Mir Adnan Aziz
The News International
Who is in charge of the clattering train?/The axles creak and couplets strain/For the pace is hot and points are near, and sleep has deadened the driver's ear/And signals flash through the night in vain/'Who' is in charge of the clattering train! -The London Charivari
The recent elections, with the routing of a totally discredited sitting government, generated an all-time adrenaline high. By voting in the present dispensation, those in the electorate trusted them with their voice, believing in the adage -- voice of the people is the voice of wisdom.
It also manifested the public's anger and utter disgust at the previous government's policies, their rhetoric notwithstanding, regarding the economy, security and the judges' issue. The incumbent government, in these first months, has allowed these ills to metastasize. It has done so by constant back-pedalling on these extremely crucial issues.
This has resulted in a comatose governance system. It has also miserably failed to fathom the pre-election unrest and the subsequent democratic putsch, which swept the previous regime's inglorious feet off the corridors of power. The state today seems, as it was before, a tear away clattering train with no one at the controls.
Those elected have flouted the received mandate by doing absolutely nothing to counter the range and intensity of social and political conflict. This stark indifference has translated into extreme economic malaise, insecurity, political indecision and fears of a worse tomorrow down the road. The only thing that has seemingly changed is the ruling pedigree. Bad governance, though, has been tooled, remoulded and honed into an art. This rudderless governance has created holdouts and gridlock. We have seen societal sclerosis set in under these self-created burdens.
History is a silent witness to the decline and eventual destruction of great empires, what to say of nascent nations like us. In the same vein, the death knell sounds once the leadership of a country begins a brazen embezzlement of good and just governance and the resources of their various charges. This is the fate of all nations piloted by a privileged and elitist lot. In such states, reason capitulates.
Portents are forerunners of catastrophe. This government, despite an increasingly shrill rhetoric, is construed by the people as fighting to maintain a status quo, which benefits not them but Musharraf, the United States and those gallivanting on endless foreign forays. Is it not strange that in these extremely uncertain times the present A to Z of the governing party prefers to bless with his smiling presence alien lands rather than his own?
The state has suffered the loss of authority to compel obedience to the sanctions and provisions of its statutes and laws. It has also squandered the moral authority to compel obedience. To this end, violence and insecurity abounds all over. This kind of anarchy is an artificial creation, fashioned to keep the populace busy, while those who rule attend to matters of self import.
The frustrations of a multitude, reeling under an unprecedented price hike are enhanced by its callous trivialization by the ruling coterie. The gas price increase gaffe by a minister, sans an apology, was supplemented by light-hearted banter warning of more price hikes. Viewed in the backdrop of people committing suicide and killing their children for want of food, this seems even more sickening and pathetic.
No system is perfect. Wrongdoing has a way of slipping in through cracks where ever evident. Even the most venerated of institutions and systems are contaminated by scandal. What though is unforgivable is a designed effort to create these cracks and an equally wilful mutilation of the aspirations of a whole nation.
We saw this tragedy unfolding in the last eight years. What we see today are the same dark forces at work albeit cloaked in the garb of a popular mandate.
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
Monday, July 21, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The bellicose mayor of Kabul
Mir Adnan Aziz.
The Frontier Post
William Gladstone, British Prime Minister and foremost politician of his time said: "Remember the rights of the savage, as we call him. Remember that the happiness of his humble home, remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God, as can be your own."
In public, defeat in Afghanistan is anathema for western governments. In private, for many, it already seems inevitable – at least if the western definition of "victory" remains the vastly overblown goals set since the overthrow of the Taliban.
Similarly, public statements of faith in Afghan democracy are coupled with private expressions of despair when it comes to hopes of improving Hamid Karzai's, also referred to globally as the mayor of Kabul, administration. Many western officials admit privately that any real hopes of creating a democratic Afghanistan are now dead.
Karzai's influence does not extend beyond the Kabul city limits with no foreseeable expansion of those limits in sight. The real power in Kabul is either in the hands of the Tajiks, Uzbeks, the (former) Northern Alliance or the Taliban in the vast countryside.
During Milan's fashion week, Gucci's Tom Ford called Karzai "the chicest man on the planet." Unfortunately, for him, he has to govern Afghanistan and not an ensemble of models and the fashion world.
At a donor state conference in Paris, Karzai presented a 5,000 page document offering a vision for Afghanistan's next five years and asking for $40 billion to make it happen. It took 17,000 people two years to come up with the Afghanistan National Development Strategy document.
It set three priorities: building up the army and police force, improving infrastructure, and improving the livelihoods of the majority of Afghans who depend on agriculture. Today, in spite of pumped billions, we see none of these objectives even remotely realized.
The Indian embassy attack came at a time of escalating violence in Afghanistan marked by a number of high-profile Taliban actions. These included an assassination attempt against Karzai at a military parade right within his municipal limits, the dramatic raid on Sarpoza prison in Kandahar resulting in the escape of hundreds of Taliban prisoners followed by the seizure of several villages close to the city.
In the backdrop of these actions both Kabul and Delhi are at their sabre rattling best. We on the other hand, are on the diplomatic back foot. With a seemingly amputated front foot we have mastered this cringing art in the last eight years.
Now with an inherited political mantle, the A to Z of Pakistani politics, Asif Zardari should end his government in exile and bless this land plagued with uncertainties with his presence. Is it not strange, with the reported build-up of foreign forces on our western borders and a nation besieged with problems, he still prefers political rope-a-dope in alien lands.
The bellicose Kabul Mayor, who recently even threatened to send his forces across the border, blames Pakistan for restricting his governance to a municipal limit. He blames the same country whose largesse he enjoyed for two decades and without whose complete support he could never have been 'elected'.
When our embassy in Kabul was attacked and besieged, Afghan Central Bank Governor Anwar ul-Haq Ahadi addressed the demonstrators. Ahadi told demonstrators: "We will defend each and every inch of the soil and territory of our country". The money manager's gladiatorial diatribe was meant to convey that Pakistan was working against the sovereignty of Afghanistan. These sentiments are limited though to the Delhi bred ruling coterie.
Karzai's notions of Pakistan undermining and trying to roust him out are ill-founded. He is a poor student of Afghan history if he does not know that of the ten men, who have served as Afghanistan's president in the past three decades, four were murdered and one strung up from a lamp-post and disembowelled.
The Telegraph says in its January 29 edition: "Mr Karzai must live with the knowledge that every one of his predecessors for the past 107 years, whether kings or presidents, was overthrown violently. Was the ISI up and about since the last one century?
Pakistan itself is a victim of the workings of an extremely large presence of Indian 'diplomats' in Afghanistan. Musharraf's 'raksha bandhan' (tying the rakhi) with India and helping prop up Karzai has been rewarded with the unholy nexus between RAW and RAM - India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Afghanistan's Riyast-i-Amniyat (RAM). This has resulted in sponsored violence and unrest in our tribal and urban areas as well as in Balochistan.
The Northern Alliance dominated Afghan Government is acting on the whims of India. According to Afghan sources, RAW's Chief Ashok Chaturvedi treats " Karzai like a servant rather than a head of state and speaks to him while chewing and spitting out tobacco (pan)". The Indian stranglehold shows who is actually in power, controlling and contouring both the national and foreign policy of Afghanistan. India, knowing it is impossible to dominate the Pakhtuns, is dictating to the ruling elite of Afghanistan.
Today the world sees this pathetic edifice of subjugating a people crumbling and coming tumbling down. Afghanistan is a battleground, not against the oft portrayed 'evil', but between unfounded Western optimism and realism. Optimists think that Afghanistan can be transformed into a western democracy with men and women flaunting the latest in fashion and designer wear.
History cautions otherwise. Afghans have been at war for over millennia. All conquerors, attracted by the riches of undivided India, passed through Afghanistan. They did so but after being thoroughly bruised, battered and mauled by the Afghans. The history of Afghanistan counsels realism.
