO’s horns and stop pandering to the Russophobes in Eastern Europe -- but that would hurt the MIC and would hamper the US plans for empire and oil. So it remains an enemy of choice, though not part of the Axis of Evil.
This crude characterisation by Bush/Cheney lumped North Korea, Iraq and Iran together as the worst of the worst. With the US invasion of Iraq, the current score is one down, two to go. But North Korea is a red herring. It is merely a very useful Cold War foil, beloved of the MIC, justifying its many useless, lethal weapons programmes. A popular whipping boy, a bit of innocent ideological entertainment.
Without Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and ignoring Korea, we are left with Iran. But Bush could easily have added Venezuela to his list, as it is these two countries that pose the greatest real threat to the US empire. Both have charismatic leaders who not openly denounce US and Israeli empire but do something about it. And both have large, nationalised oil sectors. Chavez’s successful defiance of the US has directly inspired Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay to elect socialist leaders and given Cuba a new lease on life. Ahmedinejad has defied the many Israel-imposed bans on supporting the Palestinian resistance and even publically questioned the legitimacy of Israel itself. These bold and principled men are thereby pariahs, albeit useful ones for the MIC, along with their Cold War ghost Kim Jong Il.
That is the catch. While the empire officially frets, the US military-based economy thrives on its official enemies. It would collapse without them. This is the supreme irony to be noted by observers of what can only be described as the bizarre and contradictory world of US foreign policy.
Venezuela and Iran are indeed threats to the US empire. President Hugo Chavez not only thoroughly nationalised the oil sector after the crippling strike led by oil executives in 2002-03, but proceeded to use the revenues to transform his country, putting it on the albeit bumpy road to socialism -- subsidised basic goods, mass literacy and free health care. He has even been providing poor Americans with discount gas. “The oil belongs to all Venezuelans,” Chavez emphasised to reporters last month in Argentina, after the government announced it was taking over oil service companies along with US-owned gas compression units, adding to the heavy oil projects Venezuela took over in 2007. Natural gas looks like it will be next. The point of this is to “regain full petroleum sovereignty,” that is, full political sovereignty. No more attempted colour revolutions for Venezuela.
Which brings us to Iran. When Mahmoud Ahmedinejad took office in 2005, with the backing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he tried to wrest control of key ministries, especially oil and the government’s National Iranian Oil Company (NOIC), from the Rafsanjani/ Mousavi capitalist elite, replacing officials with his own choices -- primarily from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It was not till 2007 that he was able to install his candidate for oil minister, also head of the NIOC, Gholamhossein Nozari. Like Chavez, he proceeded to use state oil revenues to consolidate his base among the poor, something which the so-called reformists under his predecessor Mohammed Khatami or earlier nonreformists under Rafsanjani/ Mousavi were not noted for.
While Hashemi Rafsanjani was parliamentary speaker with Mirhossein Mousavi his prime minister in the 1980s, younger Iranians, including Ahmedinejad, were fighting in the IRGC (many martyring themselves) in the war with Iraq in the 1980s. Rafsanjani became Iran ’s first president in 1989 and added to his family’s vast fortune, much of it connected with oil, during his privatisation programme when he opened the oil industry to private Iranian contractors. This continued under the “reformist” Khatami, who took over the presidency in 1997.
Ahmedinejad’s ascendancy in 2005 on a platform to fight and eliminate the “oil mafia” confirmed the IRGC as the underlying force confronting Rafsanjani and the reformists. Throughout the 2009 electoral campaign, Ahmedinejad attacked his opponents as leaders of the corrupt elite, now trying to claw back control.
The elite had had enough, and the election ruckus last month was their last stand against the clearly populist, essentially leftist Ahmedinejad (in the West labelled a “hardliner”). Some pundits call Ahmedinejad’s decisive win a coup d’etat by the IRGC, but the recent demonstrations in Teheran look eerily similar to those in Caracas in 2002-03 when Venezuelan society was paralysed by its economic elite, mobilising its own Gucci crowd, strongly backed by the US, protesting a populist president’s determination to use oil revenues to help the common people. Chavez risked his life in the process, but his careful planning foiled the plotters and he survived to carry out his agenda. Whether Ahmedinejad can do the same, and to what extent the IRGC is a vehicle for promoting social welfare is a drama which is only now unfolding.
