Vol 14, No.12 December 2014

Turn to next page

ARTICLES

230 MILLION CHILDREN AFFECTED BY ARMED CONFLICTS

By Countercurrents

. PROSECUTE THE TORTURERS

BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR..............................P 5

.MH 17: WHY IS MALAYSIA NOT PART OF THE

PROBE?

BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.....................................P3

.FAREED ZAKARIA AND THE RISE OF CHINA

BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR..................................P4

. GERMANY DOES SOMETHING THE U.S. HASN’T FOR

PEACE

BY DAVID SWANSON........................................P 6

.USTR P ROTEST DEMAMND: STOP THE SECRECY, RELEASE

THE TEXTS

BY MARGARET FLOWERS AND KEVIN ZEESE.......P 8

. THE LESSONS OF LIBYA

BY DAN GLAZEBROOK.......................................P 9

. THE BASES OF WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST: A

PERMANENT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PERMANENT

WAR

BY DAVID VINE...............................................P 12

STATEMENTS

. IN MEMORY OF U.S. SOLDIER TOMAS YOUNG

BY LUDWIG WATZAL......................................P 16

. 4TH GLOBAL INTER-RELIGIOUS CONFERENCE ON

ARTICLE 9

BY FINAL STATEMENT................................P 17

Globally, an estimated 230 million children now

live in countries and areas affected by armed

conflicts, said the UNICEF.

As many as 15 million children are caught up

in violent conflicts in the Central African

Republic, Iraq, South Sudan, the State of

Palestine, Syria and Ukraine – including those

internally displaced or living as refugees,

informed UNICEF. “Never in recent memory

have so many children been subjected to such

unspeakable brutality”, said Anthony Lake,

UNICEF Executive Director.

A New York/Geneva, December 8, 2014

datelined UNICEF press release said:

The year 2014 has been one of horror, fear

and despair for millions of children, as

worsening conflicts across the world saw

them exposed to extreme violence and its

consequences, forcibly recruited and

deliberately targeted by warring groups.

Yet many crises no longer capture the

world’s attention, warned the global

organization.

“This has been a devastating year for

millions of children,” said Lake. “Children

have been killed while studying in the

classroom and while sleeping in their beds;

they have been orphaned, kidnapped,

tortured, recruited, raped and even sold as

slaves.”

In 2014, hundreds of children have been

kidnapped from their schools or on their

way to school. Tens of thousands have

been recruited or used by armed forces

and groups. Attacks on education and

health facilities and use of schools for

military purposes have increased in many

places.

Facts

A few of the facts provided by the

UNICEF include:

# In the Central African Republic, 2.3

million children are affected by the

conflict, up to 10,000 children are

believed to have been recruited by armed

groups over the last year, and more than

430 children have been killed and maimed

– three times as many as in 2013

# In Gaza, 54,000 children were left

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

2

 

continued from page 1

L E A D A R T I C L E

homeless as a result of the 50-day conflict

during the summer that also saw 538

children killed, and more than 3,370 injured.

# In Syria, with more than 7.3 million

children affected by the conflict including

1.7 million child refugees, the UN verified

at least 35 attacks on schools in the first

nine months of the year, which killed 105

children and injured nearly 300 others.

# In Iraq, where an estimated 2.7 million

children are affected by conflict, at least

700 children are believed to have been

maimed, killed or even executed this year.

Women and girls have suffered physical and

sexual assault, sexual slavery, trafficking and

forced marriage. Some have been sold in

open markets. Children have been tortured

by ISIL and many have been forced to

watch and take part in executions and

torture.

# In Syria and Iraq, children have been

victims of, witnesses to and even

perpetrators of increasingly brutal and

extreme violence.

# In South Sudan, an estimated 235,000

children under five are suffering from severe

acute malnutrition. An estimated 1.7 million

children are internally displaced mainly as a

result of conflict and more than 320,000

are living as refugees. According to UN

verified data, more than 600 children have

been killed and over 200 maimed this year,

and around 12,000 children are now being

used by armed forces and groups.

According to UN verified data, nearly 100

were subjected to sexual violence and 311

were abducted.

# In Ukraine, the number of internally

displaced children is estimated at 128,000.

At least 36 children were killed and more

than 100 were injured in Donetsk and

Luhansk regions between mid-April and end

of October.