Rationally, the US led west should accept the Taliban and engage them positively. They will prevent Afghanistan from being an ungovernable state sliding into warring anarchy and stop drug production and trafficking. Hostility breeds resistance over a period of time. We have, more so in the post 9/11 years, seen America's fire-power thwarted and blunted. Devoid of military victories it has only help fuel hatred and global insecurity.
The strongest argument in favour of engaging the Taliban is that, with time and history on their side, they will not be subjugated by force. To face and accept reality, though extremely difficult for some, would augur well for Afghanistan and the west in particular.
We on the other hand, thanks to an alien indoctrination in these last eight years, have retarded almost to servility. This is manifest in the fact that resistance put up by a single battalion commander in the face of Afghan cross border aggression is being portrayed not as his duty but a truly heroic deed.
It should be conveyed to NATO and Afghanistan, not in the apologetic tone of our foreign office, but in emphatic and absolute terms that there will be no compromise on our sovereignty. We have paid an extremely heavy price and compromised our own security for an alien cause. It is time the Government takes the nation into confidence by rethinking and redefining its priorities. The people will stand as one with the Pak army provided it owns up to, once again, the seemingly forgotten maxim of - ghazi ya shaheed.
(miradnanaziz@hotmail.com)
The Frontier Post
William Gladstone, British Prime Minister and foremost politician of his time said: "Remember the rights of the savage, as we call him. Remember that the happiness of his humble home, remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God, as can be your own."
In public, defeat in Afghanistan is anathema for western governments. In private, for many, it already seems inevitable – at least if the western definition of "victory" remains the vastly overblown goals set since the overthrow of the Taliban.
Similarly, public statements of faith in Afghan democracy are coupled with private expressions of despair when it comes to hopes of improving Hamid Karzai's, also referred to globally as the mayor of Kabul, administration. Many western officials admit privately that any real hopes of creating a democratic Afghanistan are now dead.
Karzai's influence does not extend beyond the Kabul city limits with no foreseeable expansion of those limits in sight. The real power in Kabul is either in the hands of the Tajiks, Uzbeks, the (former) Northern Alliance or the Taliban in the vast countryside.
During Milan's fashion week, Gucci's Tom Ford called Karzai "the chicest man on the planet." Unfortunately, for him, he has to govern Afghanistan and not an ensemble of models and the fashion world.
At a donor state conference in Paris, Karzai presented a 5,000 page document offering a vision for Afghanistan's next five years and asking for $40 billion to make it happen. It took 17,000 people two years to come up with the Afghanistan National Development Strategy document.
It set three priorities: building up the army and police force, improving infrastructure, and improving the livelihoods of the majority of Afghans who depend on agriculture. Today, in spite of pumped billions, we see none of these objectives even remotely realized.
The Indian embassy attack came at a time of escalating violence in Afghanistan marked by a number of high-profile Taliban actions. These included an assassination attempt against Karzai at a military parade right within his municipal limits, the dramatic raid on Sarpoza prison in Kandahar resulting in the escape of hundreds of Taliban prisoners followed by the seizure of several villages close to the city.
In the backdrop of these actions both Kabul and Delhi are at their sabre rattling best. We on the other hand, are on the diplomatic back foot. With a seemingly amputated front foot we have mastered this cringing art in the last eight years.
Now with an inherited political mantle, the A to Z of Pakistani politics, Asif Zardari should end his government in exile and bless this land plagued with uncertainties with his presence. Is it not strange, with the reported build-up of foreign forces on our western borders and a nation besieged with problems, he still prefers political rope-a-dope in alien lands.
The bellicose Kabul Mayor, who recently even threatened to send his forces across the border, blames Pakistan for restricting his governance to a municipal limit. He blames the same country whose largesse he enjoyed for two decades and without whose complete support he could never have been 'elected'.
When our embassy in Kabul was attacked and besieged, Afghan Central Bank Governor Anwar ul-Haq Ahadi addressed the demonstrators. Ahadi told demonstrators: "We will defend each and every inch of the soil and territory of our country". The money manager's gladiatorial diatribe was meant to convey that Pakistan was working against the sovereignty of Afghanistan. These sentiments are limited though to the Delhi bred ruling coterie.
Karzai's notions of Pakistan undermining and trying to roust him out are ill-founded. He is a poor student of Afghan history if he does not know that of the ten men, who have served as Afghanistan's president in the past three decades, four were murdered and one strung up from a lamp-post and disembowelled.
The Telegraph says in its January 29 edition: "Mr Karzai must live with the knowledge that every one of his predecessors for the past 107 years, whether kings or presidents, was overthrown violently. Was the ISI up and about since the last one century?
Pakistan itself is a victim of the workings of an extremely large presence of Indian 'diplomats' in Afghanistan. Musharraf's 'raksha bandhan' (tying the rakhi) with India and helping prop up Karzai has been rewarded with the unholy nexus between RAW and RAM - India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Afghanistan's Riyast-i-Amniyat (RAM). This has resulted in sponsored violence and unrest in our tribal and urban areas as well as in Balochistan.
The Northern Alliance dominated Afghan Government is acting on the whims of India. According to Afghan sources, RAW's Chief Ashok Chaturvedi treats " Karzai like a servant rather than a head of state and speaks to him while chewing and spitting out tobacco (pan)". The Indian stranglehold shows who is actually in power, controlling and contouring both the national and foreign policy of Afghanistan. India, knowing it is impossible to dominate the Pakhtuns, is dictating to the ruling elite of Afghanistan.
Today the world sees this pathetic edifice of subjugating a people crumbling and coming tumbling down. Afghanistan is a battleground, not against the oft portrayed 'evil', but between unfounded Western optimism and realism. Optimists think that Afghanistan can be transformed into a western democracy with men and women flaunting the latest in fashion and designer wear.
History cautions otherwise. Afghans have been at war for over millennia. All conquerors, attracted by the riches of undivided India, passed through Afghanistan. They did so but after being thoroughly bruised, battered and mauled by the Afghans. The history of Afghanistan counsels realism.
Rationally, the US led west should accept the Taliban and engage them positively. They will prevent Afghanistan from being an ungovernable state sliding into warring anarchy and stop drug production and trafficking. Hostility breeds resistance over a period of time. We have, more so in the post 9/11 years, seen America's fire-power thwarted and blunted. Devoid of military victories it has only help fuel hatred and global insecurity.
The strongest argument in favour of engaging the Taliban is that, with time and history on their side, they will not be subjugated by force. To face and accept reality, though extremely difficult for some, would augur well for Afghanistan and the west in particular.
We on the other hand, thanks to an alien indoctrination in these last eight years, have retarded almost to servility. This is manifest in the fact that resistance put up by a single battalion commander in the face of Afghan cross border aggression is being portrayed not as his duty but a truly heroic deed.
It should be conveyed to NATO and Afghanistan, not in the apologetic tone of our foreign office, but in emphatic and absolute terms that there will be no compromise on our sovereignty. We have paid an extremely heavy price and compromised our own security for an alien cause. It is time the Government takes the nation into confidence by rethinking and redefining its priorities. The people will stand as one with the Pak army provided it owns up to, once again, the seemingly forgotten maxim of - ghazi ya shaheed.
(miradnanaziz@hotmail.com)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Extremists of another kind
Mir Adnan Aziz
The Frontier Post
Like the Torah, the Quran contains a number of verse references which address states of war. These Quranic verses, like the Torah and the wider Old Testament canon, have been taken out of context and subjected to tragic misinterpretation and misrepresentation.
"You shall destroy all the peoples, showing them no pity (7: 16). All the people present there shall serve you as forced labor (20:12. You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town, all its spoil and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the lord your God gives you (20:14-15). You shall not let a soul remain alive." 20:17).
These quotations are from the part of the Old Testament called Torah (Deuteronomy), a scripture that is holy both to Jews and Christians. However none can sanely suggest that Torah or the Bible sanctions violence. The reason of course is that these verses and others much like them are subject to various interpretations and contextual assumptions.
The UN defines terrorism as "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a populace or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."
This belies a contentious subject. When states are driven by realistic propaganda and sentiments, for them, end justifying the mean, do they fall within this dictum? If not, do states have the given right to kill and maim millions? If yes, does this mean that such states can ever be brought to any sort of justice?