The Western media has uniformly denounced the Iranian elections, with no real evidence, as fraudulent, much as it denounced the many elections that Chavez had to undergo in the face of US-inspired strikes and even a military coup, before the opposition and its US backers relented. The US has generously financed Iranian expatriate dissidents and has penetrated Iranian society with the clear intent to overthrow Ahmedinejad, exactly like they did in Venezuela, though it is rarely mentioned in the Western press.
The US policy of using soft power to undermine unfriendly governments is well known to both Latin American socialists and Iranian clerics. Khamenei insisted in his sermon last week that Iran would not tolerate the green “colour revolution” underway. No wonder that Ahmedinejad, Chavez and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are such good friends. They have much in common.
In similar electoral contests in Latin America between nationalist-populists and pro-Western liberals, the populists have consistently won in fair elections, so the results in Iran should come as no surprise. Past examples include Peron in Argentina and, most recently, Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Lula da Silva in Brazil, all of whom have consistently polled 60 per cent or more of the vote in free elections. The people in these countries prefer social welfare over unrestrained markets, national security over alignments with military empires.
The parallel between Iran and Venezuela coincides with a flowering of relations between Iran and Latin American countries as it seeks a way out of the US-imposed blockade. Iran will help develop Bolivia’s oil and gas sector, has opened a trade office in Ecuador, and entered into agreements with Nicaragua, Cuba, Paraguay, Brazil and, of course, Venezuela. Council of Hemispheric Affairs analyst Braden Webb reports that “Venezuela and Iran are now gingerly engaged in an ambitious joint project, putting on-line Veniran, a production plant that assembles 5,000 tractors a year, and plans to start producing two Iranian-designed automobiles to provide regional consumers with the ‘first anti-imperialist cars’.”
Perhaps what upsets the US most about Ahmedinejad is his continued attempts to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse in the Iranian Free Trade Zone on the island of Kish, an idea which Chavez heartily approves of. The bourse is meant to attract international oil trading to the Middle East and to help move international trade away from the dollar as the oil currency, currently accounting for 65 per cent of trade. Over half of Iran’s oil business is now conducted in euros, despite the EU’s support for the US boycott. An indication of just how evil the US considers this move is the fact that his Evil Axis colleague Saddam Hussein was executed not long after switching his accounts to euros. Note that Kim Jong Il remains comfortably in place despite his own penchant for euros.
Both the Venezuelan and Iranian thorns have incensed Washington for daring to use their oil revenues to redistribute wealth in their societies and then organise resistance to US hegemony in their respective neighbourhoods. They are examples which continue to inspire and which pose a threat to US imperial policy, both international and domestic. For what better way to solve all the ills of US society -- lack of secure health care, poverty, violence -- than dismantling the MIC and initiating a foreign policy based on peace rather than war?
The big difference between these two thorns, of course, is Islam and Iran’s interference with the US-Israeli agenda. Now that the oil companies have resigned themselves to Venezuela’s new assertiveness, they and their government spokesmen are not so concerned with trying to overthrow Chavez. However, the extra weight of the Israel lobby in Washington makes sure that another Iranian revolution remains at the top of the list of Obama’s things-to-do.
Another curious difference is that US attempts to turn Venezuela’s neighbours against it backfired, as they came to Chavez’s defence and followed his example, while similar efforts to conspire against Iran have had considerable success.
The schism in both Venezuelan and Iranian societies is very real and is being taken advantage of by the US and friends, who are doing their “best” to engineer a collapse of the populist governments to make room for more US-friendly colour revolutions. But there is too much Yankee baggage for this to work anymore. It is time for a colour revolution at home.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/. You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com
What drives US foreign policy? Is it primarily the domestic economy, as it logically should be, or, as many argue, the powerful Israel lobby, or as other argue, the need to secure energy sources? Of course, the answer is all three, in varying degrees depending on the geopoltical importance of the country in question. And woe to any country that threatens any of the above.