Adding further suffering of the children, in

countries stricken by Ebola, at least 5 million

children aged 3-17 are unable to go back to

school because of the outbreak. Thousands

of children have lost one or two parents to

the disease

Forgotten

The UN organization said:

The sheer number of crises in 2014 meant

that many were quickly forgotten or

captured little attention. Protracted crises

in countries like Afghanistan, the

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria,

Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen,

continued to claim even more young lives

and futures.

This year has also posed significant new

threats to children’s health and well-being,

most notably the Ebola outbreak in Guinea,

Liberia, and Sierra Leone, which has left

thousands of children orphaned and an

estimated 5 million out of school.

Hope

The world is still struggling to save the

children. There is still hope.

The UNICEF SAID:

Despite the tremendous challenges

children have faced in 2014, there has

been hope for millions of children

affected by conflict and crisis. In the

face of access restrictions, insecurity,

and funding challenges, humanitarian

organizations including UNICEF have

worked together to provide life-saving

assistance and other critical services like

education and emotional support to help

children growing up in some of the most

dangerous places in the world.

In Central African Republic, a campaign

is under way to get 662,000 children

back to school as the security situation

permits.

Nearly 68 million doses of the oral polio

vaccine were delivered to countries in

the Middle East to stem a polio outbreak

in Iraq and Syria.

In South Sudan, more than 70,000 children

were treated for severe malnutrition.

In Ebola-hit countries, work continues to

combat the virus in local communities

through support for community care

centers and Ebola treatment Units; through

training of health workers and awareness-

raising campaigns to reduce the risks of

transmission; and through supporting

children orphaned by Ebola.

“It is sadly ironic that in this, the 25th

anniversary year of the Convention on the

Rights of the Child when we have been

able to celebrate so much progress for

children globally, the rights of so many

millions of other children have been so

brutally violated,” said Lake. “Violence and

trauma do more than harm individual

children – they undermine the strength of

societies. The world can and must do more

to make 2015 a much better year for every

child. For every child who grows up strong,

safe, healthy and educated is a child who

can go on to contribute to her own, her

family’s, her community’s, her nation’s and,

indeed, to our common future.”

The New York Times report by Rick

Gladstone said:

“The report was basically a summation

of the well-documented afflictions that

affected children in 2014. But taken in

their entirety, they presented what

UNICEF called a devastating picture.”

Citing the UNICEF report the NYT report

added:

“The nearly four-year-old war in Syria,

which spilled into Iraq this year with the

ascendance of the militant group, the

Islamic State, was a leading contributor

of trauma to children.”

09 December, 2014

Source: Countercurrents.org

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

3S T A T E M E N T S

STATEMENTS

MH 17: WHY IS MALAYSIA NOT PART OF THE PROBE?By Chandra Muzaffar

Why is Malaysia not in the JointInvestigation Team (JIT) probing theMH 17 crash of July 17 2014?

Aren’t there guidelines that spell outwhich parties should constitute theprobe team in the event of a disaster ofthe magnitude of MH 17? As the ownerof MH 17, it is logical and sensible thatMalaysia is part of the probe. Malaysiahas more rights to be in the JIT thansome of its present members. One canunderstand why Ukraine is in the teamsince that is where the plane was shotfrom the sky. We can understand theNetherlands’ membership of the JITsince the flight originated fromAmsterdam. But why is Belgium in theJIT? Is it because Brussels is theadministrative capital of the EuropeanUnion and the EU may have someaviation responsibilities overcommercial flights in the continent? Ifthat is the case, then it is the EU, notBelgium, which should have a place inthe team. What about Australia? Is it amember of the probe because a largenumber of Australians were killed in thattragedy? If that is the consideration, thenMalaysia should also be in the JIT since43 of our citizens were killed, thesecond largest number after the Dutch,193 of whom perished in the calamity.Perhaps the Unites States should alsobe included since Boeing is themanufacturer of the aircraft.

It is alleged that Malaysia has beenexcluded from the JIT because we havenot pointed a finger at Russia as thecause of the MH 17 disaster as the four

members of the JIT have done.Malaysia refuses to heap blame onRussia or pro-Russia rebels in EasternUkraine, or anyone else for that matter,without hard, incontrovertibleevidence. Neither the Ukrainegovernment nor the US Administrationhas been able to offer such evidenceto the public. Comprehensive militarydata from satellite images of the incidentwould have convinced a lot of people.