There are historical travesties unmentioned and ignored today. Perhaps the greatest crime of those demonizing Islam goes undocumented: the war on critical thought. It was the leading cause of plunging most of the western civilization into a thousand years of ignorance and illiteracy. The Dark Ages were at the height of Christian power, yet that was when society found perhaps its most miserable condition.
Strangling independent thought and opposing science at every turn, the 'church' choked out any chance to improve human life. How many suffered and died from plagues and diseases that proper scientific knowledge could have prevented? How many babies perished due to the absence of knowledgeable medical care? How many people starved whose hunger could have been alleviated through economic progress?
During the rule of Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century killing of heretics became a basic 'church' doctrine. Killing in the name of God was a wide-spread and common practice within Christianity ever since that time. It lasted till the last of the witch-hunts in the early 1700's.
Bloodshed justified by religious dictums included the killing of pagan scholars and the burning of their libraries. The Crusades and other holy wars were fought to fulfill Biblical prophecies. There was also the reign of terror known as the Inquisition. Killing justified by religious dictums has been a widely accepted 'church' doctrine for more than two-thirds of its history.
Among the worst examples of systematic brutality are the Papal, Roman, and Spanish Inquisitions. These institutions were established and perpetuated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate dissenters, apostates, heretics, Jews, witches and anyone out of favor with church authorities. These included great scientists of the day, such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo.
The 'church' conspired with secular monarchs to stamp out dissent among citizens throughout Europe. The most hideous torture methods and devices were employed toward this purpose. The vast amount of personal property confiscated during the Inquisition made the Catholic Church one of the wealthiest businesses in the world. Today, the Church enjoys great political authority and influences western governments on crucial issues.
Rulers and soldiers through history have used Bible verses to justify the horrific destruction of their enemy. In the 12th century Crusaders slaughtered and tortured anyone who stood in their way. They quoted the Bible as a justification. Even today, military and religious leaders judge wars as "moral" based on Biblical reasoning.
They, as President Bush does, invoked divine guidance for perpetrating horrors. In the Gulf War, for example, bombers had "Isaiah 21:9" written on the bombs. The same states: "And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon (a city of Mesopotamia-present day Iraq) is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground." (Isaiah 21:9).
Hitler, probably the most demonized person in recent history, was born and raised Catholic. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," Hitler told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941. In Mein Kampf he says, "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." And at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926 Hitler declared: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews. The work that Christ started but could not finish, I, Adolph Hitler will conclude."
Muslims ruled and lived in Spain for about 850 years. They lived with Jews and Christians for the most part in a spirit of harmony and cooperation. During this time everybody strived towards promoting science and culture to the point that their work became the harbinger for the modern scientific revolution and its benefits for mankind. However, the moment Muslims became weaker, hate-filled hearts gave vent with a vengeance. Muslims were either killed, converted, or forced to leave Spain and their heritage was destroyed.
The Washington Post reported in its June 9, 2001 edition: "Sister Maria Kisito, who received 12 years, and her Mother Superior, Sister Gertrude, who received 15 years, were convicted of aiding in the slaughter of some 7,000 people (Tutsis) who sought refuge at their convent in southern Rwanda.
Prosecutors argued that they called in Hutu militiamen to drive people out of the convent knowing they would be killed, and later provided gasoline that militiamen used to set fire to a garage in which about 500 Tutsis had taken refuge".
Alexis Tocqueville, author of "Democracy in America", said in 1840, "Various forms of religious madness are quite common in the United States". Today, the likes of Jerry Lamon Falwell spew hate against Islam. He terms Islam a demonic religion while Lt.Gen. William G. Boykin boasts to a church group that his God is bigger than the God of Islam. At the dawn of the 21st century, extremism, crusades and religious warfare seem not relics of the past but ominously in play and a very likely prospect for the future too.
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
The Frontier Post
Like the Torah, the Quran contains a number of verse references which address states of war. These Quranic verses, like the Torah and the wider Old Testament canon, have been taken out of context and subjected to tragic misinterpretation and misrepresentation.
"You shall destroy all the peoples, showing them no pity (7: 16). All the people present there shall serve you as forced labor (20:12. You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town, all its spoil and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the lord your God gives you (20:14-15). You shall not let a soul remain alive." 20:17).
These quotations are from the part of the Old Testament called Torah (Deuteronomy), a scripture that is holy both to Jews and Christians. However none can sanely suggest that Torah or the Bible sanctions violence. The reason of course is that these verses and others much like them are subject to various interpretations and contextual assumptions.
The UN defines terrorism as "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a populace or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."
This belies a contentious subject. When states are driven by realistic propaganda and sentiments, for them, end justifying the mean, do they fall within this dictum? If not, do states have the given right to kill and maim millions? If yes, does this mean that such states can ever be brought to any sort of justice?
There are historical travesties unmentioned and ignored today. Perhaps the greatest crime of those demonizing Islam goes undocumented: the war on critical thought. It was the leading cause of plunging most of the western civilization into a thousand years of ignorance and illiteracy. The Dark Ages were at the height of Christian power, yet that was when society found perhaps its most miserable condition.
Strangling independent thought and opposing science at every turn, the 'church' choked out any chance to improve human life. How many suffered and died from plagues and diseases that proper scientific knowledge could have prevented? How many babies perished due to the absence of knowledgeable medical care? How many people starved whose hunger could have been alleviated through economic progress?
During the rule of Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century killing of heretics became a basic 'church' doctrine. Killing in the name of God was a wide-spread and common practice within Christianity ever since that time. It lasted till the last of the witch-hunts in the early 1700's.
Bloodshed justified by religious dictums included the killing of pagan scholars and the burning of their libraries. The Crusades and other holy wars were fought to fulfill Biblical prophecies. There was also the reign of terror known as the Inquisition. Killing justified by religious dictums has been a widely accepted 'church' doctrine for more than two-thirds of its history.
Among the worst examples of systematic brutality are the Papal, Roman, and Spanish Inquisitions. These institutions were established and perpetuated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate dissenters, apostates, heretics, Jews, witches and anyone out of favor with church authorities. These included great scientists of the day, such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo.
The 'church' conspired with secular monarchs to stamp out dissent among citizens throughout Europe. The most hideous torture methods and devices were employed toward this purpose. The vast amount of personal property confiscated during the Inquisition made the Catholic Church one of the wealthiest businesses in the world. Today, the Church enjoys great political authority and influences western governments on crucial issues.
Rulers and soldiers through history have used Bible verses to justify the horrific destruction of their enemy. In the 12th century Crusaders slaughtered and tortured anyone who stood in their way. They quoted the Bible as a justification. Even today, military and religious leaders judge wars as "moral" based on Biblical reasoning.
They, as President Bush does, invoked divine guidance for perpetrating horrors. In the Gulf War, for example, bombers had "Isaiah 21:9" written on the bombs. The same states: "And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon (a city of Mesopotamia-present day Iraq) is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground." (Isaiah 21:9).
Hitler, probably the most demonized person in recent history, was born and raised Catholic. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," Hitler told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941. In Mein Kampf he says, "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." And at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926 Hitler declared: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews. The work that Christ started but could not finish, I, Adolph Hitler will conclude."
Muslims ruled and lived in Spain for about 850 years. They lived with Jews and Christians for the most part in a spirit of harmony and cooperation. During this time everybody strived towards promoting science and culture to the point that their work became the harbinger for the modern scientific revolution and its benefits for mankind. However, the moment Muslims became weaker, hate-filled hearts gave vent with a vengeance. Muslims were either killed, converted, or forced to leave Spain and their heritage was destroyed.
The Washington Post reported in its June 9, 2001 edition: "Sister Maria Kisito, who received 12 years, and her Mother Superior, Sister Gertrude, who received 15 years, were convicted of aiding in the slaughter of some 7,000 people (Tutsis) who sought refuge at their convent in southern Rwanda.