Russia is perhaps a special case, as US politics was dependent for so long on the anti-communist Cold War that ideologues found it impossible to dispense with this useful bugaboo even after the collapse of Communism. But it was not only Sovietologists like Condoleezza Rice that perversely prospered from this obsession, but the US domestic economy itself, which was transformed into what is best described as the military-industrial complex (MIC). It would take very little to placate today’s Russia -- pull in NATO’s horns and stop pandering to the Russophobes in Eastern Europe -- but that would hurt the MIC and would hamper the US plans for empire and oil. So it remains an enemy of choice, though not part of the Axis of Evil.
This crude characterisation by Bush/Cheney lumped North Korea, Iraq and Iran together as the worst of the worst. With the US invasion of Iraq, the current score is one down, two to go. But North Korea is a red herring. It is merely a very useful Cold War foil, beloved of the MIC, justifying its many useless, lethal weapons programmes. A popular whipping boy, a bit of innocent ideological entertainment.
Without Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and ignoring Korea, we are left with Iran. But Bush could easily have added Venezuela to his list, as it is these two countries that pose the greatest real threat to the US empire. Both have charismatic leaders who not openly denounce US and Israeli empire but do something about it. And both have large, nationalised oil sectors. Chavez’s successful defiance of the US has directly inspired Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay to elect socialist leaders and given Cuba a new lease on life. Ahmedinejad has defied the many Israel-imposed bans on supporting the Palestinian resistance and even publically questioned the legitimacy of Israel itself. These bold and principled men are thereby pariahs, albeit useful ones for the MIC, along with their Cold War ghost Kim Jong Il.
That is the catch. While the empire officially frets, the US military-based economy thrives on its official enemies. It would collapse without them. This is the supreme irony to be noted by observers of what can only be described as the bizarre and contradictory world of US foreign policy.
Venezuela and Iran are indeed threats to the US empire. President Hugo Chavez not only thoroughly nationalised the oil sector after the crippling strike led by oil executives in 2002-03, but proceeded to use the revenues to transform his country, putting it on the albeit bumpy road to socialism -- subsidised basic goods, mass literacy and free health care. He has even been providing poor Americans with discount gas. “The oil belongs to all Venezuelans,” Chavez emphasised to reporters last month in Argentina, after the government announced it was taking over oil service companies along with US-owned gas compression units, adding to the heavy oil projects Venezuela took over in 2007. Natural gas looks like it will be next. The point of this is to “regain full petroleum sovereignty,” that is, full political sovereignty. No more attempted colour revolutions for Venezuela.
Which brings us to Iran. When Mahmoud Ahmedinejad took office in 2005, with the backing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he tried to wrest control of key ministries, especially oil and the government’s National Iranian Oil Company (NOIC), from the Rafsanjani/ Mousavi capitalist elite, replacing officials with his own choices -- primarily from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It was not till 2007 that he was able to install his candidate for oil minister, also head of the NIOC, Gholamhossein Nozari. Like Chavez, he proceeded to use state oil revenues to consolidate his base among the poor, something which the so-called reformists under his predecessor Mohammed Khatami or earlier nonreformists under Rafsanjani/ Mousavi were not noted for.
While Hashemi Rafsanjani was parliamentary speaker with Mirhossein Mousavi his prime minister in the 1980s, younger Iranians, including Ahmedinejad, were fighting in the IRGC (many martyring themselves) in the war with Iraq in the 1980s. Rafsanjani became Iran ’s first president in 1989 and added to his family’s vast fortune, much of it connected with oil, during his privatisation programme when he opened the oil industry to private Iranian contractors. This continued under the “reformist” Khatami, who took over the presidency in 1997.
Ahmedinejad’s ascendancy in 2005 on a platform to fight and eliminate the “oil mafia” confirmed the IRGC as the underlying force confronting Rafsanjani and the reformists. Throughout the 2009 electoral campaign, Ahmedinejad attacked his opponents as leaders of the corrupt elite, now trying to claw back control.