Instead, right from the outset, theUkraine, the US and a number of theirallies have constructed a narrative

about how pro-Russia rebels inEastern Ukraine shot down MH 17with a Buk system supplied by Russia— a narrative which has been widelydisseminated through a biased globalmedia that has raised no questionsabout the motives behind such anaction or who would have benefittedfrom it. In the meantime, the angergenerated by this mass murder in theskies especially in Europe has enabledcertain parties to expand and reinforcetheir economic sanctions againstRussia.

Given this situation, Malaysia isabsolutely right in adopting a

principled position on MH 17 whichrefrains from condemning any partyuntil all the investigations have beencompleted. This is why we areinsisting upon total access to thecrash site to enable investigators tocollect all relevant evidence.Malaysia is also demanding that it begiven a seat in the JIT.

It is a demand that undoubtedly hasthe support of the entire nation. Onehopes that the UMNO generalassembly — the annual meeting ofthe party that is the backbone of thegovernment — which will take placefrom 25 to 29 November 2014,adopts a resolution that endorses thisdemand. Since the MalaysianParliament is also in session, it shouldlend its weight to a demand which isat the heart of our integrity andsovereignty as a nation.

Most of all, ours is a just demand. Itis just not only because MH 17 isours. It is just because we have a fairand balanced approach to thetragedy and its probe. We want theentire truth to be known. Ourparticipation in the investigation willat least help to check any attempt toconceal or camouflage the real storybehind one of the most heinouscrimes in recent times.

22 November 2014

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is presidentof the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

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

4

S T A T E M E N T S

FAREED ZAKARIA AND THE RISE OF CHINA

Fareed Zakaria’s “China’s growingclout” (NST November 15 2014) is astark attempt to warn readers of thealleged danger of some of China’scurrent moves in the regional andinternational arena. He says, “… Xi’sgovernment has been laying down plansfor a very different foreign policy —one that seeks to replace the American-built post-1945 international systemwith its own. There is clearly a debategoing on in Beijing, but if Chinacontinues down this path, it wouldconstitute the most significant anddangerous shift in international politicsin 25 years.”

Why would it be a “dangerous shift?”Dangerous to whom? Fareed gives usa hint of what he means when hesuggests that “China has begun apatient, low-key but persistentcampaign to propose alternatives to theexisting structure of internationalarrangements in Asia and beyond.”More precisely, he laments that “Thispast summer, China spearheaded anagreement with Brazil, Russia, Indiaand South Africa (along with China,known as the BRICS countries) tocreate a financial organisation thatwould challenge the InternationalMonetary Fund. Last month, Beijinglaunched a US $50 billion (RM 160billion) Asian Infrastructure InvestmentBank, explicitly as an alternative to theWorld Bank. And last week, Xideclared that China would spendUS$40 billion to revive the old “SilkRoad” trading route to promotedevelopment in the region.”

A lot of people in Asia and elsewherewould welcome an alternative to theIMF. The millions of Indonesians

who in the aftermath of the 1998Asian financial crisis were driven intothe clutches of poverty mainly byIMF conditionalities would be amongthem. An institution which helps toperpetuate a neo-liberal financialorder at the expense of ordinarypeople is a travesty of justice. TheWorld Bank which has been woefully

inadequate in its response to theinfrastructure needs of poor nationsis also a disappointment. TheInfrastructure Bank that China hasproposed is much more focused onthe development agenda of theGlobal South.

The Silk Road project and thehundreds of other projects that theChinese have committed themselvesto in Asia and in the other continentswill potentially spur a massive socio-economic transformation which willbenefit hundreds of millions of men,women and children on earth. It willof course strengthen China’s positionas a major economic actor on theglobal stage. It could lead to a globalpower shift which will pique the onenation that in spite of its decline isdetermined to perpetuate itshegemony.

Bringing this hegemony to an end isin the interest of humanity. Fareed

does not think so. He is of the viewthat “the current international order...has been a platform on which peaceand prosperity have flourished in Asiafor decades.” He has forgotten theKorean War (1950-3), the VietnamTragedy (1961-1975) which claimed3 million Vietnamese lives, and thebloodbath in Indonesia (1965)following a coup in which the CIAwas deeply implicated. Since Asiaincludes Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraqand Syria, what peace and prosperityhave the citizens of these countriesknown when the turmoil engenderedpartly by the hegemon’s nefariousagenda has resulted in the death ofmillions of innocent people?

This is why a change is crucial. Whatis significant is that China is helpingto end US helmed hegemony withoutwar or violence. The rise of China —unlike the rise of every Westernpower in the last 500 hundred yearsor so — has been remarkablypeaceful.