Prosecutors argued that they called in Hutu militiamen to drive people out of the convent knowing they would be killed, and later provided gasoline that militiamen used to set fire to a garage in which about 500 Tutsis had taken refuge".
Alexis Tocqueville, author of "Democracy in America", said in 1840, "Various forms of religious madness are quite common in the United States". Today, the likes of Jerry Lamon Falwell spew hate against Islam. He terms Islam a demonic religion while Lt.Gen. William G. Boykin boasts to a church group that his God is bigger than the God of Islam. At the dawn of the 21st century, extremism, crusades and religious warfare seem not relics of the past but ominously in play and a very likely prospect for the future too.
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
Pakistan: Exorcising A Legacy
Mir Adnan Aziz
Countercurrents.org
In these critical times, one tends to reread these words of American poet Archibald MacLeish: "How freedom shall be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always and in the final act, by determination and faith."
Why did Hitler become supreme commander of Germany? Did he brainwash an entire nation? The fact was that his storm troopers burnt the Reichstag building. Hitler blamed it on terrorists, and told the people: "I cannot protect you, unless you give me full control." He did get it. History is a witness to what he did with that full control.
In Pakistan Mr. Musharraf wrested that 'full control' without the sanction of the people. Armed with it he went on a blitzkrieg that could have put Erwin Rommel to shame. In the process he smashed down all institutions, pillars on which rests the entity we call a state.
Autocrats try to become all-knowing father figures rendering idealized notions of a harmonious society where opposition and subversion is eliminated. They are in reality tyrants and masters of obfuscation. They mythologize their personalities with an aura of impenetrability.
On his death-bed Spanish dictator Gen Francisco Franco reportedly asked for forgiveness. "I ask pardon of all my enemies, as I pardon with all my heart all those who declared themselves my enemy, although I did not consider them to be so". It took Spain three generations to come to terms with their past.
It was 32 years after Franco's death and 68 years after he first assumed power that the Spanish parliament passed the Law of Historical Memory. This allowed Franco's rule to be deemed unjust. The debate still continues among the Spanish. Some fear it reopens old wounds while others say it fails to criminalize the general. After Gen Franco's death President Nixon toasted him, hailing the dictator as a loyal friend and ally of the United States.
The people brought down the contemptuous regime of King Gyanendra. They rose to the task, coming in from mountain trails and emerging from city lanes. They came to challenge a king whose malevolent idea of governance harked back to the medieval era of the seventeenth century. This was when his twelfth ancestor subjugated everyone within sight to create the Nepali kingdom.
To forgive is human nature. The people may excuse a politician, king or a general for implementing and executing a losing strategy. The people may even excuse a ruler for insulting their intelligence and common sense. What is unforgivable is a ruler insulting their pain, their tragedy. For this, there should be no pardon. Mr. Musharraf, the man he has proved himself to be, is someone who never felt the pain and tragedy of a nation wronged.
His recent pep talk to the 'media' was a feeble attempt to resurrect a doomed destiny. We must resist this affront to our human dignity. No one should be allowed to take the nation back into the dark days when supporters of people's movements demanding regime change were arrested without warrant, brutally killed, shamelessly sold with hundreds simply 'vanishing'; when freedom of the press was suppressed; and when all instruments of the state were directed to quell the legitimate dissent of people seeking urgent political and socio-economic reforms.
The stance of PPPP, the majority party, does not bode well for the country and the party itself. Their dithering and back pedaling on the judges and Musharraf issue brings back memories of the Ali-Foreman heavy-weight bout in Zaire. Ali coined a new strategy - rope a dope - and floored an exhausted Foreman in the eighth round. Mr. Zardari, sans the punch and 'guile' of Ali, is playing political rope a dope, trying to tire out a nation. He should beware of being technically knocked out himself in the process.
All over the world, dictators destroy democracy in the name of nationalism and sacrifice people's rights in the name of development. In reality, it is nationalism and national development that end up destroyed. That is what has been happening here all along, the sacrifice of national interest for the sake of an individual's self-interest. In the post September 11 tumultuous years dictators and autocrats have used the war on terror, an outrage, to slake their own thirst for dictatorship and power.
The task of those elected is now to organize the removal of a rejected Mr. Musharraf and exorcising his legacy. The people have defeated an autocrat's agenda and simultaneously created the conditions for peace. We have every reason to believe the gun has been silenced and there will be political stability and economic recovery. We hope, this time around, a wronged nation will not be let down by those in whom it has reposed its trust and faith.
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
Countercurrents.org
In these critical times, one tends to reread these words of American poet Archibald MacLeish: "How freedom shall be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always and in the final act, by determination and faith."
Why did Hitler become supreme commander of Germany? Did he brainwash an entire nation? The fact was that his storm troopers burnt the Reichstag building. Hitler blamed it on terrorists, and told the people: "I cannot protect you, unless you give me full control." He did get it. History is a witness to what he did with that full control.
In Pakistan Mr. Musharraf wrested that 'full control' without the sanction of the people. Armed with it he went on a blitzkrieg that could have put Erwin Rommel to shame. In the process he smashed down all institutions, pillars on which rests the entity we call a state.
Autocrats try to become all-knowing father figures rendering idealized notions of a harmonious society where opposition and subversion is eliminated. They are in reality tyrants and masters of obfuscation. They mythologize their personalities with an aura of impenetrability.
On his death-bed Spanish dictator Gen Francisco Franco reportedly asked for forgiveness. "I ask pardon of all my enemies, as I pardon with all my heart all those who declared themselves my enemy, although I did not consider them to be so". It took Spain three generations to come to terms with their past.
It was 32 years after Franco's death and 68 years after he first assumed power that the Spanish parliament passed the Law of Historical Memory. This allowed Franco's rule to be deemed unjust. The debate still continues among the Spanish. Some fear it reopens old wounds while others say it fails to criminalize the general. After Gen Franco's death President Nixon toasted him, hailing the dictator as a loyal friend and ally of the United States.
The people brought down the contemptuous regime of King Gyanendra. They rose to the task, coming in from mountain trails and emerging from city lanes. They came to challenge a king whose malevolent idea of governance harked back to the medieval era of the seventeenth century. This was when his twelfth ancestor subjugated everyone within sight to create the Nepali kingdom.
To forgive is human nature. The people may excuse a politician, king or a general for implementing and executing a losing strategy. The people may even excuse a ruler for insulting their intelligence and common sense. What is unforgivable is a ruler insulting their pain, their tragedy. For this, there should be no pardon. Mr. Musharraf, the man he has proved himself to be, is someone who never felt the pain and tragedy of a nation wronged.
His recent pep talk to the 'media' was a feeble attempt to resurrect a doomed destiny. We must resist this affront to our human dignity. No one should be allowed to take the nation back into the dark days when supporters of people's movements demanding regime change were arrested without warrant, brutally killed, shamelessly sold with hundreds simply 'vanishing'; when freedom of the press was suppressed; and when all instruments of the state were directed to quell the legitimate dissent of people seeking urgent political and socio-economic reforms.
The stance of PPPP, the majority party, does not bode well for the country and the party itself. Their dithering and back pedaling on the judges and Musharraf issue brings back memories of the Ali-Foreman heavy-weight bout in Zaire. Ali coined a new strategy - rope a dope - and floored an exhausted Foreman in the eighth round. Mr. Zardari, sans the punch and 'guile' of Ali, is playing political rope a dope, trying to tire out a nation. He should beware of being technically knocked out himself in the process.
All over the world, dictators destroy democracy in the name of nationalism and sacrifice people's rights in the name of development. In reality, it is nationalism and national development that end up destroyed. That is what has been happening here all along, the sacrifice of national interest for the sake of an individual's self-interest. In the post September 11 tumultuous years dictators and autocrats have used the war on terror, an outrage, to slake their own thirst for dictatorship and power.
The task of those elected is now to organize the removal of a rejected Mr. Musharraf and exorcising his legacy. The people have defeated an autocrat's agenda and simultaneously created the conditions for peace. We have every reason to believe the gun has been silenced and there will be political stability and economic recovery. We hope, this time around, a wronged nation will not be let down by those in whom it has reposed its trust and faith.