The elite had had enough, and the election ruckus last month was their last stand against the clearly populist, essentially leftist Ahmedinejad (in the West labelled a “hardliner”). Some pundits call Ahmedinejad’s decisive win a coup d’etat by the IRGC, but the recent demonstrations in Teheran look eerily similar to those in Caracas in 2002-03 when Venezuelan society was paralysed by its economic elite, mobilising its own Gucci crowd, strongly backed by the US, protesting a populist president’s determination to use oil revenues to help the common people. Chavez risked his life in the process, but his careful planning foiled the plotters and he survived to carry out his agenda. Whether Ahmedinejad can do the same, and to what extent the IRGC is a vehicle for promoting social welfare is a drama which is only now unfolding.
The Western media has uniformly denounced the Iranian elections, with no real evidence, as fraudulent, much as it denounced the many elections that Chavez had to undergo in the face of US-inspired strikes and even a military coup, before the opposition and its US backers relented. The US has generously financed Iranian expatriate dissidents and has penetrated Iranian society with the clear intent to overthrow Ahmedinejad, exactly like they did in Venezuela, though it is rarely mentioned in the Western press.
The US policy of using soft power to undermine unfriendly governments is well known to both Latin American socialists and Iranian clerics. Khamenei insisted in his sermon last week that Iran would not tolerate the green “colour revolution” underway. No wonder that Ahmedinejad, Chavez and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are such good friends. They have much in common.
In similar electoral contests in Latin America between nationalist-populists and pro-Western liberals, the populists have consistently won in fair elections, so the results in Iran should come as no surprise. Past examples include Peron in Argentina and, most recently, Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Lula da Silva in Brazil, all of whom have consistently polled 60 per cent or more of the vote in free elections. The people in these countries prefer social welfare over unrestrained markets, national security over alignments with military empires.
The parallel between Iran and Venezuela coincides with a flowering of relations between Iran and Latin American countries as it seeks a way out of the US-imposed blockade. Iran will help develop Bolivia’s oil and gas sector, has opened a trade office in Ecuador, and entered into agreements with Nicaragua, Cuba, Paraguay, Brazil and, of course, Venezuela. Council of Hemispheric Affairs analyst Braden Webb reports that “Venezuela and Iran are now gingerly engaged in an ambitious joint project, putting on-line Veniran, a production plant that assembles 5,000 tractors a year, and plans to start producing two Iranian-designed automobiles to provide regional consumers with the ‘first anti-imperialist cars’.”
Perhaps what upsets the US most about Ahmedinejad is his continued attempts to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse in the Iranian Free Trade Zone on the island of Kish, an idea which Chavez heartily approves of. The bourse is meant to attract international oil trading to the Middle East and to help move international trade away from the dollar as the oil currency, currently accounting for 65 per cent of trade. Over half of Iran’s oil business is now conducted in euros, despite the EU’s support for the US boycott. An indication of just how evil the US considers this move is the fact that his Evil Axis colleague Saddam Hussein was executed not long after switching his accounts to euros. Note that Kim Jong Il remains comfortably in place despite his own penchant for euros.
Both the Venezuelan and Iranian thorns have incensed Washington for daring to use their oil revenues to redistribute wealth in their societies and then organise resistance to US hegemony in their respective neighbourhoods. They are examples which continue to inspire and which pose a threat to US imperial policy, both international and domestic. For what better way to solve all the ills of US society -- lack of secure health care, poverty, violence -- than dismantling the MIC and initiating a foreign policy based on peace rather than war?
The big difference between these two thorns, of course, is Islam and Iran’s interference with the US-Israeli agenda. Now that the oil companies have resigned themselves to Venezuela’s new assertiveness, they and their government spokesmen are not so concerned with trying to overthrow Chavez. However, the extra weight of the Israel lobby in Washington makes sure that another Iranian revolution remains at the top of the list of Obama’s things-to-do.
Another curious difference is that US attempts to turn Venezuela’s neighbours against it backfired, as they came to Chavez’s defence and followed his example, while similar efforts to conspire against Iran have had considerable success.
The schism in both Venezuelan and Iranian societies is very real and is being taken advantage of by the US and friends, who are doing their “best” to engineer a collapse of the populist governments to make room for more US-friendly colour revolutions. But there is too much Yankee baggage for this to work anymore. It is time for a colour revolution at home.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/. You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