Even the way in which China isbringing about this change — whichFareed alludes to —is unique. Chinacontinues to operate within theexisting framework of globalstructures while creating newinstitutions which will cater for change.

Of course, as change takes place theflaws and foibles of this ascendantpower will also become moreobvious. We have a duty to critiquethem. But we must never lose sightof the larger significance of thismoment in history.

17 November 2014.

By Chandra Muzaffar

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

5

continued next page

PROSECUTE THE TORTURERS!By Chandra Muzaffar

A R T I C L E S

ARTICLES

Two top United Nations human rightsofficials have demanded that the UnitedStates government prosecute all high-level government officials involved inthe Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA)torture programmes.

The UN’s special rapporteur oncounterterrorism and human rights BenEmmerson stated on December 102014 that the systematic torturerevealed in the US Senate Reportreleased on December 9th, was amassive violation of the 1994 UNConvention Against Torture. He calledupon the US Attorney-General to“bring criminal charges against thoseresponsible.” He further emphasizedthat the US is legally obliged to do sounder international law. Another UNofficial, the UN high commissioner forhuman rights, Zeid Raad al-Hussein,made a similar call.

An American law professor from theUniversity of California’s Irvine Schoolof Law has pointed out that torture isalso a violation of domestic law sinceit is a federal crime and those “whoauthorized it and engaged in it must becriminally prosecuted.” Civil societygroups from all over the world shouldendorse these calls wholeheartedly.They should ask that not only thoseofficials directly responsible for thetortures but also those at the very apexwho authorized it should be put on trial.Since the CIA’ S “Rendition, Detentionand Interrogation” programme wasauthorized by President George Bushin the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks,he should be prosecuted, together with

his Vice-President, Dick Chenney, hisSecretary of Defence, DonaldRumsfield, and the Deputy Secretaryof Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, all ofwhom may have had a bigger role inthe planning and execution of this vileplan.

It follows from this that PresidentObama’s decision not to prosecuteofficials from the Bush Administrationis wrong and unjust. It is unjust not onlybecause it undermines both US andinternational law; it is unjust becausethe forms of torture employed werecallous and cruel. Detainees at variouscentres were subjected towaterboarding, deprivation of sleep forlong hours, sexual threats and deaththreats. It is significant that the Reportadmits that in spite of all the coercionused, the interrogators did not obtaincritical information about imminentterrorist attacks.

Though the Senate Report wasfocused upon the US, there is someevidence from other sources that seemto suggest that certain other countrieswere also involved in the CIA’sprogramme. In July 2014, the Europeancourt of human rights for instance ruledthat the government of Poland hadfacilitated the CIA’s secret prisonprogramme in Europe. Other inquirieshave revealed that Sweden, Italy,Macedonia and Rumania have alsoparticipated in the CIA’s programmefor interrogating and detaining terrorsuspects. Human rights groups inBritain allege that Britain’s MI 5 and

MI 6 have colluded with the CIA intorturing British residents detained inGuantanamo Bay. Civil society groupsshould campaign for full accountabilityand transparency on the question oftorture from these and othergovernments.

Returning to the situation in the US,there is an even more powerful reasonwhy top US leaders should be put inthe dock. US leaders have alwaysprojected themselves as the greatestchampions of democracy and humanrights on earth. How can champions ofdemocracy torture — torture in such adebased and depraved manner?

Of course, even without the recentrevelations, or the revelations in the lastfew years from Guantanamo, AbuGhraib and Bagram, many of us havenever seen US elites as genuinedefenders of human rights. How canyou be a defender of human rights whenyou conquer foreign lands and killhundreds of thousands of innocentpeople, from Vietnam to Afghanistan toIraq, in pursuit of your own hegemoniceconomic and political agenda? Whatrights are you protecting when youoverthrow democratically electedgovernments in Iran and Chile? Howcan you claim to be a paragon ofdemocratic values when you havehelped to keep in power some of themost autocratic regimes in LatinAmerica, Africa and Asia?

Indeed, the US government shoulddesist from playing the role of an

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

6

continued next page

A R T I C L E S

continued from page 5

upholder of democracy and humanrights, given the history of the US asa nation. The barbaric annihilation ofthe indigenous people of Americarenders the white settler communityin that land a violent suppressor ofhuman rights and human dignity.Similarly, the enslavement of theAfrican population of the US formany decades by a white elite meansthat it did not have an iota of respectfor the honour and integrity of itsvictims. Perhaps what happened inFerguson and New York in recentmonths serve as grim reminders of aracist past that continues to haunt 21st

century peddlers of human rights.