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
'Mask that grins and lies'
Mir Adnan Aziz
The News
The story of Cain is neither history nor a mythical narrative of the origins of violence. It is an original account of the fact, parable and anatomy of violence, and also the reality that we are all children of Cain.
Religion, society and culture keep the traits of that part of our ancestry at bay. It is but though a fragile line, where if one thinking of himself as being wronged assumes himself absolved of all vestiges of humanity and restraint.
In our society of today there are two classes of people -- those who still exercise restraint and try to smile and those who have simply give in to what was described by Ralph Waldo Emerson as: "Mob is man voluntarily descending to the nature of the beast."
The societal demand to appear cheerful and tolerant seems increasingly untenable with the perpetual combination of miseries, stress, frustration and injustice. Poet Paul Laurence Dunbar commemorated the need to conceal emotions in these words: "We wear the mask that grins and lies..., / this debt we pay to human guile; / with torn and bleeding hearts we smile..." Today, seemingly extinct, are grinning masks or profusely bleeding hearts that smile.
In these recent days we have read about various incidents of mob "justice." The sentiments of the people at large were ominously evident in the comments of Muhammad Nawab, a driver at the Edhi Foundation. He is reported to have said that he would "mercilessly kill" the people who had robbed his daughter's dowry.
All these manifestations taken together conjure a fearful picture of state failure. This may also be appropriately conceptualised as a process wherein the state has abjectly failed to provide for the well-being and security of the lives and property of its citizens. This has resulted in a total loss of trust in the state, leading to hopelessness, frustration and fear. Finding themselves insecure with no hope of redress, the people have given in to the seduction, that is the retributive "justice" of a mob.
Individual survival strategies applied on a mass scale create chaos and anarchy. Anybody stuck in one of our harrowing traffic jams will vouch how individuals bent on (seemingly) achieving the slightest personal advantage, not only create confusion and aggression but bring the whole traffic (including themselves) to a complete standstill. Likewise survival of the fittest and an unregulated societal behavior results in chaos and standstill.
Bad governance, rampant corruption and injustice have brought about stark social inequalities. These have led to two distinct classes: the haves and the have-nots. While some have become extremely rich, a multitude continues to suffer in abject poverty. With very limited choices for survival, many have turned to illicit means of enrichment. Crime has flourished more so as those responsible for curbing it have failed miserably to assume and guarantee societal security.
How can a state lock up a father (reported in the papers) for alleged stealing some biscuits for his hungry children but glorify and lionize grand larceners whose rape and plunder of the country helped in part to drive the poor soul to this petty crime? These heart wrenching dichotomies and cruel circumstances breed anger, alienation and violence. Those involved in these violent retributive actions see it not as a manifestation of disorder but a protest against what they see as state disorder.
We experience state failure on a daily basis. It affects virtually all dimensions of our lives. This failure spectrum extends from load-shedding and crippling inflation to that of abysmal governance. This is compounded by the average citizen's perpetual fear of becoming a victim of criminal or illegal acts. What adds to the woes is that these acts are seemingly condoned by those very duty bound to prevent the same.
The failure of the state to provide human security coupled with the desire of the masses to mete out retributive justice, as a means of self or collective defense, has led to this upsurge of mob 'justice'. What is more worrisome is that the trigger point for violent outrages seems to be constantly lowering.
In a moral perspective, mob 'justice' is derogatory to human personality. It is like trying to right a wrong with a graver wrong. It is synonymous with terror, decay in morality and collapse of public authority. The consequence is an eventual victimization of innocent people. It can occur that a person is wrongfully accused of a crime and immediately subjected to fatal torture. There are reported instances where an individual has caused it to be meted out on an enemy.
A mob mentality minimizes human values and undermines human security, both essential factors for peace. These acts of violence dehumanize both perpetrator and the victim and thus should be considered an abomination. It is also a vicious descending spiral that, if left unchecked, culminates in the destruction of all - the state, the perpetrators and the victims.
The government should put its act together. Without justifying violence, the fact remains that an ineffective state callously immune to the misgivings of its citizens inadvertently encourages a violent reaction.
William Orville Douglas, longest serving US Supreme Court Justice, paraphrased it as: "Violence has no constitutional sanction and every government from the beginning has moved against it. But where grievances pile high and most of the elected spokesmen represent the Establishment, violence may be the only effective response".
It is imperative that the state accepts its role in agitating these violent acts instead of acting as a judicious inhibitor. It is also crucial to understand that both the punished and the punishers are victims of state failure and a flawed society.
To curb this ugly trend, the role of the government is paramount. Some of the measures it can undertake to curb this menace include, controlling the spiraling crime rate, building confidence between the police and the masses, combating corruption in the criminal justice system, educating the masses on the implications of jungle 'justice', judicious accountability of criminals and rekindling the spirit of duty consciousness and professionalism in public authorities.
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
The News
The story of Cain is neither history nor a mythical narrative of the origins of violence. It is an original account of the fact, parable and anatomy of violence, and also the reality that we are all children of Cain.
Religion, society and culture keep the traits of that part of our ancestry at bay. It is but though a fragile line, where if one thinking of himself as being wronged assumes himself absolved of all vestiges of humanity and restraint.
In our society of today there are two classes of people -- those who still exercise restraint and try to smile and those who have simply give in to what was described by Ralph Waldo Emerson as: "Mob is man voluntarily descending to the nature of the beast."
The societal demand to appear cheerful and tolerant seems increasingly untenable with the perpetual combination of miseries, stress, frustration and injustice. Poet Paul Laurence Dunbar commemorated the need to conceal emotions in these words: "We wear the mask that grins and lies..., / this debt we pay to human guile; / with torn and bleeding hearts we smile..." Today, seemingly extinct, are grinning masks or profusely bleeding hearts that smile.
In these recent days we have read about various incidents of mob "justice." The sentiments of the people at large were ominously evident in the comments of Muhammad Nawab, a driver at the Edhi Foundation. He is reported to have said that he would "mercilessly kill" the people who had robbed his daughter's dowry.
All these manifestations taken together conjure a fearful picture of state failure. This may also be appropriately conceptualised as a process wherein the state has abjectly failed to provide for the well-being and security of the lives and property of its citizens. This has resulted in a total loss of trust in the state, leading to hopelessness, frustration and fear. Finding themselves insecure with no hope of redress, the people have given in to the seduction, that is the retributive "justice" of a mob.
Individual survival strategies applied on a mass scale create chaos and anarchy. Anybody stuck in one of our harrowing traffic jams will vouch how individuals bent on (seemingly) achieving the slightest personal advantage, not only create confusion and aggression but bring the whole traffic (including themselves) to a complete standstill. Likewise survival of the fittest and an unregulated societal behavior results in chaos and standstill.
Bad governance, rampant corruption and injustice have brought about stark social inequalities. These have led to two distinct classes: the haves and the have-nots. While some have become extremely rich, a multitude continues to suffer in abject poverty. With very limited choices for survival, many have turned to illicit means of enrichment. Crime has flourished more so as those responsible for curbing it have failed miserably to assume and guarantee societal security.
How can a state lock up a father (reported in the papers) for alleged stealing some biscuits for his hungry children but glorify and lionize grand larceners whose rape and plunder of the country helped in part to drive the poor soul to this petty crime? These heart wrenching dichotomies and cruel circumstances breed anger, alienation and violence. Those involved in these violent retributive actions see it not as a manifestation of disorder but a protest against what they see as state disorder.
We experience state failure on a daily basis. It affects virtually all dimensions of our lives. This failure spectrum extends from load-shedding and crippling inflation to that of abysmal governance. This is compounded by the average citizen's perpetual fear of becoming a victim of criminal or illegal acts. What adds to the woes is that these acts are seemingly condoned by those very duty bound to prevent the same.
The failure of the state to provide human security coupled with the desire of the masses to mete out retributive justice, as a means of self or collective defense, has led to this upsurge of mob 'justice'. What is more worrisome is that the trigger point for violent outrages seems to be constantly lowering.
In a moral perspective, mob 'justice' is derogatory to human personality. It is like trying to right a wrong with a graver wrong. It is synonymous with terror, decay in morality and collapse of public authority. The consequence is an eventual victimization of innocent people. It can occur that a person is wrongfully accused of a crime and immediately subjected to fatal torture. There are reported instances where an individual has caused it to be meted out on an enemy.
A mob mentality minimizes human values and undermines human security, both essential factors for peace. These acts of violence dehumanize both perpetrator and the victim and thus should be considered an abomination. It is also a vicious descending spiral that, if left unchecked, culminates in the destruction of all - the state, the perpetrators and the victims.
The government should put its act together. Without justifying violence, the fact remains that an ineffective state callously immune to the misgivings of its citizens inadvertently encourages a violent reaction.
William Orville Douglas, longest serving US Supreme Court Justice, paraphrased it as: "Violence has no constitutional sanction and every government from the beginning has moved against it. But where grievances pile high and most of the elected spokesmen represent the Establishment, violence may be the only effective response".
It is imperative that the state accepts its role in agitating these violent acts instead of acting as a judicious inhibitor. It is also crucial to understand that both the punished and the punishers are victims of state failure and a flawed society.
To curb this ugly trend, the role of the government is paramount. Some of the measures it can undertake to curb this menace include, controlling the spiraling crime rate, building confidence between the police and the masses, combating corruption in the criminal justice system, educating the masses on the implications of jungle 'justice', judicious accountability of criminals and rekindling the spirit of duty consciousness and professionalism in public authorities.
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
Oil Oligarchy:The War And After
Mir Adnan Aziz
Countercurrents.org
Gabriel Kolko, noted historian of modern warfare, states in his book 'Another century of war': "A foreign policy that is both immoral and unsuccessful is not simply stupid; it is increasingly dangerous to those who practice or favour it. That is the predicament that the United States now confronts."
Armed with a license to kill in the post September 11 years, the oil oligarchy's doctrine came into play. An occupied Afghanistan was planned to evolve into an American colony manned by permanent military bases. Apart from an easy access for oil pipelines to the Indian Ocean, it was thought to ensure increased US influence in the oil-rich regions around the Caspian basin and perform the critical geopolitical task of countering that of Russia and China.
It was famously said: "If you control Iraqi oil, you are halfway there to controlling all world oil." Iraq's proven oil reserves total more than 112 billion barrels. Potential reserves are estimated at over 200 billion barrels. Additionally, according to U.S. Department of Energy, Iraq contains 110 trillion cubic feet of gas. This was the prize which spurred the Iraqi occupation ironically named 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
America's oil oligarchy, sought to support this fantasy by entrenching in power a satellite Iraqi state strewn with military bases. The fact that with a tenth of world oil reserves, four times that of America including Alaska, meant that a US-controlled Iraq would greatly improve the formers energy crisis.
It also saw an occupied Iraq constraining Iran. The strategists thought that with Afghanistan and Iraq occupied and firmly in control along with the control of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, the regime in Tehran would be cowed into submission.
With an ever increasingly defiant Iran, the historically resilient Afghans resurging to counter an invader and an Iraq getting uncontrollable day after day, we see the oil oligarchy's great oil adventure aflame. The increasingly adaptable insurgencies, by fuelling oil vulnerability globally, are translating the West's nightmare into a reality.
We see increasing attacks on oil and gas operations worldwide in an effort to disrupt jittery energy markets and destabilize governments. The attacks, most intense in Iraq, have also occurred recently in Nigeria Indonesia and Russia. The northern pipeline that carries Iraqi oil to the Turkish port of Ceyhan has been blown up 37 times in just 12 months.
The Taliban have made a remarkable comeback tying down over 50,000 foreign troops. In Iraq, we see a harrowing 25% killed, injured or displaced. Over 100,000 civilians have been killed directly by violence. 4 million have been displaced from their homes; tens of thousands have succumbed to disease and malnutrition. More than 100,000 have been detained without trial. The state/coalitions writ, however, is still confined to the Green Zone.
Since the commencement of the "war on terror," the world has witnessed an unholy relationship between oil and U.S. foreign policy. Oil, America's Achilles heel, has always impacted its policies since World War II. This manifested itself in the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter doctrines but never so overtly and brutally as the oil oligarchy doctrine of today.
The U.S. with less than 5% of the world's total population consumes more than 25% of global oil. In recent years, rather than setting out a strategy for energy independence, it has unfolded a blood drenched roadmap of supplementing its increased dependence on imported oil by gory occupations.
America's own wells are drying up as local demand increases incessantly. By 2010 the US will need to import 60 percent of its oil. Since most of this supply comes from volatile and anti-American zones, its dependency is bound to lead to recurrent military aggression and occupations.
Militarily overextended, with a faltering economy and collapsing currency, its hubris remains undiminished. Neocons, seeking redemption, are busy drawing up plans to attack Iran. They also seek to check China and prevent its emergence as a power beyond their control. The Republican presidential candidate has boasted that he will challenge Russia and bring Putin to heel.
The world's greatest debtor is going to take on two powerful countries with the globally largest trade surplus. According to the World Factbook, an annual publication of the CIA, Russia's 2007 current account surplus was $465 billion; that of China $363 billion.
The US global current account deficit, on the other hand, is larger than it has ever been. Nearing $800 billion it is almost 7 percent of US GDP. To finance both the current account deficit and its own sizable foreign investments, the United States must import about $1 trillion of foreign capital annually or more than $4 billion each working day. This is unsustainable both in international and domestic financial and trade policy terms. This deficit is larger that the total deficits of all other countries in the world combined.
The cost of the oil oligarchy's wars of occupation is between $3 and $5 trillion. This comes on top of the unfunded liabilities of the US government totalling $53 trillion. A banker of even an average intellect would not hesitate in terming America as the world's worst credit risk.
Moreover, its oil dependency is escalating dramatically. In March 2002 oil was $25 a barrel, six years on it hovers around $140. This has seen the US oil import bill rise from $145 billion in 2006 to almost $500 billion presently, a $355 billion addition to an already huge trade deficit.
There is no possibility of America closing this humongous gap. It only survives this enormous deficit because the US dollar is the world reserve currency. This role too is nearing an end as the world looks for more stable stores of value. Although oil still being nominally quoted in dollars, in reality is being priced in euros. Oil producers raise the dollar value only to keep their oil revenues at a constant purchasing power in euros.
With the imminent change of guard let us hope the new US administration, with urgency and clarity, delineates its predicament and changes its energy (foreign) policy. The surreal oil crisis is a direct fallout of US failure to develop a realistic energy policy at home and the means to procure it globally. If the paradigm is not changed, the next decades will see nations paying for America's gluttonous lust for more oil - with more blood.
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
Countercurrents.org
Gabriel Kolko, noted historian of modern warfare, states in his book 'Another century of war': "A foreign policy that is both immoral and unsuccessful is not simply stupid; it is increasingly dangerous to those who practice or favour it. That is the predicament that the United States now confronts."
Armed with a license to kill in the post September 11 years, the oil oligarchy's doctrine came into play. An occupied Afghanistan was planned to evolve into an American colony manned by permanent military bases. Apart from an easy access for oil pipelines to the Indian Ocean, it was thought to ensure increased US influence in the oil-rich regions around the Caspian basin and perform the critical geopolitical task of countering that of Russia and China.
It was famously said: "If you control Iraqi oil, you are halfway there to controlling all world oil." Iraq's proven oil reserves total more than 112 billion barrels. Potential reserves are estimated at over 200 billion barrels. Additionally, according to U.S. Department of Energy, Iraq contains 110 trillion cubic feet of gas. This was the prize which spurred the Iraqi occupation ironically named 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
America's oil oligarchy, sought to support this fantasy by entrenching in power a satellite Iraqi state strewn with military bases. The fact that with a tenth of world oil reserves, four times that of America including Alaska, meant that a US-controlled Iraq would greatly improve the formers energy crisis.