There are apologists for the US who

argue that whatever its shortcomings,the US leadership was willing toadmit through the Senate Report thatit had tortured people, that it haddone wrong. After all, many othercountries also torture detainees andprisoners.

True, the US elite did the right thingby revealing the dark side of itstorture programme, unlike most othergovernments. But we must rememberthat the US is different from others intwo respects. It commands enormousglobal power, especially globalmilitary power. With massive powercomes huge responsibilities. It is inthe realm of the responsibilities thatit shoulders that it has failedmiserably. And its torture program is

just one of the many examples of itsfailure to act responsibly. Besides,the US, as we have seen, often claimsthe high moral ground when it comesto democracy and human rights.Most other states do not make suchclaims. Judged by its own moralbarometer, the US should hang downits head in shame.

It is a pity that many so-called liberalhuman rights groups in the GlobalSouth who are quick to condemntheir own governments for theirhuman rights transgressions aredeafeningly silent in the face of theUS leadership’s gross violations ofhuman dignity.

15 December 2014.

GERMANY DOES SOMETHING THE U.S. HASN’T FOR PEACE

By David Swanson

Imagine a letter co-signed by former

presidents, former representatives from

both sides of the aisle, House speakers,

former governors, attorneys general,

cabinet members, ambassadors, CEOs,

movie stars and directors, writers,

astronauts, religious leaders, mayors,

academics, mainstream media

correspondents, and more — all united

in stating “Nobody wants war.” Imagine

the New York Times publishing this letter.

The equivalent happened in Germany just

a few days ago.

On December 5, the renowned weekly

newspaper Die Zeit published the letter

“Another War in Europe? Not in our

name!” The more than 60 personalities

from politics, business, culture and

media certainly do not sound like the

typical voices for peace, and indeed they

are not. Nevertheless they came together

to demand de-escalatory politics between

the United States and the European

Union, on one side, and Russia. They

appeal to the German federal government,

its representatives and the media to

assume their responsibility for peace in

Europe. The desire for a world without

war is one shared far beyond the peace

movement choir.

Such a letter might have been written in

the United States in the 1920s or 1930s.

Is it imaginable today? Should we ask

ourselves why not? Here is the German

letter and the names of its signers:

Nobody wants war. But North America,

the European Union and Russia are

inevitably drifting towards war if they

do not finally halt the disastrous spiral of

threat and counter-threat. All Europeans,

Russia included, jointly hold responsibility

for peace and security. Only those who

do not lose sight of this goal are avoiding

irrational turns.

The Ukraine-conflict shows that the

addiction to power and domination has

not been overcome. In 1990 at the end

of the Cold War, we were all hoping for

that. But the successes of the policy of

detente and the peaceful revolutions have

made us sleepy and careless, in the East

and the West alike. For US-Americans,

Europeans and Russians the guiding

principle to banish war permanently from

their relations has been lost. Otherwise,

the perceived threatening of Russia with

expansion of the West to the East,

without simultaneously deepening

cooperation with Moscow, as well as the

illegal annexation of the Crimea by Putin,

cannot be explained.

In this moment of great danger for the

continent, Germany has a special

responsibility for the maintenance of

peace. Without the will for reconciliation

from the Russian people, without the

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

7

continued from page 6

foresight of Mikhail Gorbachev, without

the support of our Western allies and

without the prudent action by the then

Federal Government, the division of

Europe would not have been overcome.

To allow German unification to

peacefully evolve was a great gesture,

shaped by reason from the victorious

powers. It was a decision of historic

proportions.

From overcoming the division in Europe

a solid European peace and security

order from Vancouver to Vladivostok

should have developed, as it had been

agreed to by all 35 Heads of State and

Government of the CSCE Member

States in November 1990 in the “Charter

of Paris for a New Europe.” On the basis

of agreed established principles and

through first concrete measures a

“Common European Home” was

supposed to be established, in which all

the States concerned should have equal

security. This post-war policy goal has

to this day not been redeemed. The

people of Europe have to live again in

fear.

We, the undersigned, appeal to the federal

government of Germany to assume its

responsibility for peace in Europe. We

need a new policy of détente in Europe.