It also saw an occupied Iraq constraining Iran. The strategists thought that with Afghanistan and Iraq occupied and firmly in control along with the control of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, the regime in Tehran would be cowed into submission.
With an ever increasingly defiant Iran, the historically resilient Afghans resurging to counter an invader and an Iraq getting uncontrollable day after day, we see the oil oligarchy's great oil adventure aflame. The increasingly adaptable insurgencies, by fuelling oil vulnerability globally, are translating the West's nightmare into a reality.
We see increasing attacks on oil and gas operations worldwide in an effort to disrupt jittery energy markets and destabilize governments. The attacks, most intense in Iraq, have also occurred recently in Nigeria Indonesia and Russia. The northern pipeline that carries Iraqi oil to the Turkish port of Ceyhan has been blown up 37 times in just 12 months.
The Taliban have made a remarkable comeback tying down over 50,000 foreign troops. In Iraq, we see a harrowing 25% killed, injured or displaced. Over 100,000 civilians have been killed directly by violence. 4 million have been displaced from their homes; tens of thousands have succumbed to disease and malnutrition. More than 100,000 have been detained without trial. The state/coalitions writ, however, is still confined to the Green Zone.
Since the commencement of the "war on terror," the world has witnessed an unholy relationship between oil and U.S. foreign policy. Oil, America's Achilles heel, has always impacted its policies since World War II. This manifested itself in the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter doctrines but never so overtly and brutally as the oil oligarchy doctrine of today.
The U.S. with less than 5% of the world's total population consumes more than 25% of global oil. In recent years, rather than setting out a strategy for energy independence, it has unfolded a blood drenched roadmap of supplementing its increased dependence on imported oil by gory occupations.
America's own wells are drying up as local demand increases incessantly. By 2010 the US will need to import 60 percent of its oil. Since most of this supply comes from volatile and anti-American zones, its dependency is bound to lead to recurrent military aggression and occupations.
Militarily overextended, with a faltering economy and collapsing currency, its hubris remains undiminished. Neocons, seeking redemption, are busy drawing up plans to attack Iran. They also seek to check China and prevent its emergence as a power beyond their control. The Republican presidential candidate has boasted that he will challenge Russia and bring Putin to heel.
The world's greatest debtor is going to take on two powerful countries with the globally largest trade surplus. According to the World Factbook, an annual publication of the CIA, Russia's 2007 current account surplus was $465 billion; that of China $363 billion.
The US global current account deficit, on the other hand, is larger than it has ever been. Nearing $800 billion it is almost 7 percent of US GDP. To finance both the current account deficit and its own sizable foreign investments, the United States must import about $1 trillion of foreign capital annually or more than $4 billion each working day. This is unsustainable both in international and domestic financial and trade policy terms. This deficit is larger that the total deficits of all other countries in the world combined.
The cost of the oil oligarchy's wars of occupation is between $3 and $5 trillion. This comes on top of the unfunded liabilities of the US government totalling $53 trillion. A banker of even an average intellect would not hesitate in terming America as the world's worst credit risk.
Moreover, its oil dependency is escalating dramatically. In March 2002 oil was $25 a barrel, six years on it hovers around $140. This has seen the US oil import bill rise from $145 billion in 2006 to almost $500 billion presently, a $355 billion addition to an already huge trade deficit.
There is no possibility of America closing this humongous gap. It only survives this enormous deficit because the US dollar is the world reserve currency. This role too is nearing an end as the world looks for more stable stores of value. Although oil still being nominally quoted in dollars, in reality is being priced in euros. Oil producers raise the dollar value only to keep their oil revenues at a constant purchasing power in euros.
With the imminent change of guard let us hope the new US administration, with urgency and clarity, delineates its predicament and changes its energy (foreign) policy. The surreal oil crisis is a direct fallout of US failure to develop a realistic energy policy at home and the means to procure it globally. If the paradigm is not changed, the next decades will see nations paying for America's gluttonous lust for more oil - with more blood.
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
Turkey Beyond Kemalism
Mir Adnan Aziz
Countercurrents.org
The Ottoman Empire, with Turkey as the epicenter, was supposedly the zenith of the Islamic Caliphate. Its decline began in the sixteenth century. The initial response of the Ottoman court was to reform its military on the European model. Intended to be limited strictly to the military, it however led to more far-reaching consequences. In the mid-1700s, the Ottoman Empire had acquired a distinct European taint that compromised its core base. By the late 1700s there was no longer an Islamic authority that could even in principle mobilize the Muslims to support a war against any aggressor.
The Ottoman Empire continued to become involved in wars with rivals like Iran. In the European Wars, its role was determined not by religious but geo-political concerns. At the time of its collapse, it was far removed from even a nominal role as the leader of Islam and by virtue of its extensive adoption of European modes, from the core of Islam. This enabled Mustafa Kemal, also called Attaturk (father of Turks), in establishing a secular republic in its place. This also came to be known as Kemalism.
The strongest force ever for Islamic 'secularism', Mustafa Kemal embraced all things Western, portraying himself as the greatest of all liberals. In order to cultivate his secular image he even went to the extent of turning the Aya Sofia mosque into a museum.
Kemal Ataturk modelled his secular dream on the latest European fashions in statecraft. In creating a secular Turkey, home to a populace of which 98% were Muslim, he expelled Islam from the public sphere. This 'Kemalism' led to the creation of the modern Turkish Republic from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.
The ruthlessly enforced Kemalism devoted attention to doing away from public all things Islamic. He endorsed the wearing of western hats, particularly the trilby (hat with a brim). Not meant to give the otherwise handsome Turks a more appealing look, this was designed to wean them away from the traditional headgear, the fez. This so because being brimless the fez facilitated bowing (sajda) while offering prayers. This met with resistance and many were executed in 1930 for defiantly wearing it.
Mustafa Kemal abolished the Caliphate, exiled the last Ottoman sultan to Paris, abolished the Hijra calendar, replaced the Arabic script with Roman alphabet, persecuted the Ulema and Sufi dervish order and established the first secular republic in the Islamic world. He gave a monolithic system where there was one identity - Kemalism and one arbiter of political power - the army.
To ensure that Kemalist principles, especially that of secularism, survive over time, Mustafa Kemal included in the country's constitution the military's role as the sole defender and protector of the constitution and its secular identity. In doing so he legitimized the military's interventionist role in politics.
Kemalism, Ataturk's midwifed legacy to Turkey has been the guiding principle of the military elite ever since his death in 1938. Till recent times, Kemalism was the unchallenged de facto civil religion, uncompromising in its secular ideals and enshrined in the Republic's constitution, laws and governance systems. In this enforced way of life the Turkish armed forces took upon themselves to defend an enforced legacy.
Turkey's military juntas ousted four governments since the 1950's. The greatly popular Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as mayor of Istanbul, was actually jailed for four months. His crime, reading a classic poem at a rally that the military deemed too 'Islamist'. It read: "The minarets are our bayonets. The faithful are our soldiers. God is great. God is great." Apart from serving the sentence he was barred for life from public office.
Political power in Turkey has long been contested between the elected parliament and the generals of the 600,000-man armed forces. Unlike the European entity that it aspires to be a part of, the Turkish army does not give the impression of being in the nation's service. It rather seems to govern it, almost dictating its will.
Ataturk's ruthless revolution also left Turkey with a sense of lost identity, unsure whether it was a secular or Islamic nation. Striving throughout these years to be a part of the European Union, Turkey's efforts have been continuously spurned with the harangue of doing more. Pope Benedict ignoring there zealously guarded secularism intoned that the EU was for Christians only.
Washington, more so in the present global scenario, considers Turkey's Kemalism to serve as a beacon for the Muslim world. In doing so it conveniently ignores the fact that the country's armed forces and their security agencies are the ultimate arbiter in politics. The judiciary is not independent but the instrument of an 'omnipotent' state.
Kemalism, with the military institution as a willing ally, has morphed into a macabre vehicle for violence and coercion. The generals, guardians of this system, are loath to admit that their actions are motivated more by concern over the loss of privileges and their elite status enjoyed since the birth of the Kemalist republic. With the perpetual charade of guarding an enforced ideology they have transformed it into a dogmatic doctrine.