This is only possible on the basis of equal

security for all with equal and mutually

respected partners. The German

government is not following a “unique

German path”, if they continue to call,

in this stalemated situation, for calm and

dialogue with Russia. The Russians’

security requirements are as legitimate

and just as important as those of the

Germans, the Poles, the Baltic States and

Ukraine.

We should not look to push Russia out

of Europe. That would be unhistorical,

unreasonable and dangerous for peace.

Ever since the Congress of Vienna in 1814

Russia has been recognized as one of

the global players in Europe. All who have

tried to violently change that have failed

bloodily – the last time it was the

megalomaniac Hitler’s Germany that set

about a murderous campaign to conquer

Russia in 1941.

We call upon the Members of the

German Bundestag, delegated by the

people to deal appropriately with the

seriousness of the situation, to attentively

preside over the peace obligation of their

government. He who props up a

bogeyman ascribing blame to one side

alone, exacerbates tensions at a time

when the signals should call for de-

escalation. Inclusion instead of exclusion

should be the leitmotif for German

politicians.

We appeal to the media to comply with

their obligations for nonbiased reporting,

more convincingly than they have thus

far done. Editorialists and commentators

demonize whole nations, without

crediting their history. Every able foreign

policy journalist will understand the fear

of the Russians, since NATO members

in 2008 invited Georgia and Ukraine to

become members of the alliance. It’s not

about Putin. State leaders come and go.

What is at stake is Europe. It’s about

taking away the people’s fear of war.

Towards this purpose, a responsible

media coverage based on solid research

can help a lot.

On October 3, 1990, on the Day to

Commemorate German Reunification,

German President Richard von

Weizsäcker said: “The Cold War is

overcome; freedom and democracy will

soon be put in place in all countries …

Now they can conduct their relationships

within a compact and secure institutional

framework, from which a common life

and peace order can arise. For the people

of Europe a completely new chapter in

their history begins. The goal is a Pan-

European project. This is a huge

challenge. We can archive it, but we can

also fail. We face the clear alternative to

unite Europe, or in line with painful

historical examples, to fall back again into

nationalist conflicts in Europe.”

Until the Ukraine conflict we thought we

here in Europe were on the right track.

Today, a quarter of a century later,

Richard von Weizsäcker’s words are

more relevant than ever.

Signatories

-Mario Adorf, Actor

-Robert Antretter (Former Member of

German Parliament)

-Prof. Dr. Wilfried Bergmann (Vice-

President Alma Mater Europaea)

-Luitpold Prinz von Bayern (Königliche

Holding und Lizenz KG)

-Achim von Borries (Regisseur und

Drehbuchautor)

-Klaus Maria Brandauer (Schauspieler,

Regisseur)

-Dr. Eckhard Cordes (Chair of Ost-

usschuss der Deutschen Wirtschaft)

-Prof. Dr. Herta Däubler-Gmelin (Former

Federal Minister of Justice)

-Eberhard Diepgen (Former Mayor of

Berlin)

-Dr. Klaus von Dohnanyi (First Mayor

der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg)

-Alexander van Dülmen (Vorstand A-

Company Filmed Entertainment AG)

-Stefan Du¨rr (Geschäftsfu¨hrender

Gesellschafter und CEO Ekosem-Agrar

GmbH)

-Dr. Erhard Eppler ( Former Federal

Minister for Development)

-Prof. Dr. Dr. Heino Falcke (Propst i.R.)continued next page

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

8

continued next page

-Prof. Hans-Joachim Frey

(Vorstandsvorsitzender Semper

Opernball Dresden)

-Pater Anselm Gru¨n (Pater)

-Sibylle Havemann (Berlin)

-Dr. Roman Herzog (Former President

of Federal Republic Germany)

-Christoph Hein (author)

-Dr. Dr. h.c. Burkhard Hirsch (Former

Vice-President of Federal Parliament)

-Volker Hörner (Akademiedirektor i.R.)