Eighty years on Turkey is retracing its steps to its Islamic roots. The Justice and Development Party that Dr. Abdullah Gul helped find, known by its Turkish initials AKP, sprang from the Islamic political movements of the 1990s. By winning an outright majority of Parliamentry seats in 2002, it became the first non-secular party to have done so in 15 years.
This signalled a significant religious attachment among the Turkish people at large, despite eighty years of state-imposed Kemalism. It can also be well gauged from the fact that AKP occupies the posts of president – Dr. Abdullah Gul, prime minister - Recep Tayyip Erdogan and parliamentary speaker - Koksal Toptan.
Since taking power on a national level in 2002, AKP has created an economic boom by applying pragmatic policies. The economy has nearly doubled in its tenure. The secular elite, afraid of losing its grip, could never achieve this, absolutely reliant as it was on state control. The AKP draws much of its support from Turkey's religiously conservative heartland. These traditional Turks, suppressed for years, are now emerging as a powerful middle class, the engine that drives Turkey's boom.
The generals today see Mr. Gul and his party as a threat to their hallowed status. The Turkish President is commander in chief and has a veto power. No wonder the generals, still cocooned in the fading Kemalist legacy, refused to visit the presidential palace as Mr. Gul's wife wears a headscarf.
Girls now do the unthinkable in years gone by - they wear headscarves. Also aired are voices to give Quranic education to the children. This Turkish trek to its religious roots can be understood better by the words of the philosopher and sociologist Ernest Gellner.
He said: "In social sciences, one of the commonest theses is the secularization thesis, which runs as follows. Under conditions prevailing in industrial-scientific society, the hold of religion over society and its people diminishes. By and large this is true, but it is not completely true, for there is one major exception, Islam. In the last hundred years the hold of Islam over Muslims has not diminished but has rather increased. It is one striking counter-example to the secularization thesis".
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
Countercurrents.org
The Ottoman Empire, with Turkey as the epicenter, was supposedly the zenith of the Islamic Caliphate. Its decline began in the sixteenth century. The initial response of the Ottoman court was to reform its military on the European model. Intended to be limited strictly to the military, it however led to more far-reaching consequences. In the mid-1700s, the Ottoman Empire had acquired a distinct European taint that compromised its core base. By the late 1700s there was no longer an Islamic authority that could even in principle mobilize the Muslims to support a war against any aggressor.
The Ottoman Empire continued to become involved in wars with rivals like Iran. In the European Wars, its role was determined not by religious but geo-political concerns. At the time of its collapse, it was far removed from even a nominal role as the leader of Islam and by virtue of its extensive adoption of European modes, from the core of Islam. This enabled Mustafa Kemal, also called Attaturk (father of Turks), in establishing a secular republic in its place. This also came to be known as Kemalism.
The strongest force ever for Islamic 'secularism', Mustafa Kemal embraced all things Western, portraying himself as the greatest of all liberals. In order to cultivate his secular image he even went to the extent of turning the Aya Sofia mosque into a museum.
Kemal Ataturk modelled his secular dream on the latest European fashions in statecraft. In creating a secular Turkey, home to a populace of which 98% were Muslim, he expelled Islam from the public sphere. This 'Kemalism' led to the creation of the modern Turkish Republic from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.
The ruthlessly enforced Kemalism devoted attention to doing away from public all things Islamic. He endorsed the wearing of western hats, particularly the trilby (hat with a brim). Not meant to give the otherwise handsome Turks a more appealing look, this was designed to wean them away from the traditional headgear, the fez. This so because being brimless the fez facilitated bowing (sajda) while offering prayers. This met with resistance and many were executed in 1930 for defiantly wearing it.
Mustafa Kemal abolished the Caliphate, exiled the last Ottoman sultan to Paris, abolished the Hijra calendar, replaced the Arabic script with Roman alphabet, persecuted the Ulema and Sufi dervish order and established the first secular republic in the Islamic world. He gave a monolithic system where there was one identity - Kemalism and one arbiter of political power - the army.
To ensure that Kemalist principles, especially that of secularism, survive over time, Mustafa Kemal included in the country's constitution the military's role as the sole defender and protector of the constitution and its secular identity. In doing so he legitimized the military's interventionist role in politics.
Kemalism, Ataturk's midwifed legacy to Turkey has been the guiding principle of the military elite ever since his death in 1938. Till recent times, Kemalism was the unchallenged de facto civil religion, uncompromising in its secular ideals and enshrined in the Republic's constitution, laws and governance systems. In this enforced way of life the Turkish armed forces took upon themselves to defend an enforced legacy.
Turkey's military juntas ousted four governments since the 1950's. The greatly popular Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as mayor of Istanbul, was actually jailed for four months. His crime, reading a classic poem at a rally that the military deemed too 'Islamist'. It read: "The minarets are our bayonets. The faithful are our soldiers. God is great. God is great." Apart from serving the sentence he was barred for life from public office.
Political power in Turkey has long been contested between the elected parliament and the generals of the 600,000-man armed forces. Unlike the European entity that it aspires to be a part of, the Turkish army does not give the impression of being in the nation's service. It rather seems to govern it, almost dictating its will.
Ataturk's ruthless revolution also left Turkey with a sense of lost identity, unsure whether it was a secular or Islamic nation. Striving throughout these years to be a part of the European Union, Turkey's efforts have been continuously spurned with the harangue of doing more. Pope Benedict ignoring there zealously guarded secularism intoned that the EU was for Christians only.
Washington, more so in the present global scenario, considers Turkey's Kemalism to serve as a beacon for the Muslim world. In doing so it conveniently ignores the fact that the country's armed forces and their security agencies are the ultimate arbiter in politics. The judiciary is not independent but the instrument of an 'omnipotent' state.
Kemalism, with the military institution as a willing ally, has morphed into a macabre vehicle for violence and coercion. The generals, guardians of this system, are loath to admit that their actions are motivated more by concern over the loss of privileges and their elite status enjoyed since the birth of the Kemalist republic. With the perpetual charade of guarding an enforced ideology they have transformed it into a dogmatic doctrine.
Eighty years on Turkey is retracing its steps to its Islamic roots. The Justice and Development Party that Dr. Abdullah Gul helped find, known by its Turkish initials AKP, sprang from the Islamic political movements of the 1990s. By winning an outright majority of Parliamentry seats in 2002, it became the first non-secular party to have done so in 15 years.
This signalled a significant religious attachment among the Turkish people at large, despite eighty years of state-imposed Kemalism. It can also be well gauged from the fact that AKP occupies the posts of president – Dr. Abdullah Gul, prime minister - Recep Tayyip Erdogan and parliamentary speaker - Koksal Toptan.
Since taking power on a national level in 2002, AKP has created an economic boom by applying pragmatic policies. The economy has nearly doubled in its tenure. The secular elite, afraid of losing its grip, could never achieve this, absolutely reliant as it was on state control. The AKP draws much of its support from Turkey's religiously conservative heartland. These traditional Turks, suppressed for years, are now emerging as a powerful middle class, the engine that drives Turkey's boom.
The generals today see Mr. Gul and his party as a threat to their hallowed status. The Turkish President is commander in chief and has a veto power. No wonder the generals, still cocooned in the fading Kemalist legacy, refused to visit the presidential palace as Mr. Gul's wife wears a headscarf.
Girls now do the unthinkable in years gone by - they wear headscarves. Also aired are voices to give Quranic education to the children. This Turkish trek to its religious roots can be understood better by the words of the philosopher and sociologist Ernest Gellner.
He said: "In social sciences, one of the commonest theses is the secularization thesis, which runs as follows. Under conditions prevailing in industrial-scientific society, the hold of religion over society and its people diminishes. By and large this is true, but it is not completely true, for there is one major exception, Islam. In the last hundred years the hold of Islam over Muslims has not diminished but has rather increased. It is one striking counter-example to the secularization thesis".
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)