-Josef Jacobi (Biobauer)

-Dr. Sigmund Jähn (Former Astronaut)

-Uli Jörges (Journalist)

-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Margot Käßmann

(ehemalige EKD Ratsvorsitzende und

Bischöfin)

-Dr. Andrea von Knoop (Moskau)

-Prof. Dr. Gabriele Krone-Schmalz

(Former Correspondent ARD in Moskau)

-Friedrich Ku¨ppersbusch (Journalist)

-Vera Gräfin von Lehndorff (artist)

-Irina Liebmann (author)

-Dr. h.c. Lothar de Maizière (Former

Minister-President)

-Stephan Märki (Intendant des Theaters

Bern)

-Prof. Dr. Klaus Mangold (Chairman

Mangold Consulting GmbH)

continued from page 7 -Reinhard und Hella Mey (Liedermacher)

-Ruth Misselwitz (evangelische Pfarrerin

Pankow)

-Klaus Prömpers (Journalist)

-Prof. Dr. Konrad Raiser (eh.

Generalsekretär des Ökumenischen

Weltrates der Kirchen)

-Jim Rakete (Fotograf)

-Gerhard Rein (Journalist)

-Michael Röskau (Ministerialdirigent a.D.)

-Eugen Ruge (Schriftsteller)

-Dr. h.c. Otto Schily (Former Federal

Minister of the Interior)

-Dr. h.c. Friedrich Schorlemmer

-Georg Schramm (Kabarettist)

-Gerhard Schröder (Former Head of

Government, Bundeskanzler a.D.)

-Philipp von Schulthess (Schauspieler)

-Ingo Schulze (author)

-Hanna Schygulla (actor, singer)

-Dr. Dieter Spöri (Former Federal

Minister of Economy)

-Prof. Dr. Fulbert Steffensky (kath.

Theologe)

-Dr. Wolf-D. Stelzner

(geschäftsfu¨hrender Gesellschafter:

WDS-Institut fu¨r Analysen in Kulturen

mbH)

-Dr. Manfred Stolpe (Former Minister-

President)

-Dr. Ernst-Jörg von Studnitz (Former

Ambassador)

-Prof. Dr. Walther Stu¨tzle

(Staatssekretär der Verteidigung a.D.)

-Prof. Dr. Christian R. Supthut

(Vorstandsmitglied a.D. )

-Prof. Dr. h.c. Horst Teltschik (Former

Chancellor advisor for Security and

Foreign Policy)

-Andres Veiel (Regisseur)

-Dr. Hans-Jochen Vogel (Former

Federal Minister of Justice)

-Dr. Antje Vollmer (Former Vice

President of the Bunderstag)

-Bärbel Wartenberg-Potter (Bischöfin

Lu¨beck a.D.)

-Dr. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker

(scientist)

-Wim Wenders (Regisseur)

-Hans-Eckardt Wenzel (songwriter)

-Gerhard Wolf (Schriftsteller, Verleger)

10 December 2014

David Swanson is an author, activist,

journalist, and radio host. He is director

of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign

coordinator for RootsAction.org .

Source: Worldbeyondwar.org

USTR PROTEST DEMAND: STOP THE SECRECY, RELEASE THE TEXTS

By Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has

been negotiated in secret throughout the

Obama administration. They continue to

keep the text secret and classified. This week

TPP trade negotiators are in Washington,

DC. The 12 countries have been unable to

reach agreement as the United States

demands extreme corporate power

undermining the sovereignty of nations.

The Obama administration has also been

stalled on trade on the homefront as

Congress has refused to give the

administration fast track trade promotion

authority. Fast track would allow the

President to sign the agreement before it

went to Congress and would restrict

Congress’ power to review it. It would

ensure Congress plays virtually no role in

regulating trade as is its constitutional

mandate under the Commerce Clause.

On Sunday night Popular Resistance began

the week of negotiations with a Light Brigade

putting messages on the US Trade

Representative’s office in Washington, DC.

On Monday morning members of Popular

Resistance held a ‘Sit-in to End the Secrecy’

on the front steps of the USTR office . As

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiators

and USTR staff arrived for their first day of

meetings this week, demonstrators

demanded that they stop hiding the text of

the trade agreement and instead make it

available to the public telling them “secret

negotiations are anti-democratic.”

Several activists tried twice to deliver an

open letter signed by more than 1,000

people to the trade ambassador but were

met with an aggressive removal from the

lobby by security personnel. Richard Ochs,

a 76 year old former steelworker from

Baltimore, was pulled down the stairs and

ejected from the building. Ochs exclaimed

“I thought that as citizens we had the right

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

9

continued next page

A R T I C L E Scontinued from page 8

to petition the government. This shows

how afraid they are of transparency.”

Cassidy Regan, trade organizer for Popular

Resistance, remarked that after public

pressure the European Union recently

agreed to release its negotiating proposals

for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment

Partnership to the public. The EU wanted

to release the full text of the agreement but

was blocked by the United States. “The

trade agreements being drafted in secret

threaten everything from worker rights and

wages to public health and access to

medicines. The negotiators keep texts

hidden because these agreements aren’t

made with the public in mind — instead,

they serve to give transnational corporations

further power to exploit people and the

planet for the sake of profit. The

unprecedented lack of transparency denies

communities’ right to know policies that

could impact so many aspects of our lives,

for generations to come.”

After several hours of blocking the front

entrance and disrupting business by

chanting, singing and banging on a cow

bell, pots and blowing whistles, the

protesters were joined by close to 200

more people from Public Citizen, Citizens

Trade Campaign, Friends of the Earth,

Sierra Club, National Family Farm

Coalition, Friends Committee on National

Legislation and labor unions such as the

Teamsters, Communication Workers of

America, International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers and United Students

Against Sweatshops.

The crowd sang and chanted. They had

a spirited march around the block

carrying banners, signs and big red

balloons that said “There will be no fast

track.” They let the negotiators know

that the American people were united in

their opposition to fast track and

predicted Congress would not pass fast

track legislation. .

This is the first of several days of

negotiations. More actions are expected

throughout the week. Online actions are

being organized through

ReleasetheText.com.

The movement of movements bringing

together people concerned about the

environment, labor, food and water,

Internet freedom, energy policy, banking

regulation and so many other issues has

been able to stop the rigged corporate

trade agreement being pushed by the

Obama administration. A critical test will

come in the coming months when the

new Congress is put in place. We are

confident that we continue to work in

unity to stop these corporate trade

agreements, that we can stop fast track

and prevent these treaties from becoming

law.

10 December 2014

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese are

organizers with Popular Resistance ,

which provides daily movement news

and resources.

Source: PopularResistance.org

THE LESSONS OF LIBYA

By Dan Glazebrook

Three years ago, in late October 2011, the

world witnessed the final defeat of the

Libyan Jamahiriya - the name by which the

Libyan state was known until overthrown

in 2011, meaning literally the ‘state of the

masses’ - in the face of a massive onslaught

from NATO, its regional allies and local

collaborators.

It took seven months for the world’s most

powerful military alliance - with a combined

military spending of just under $1 trillion

per year - to fully destroy the Jamahiriya (a

state with a population the size of Wales)

and it took a joint British-French-Qatari

special forces operation to finally win

control of the capital. In total, 10,000 strike

sorties were rained down on Libya, tens of

thousands killed and injured, and the country

left a battleground for hundreds of warring

factions, armed to the teeth with weapons

either looted from state armouries or

provided directly by NATO and its allies.

Britain, France and the US had led a war

which had effectively transformed a

peaceful, prosperous African country into

a textbook example of a ‘failed state’.

Yet the common image of Libya in the

months and years leading up to the invasion

was that of a state that had ‘come in from

the cold’ and was now enjoying friendly

relations with the West. Tony Blair’s famous

embrace of Gaddafi in his tent in 2004 was

said to have ushered in a new period of

‘rapprochement’, with Western companies

rushing to do business in the oil-rich African

state, and Gaddafi’s abandonment of a

nuclear deterrent apparently indicative of the

new spirit of trust and co-operation between

Libya and the West.

Yet this image was largely a myth. Yes,

sanctions were lifted and diplomatic

relations restored; but this did not represent

any newfound trust and friendship. Gaddafi

himself never changed his opinion that the

forces of old and new colonialism remained

bitter enemies of African unity and

independence, and for their part, the US,

Britain and France continued to resent the

assertiveness and independence of Libyan

foreign policy under Gaddafi’s leadership.

The African Oil Policy Initiative Group

(AOPIG) – an elite US think tank

comprising congressmen, military officers

and energy industry lobbyists – warned in

2002 that the influence of “adversaries such

as Libya” would only grow unless the US

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

10

A R T I C L E S

continued next page

continued from page 9

significantly increased its military presence

on the continent. Yet, despite

‘rapprochement’, Gaddafi remained a

staunch opponent of such a presence, as

noted with anxiety in frequent diplomatic

cables from the US Embassy. One, for

example, from 2009, noted that “the

presence of non-African military elements

in Libya or elsewhere on the continent” was

almost a “neuralgic issue” for Gaddafi.

Another cable from 2008 quoted a pro-

Western Libyan government official as

saying that “there will be no real economic

or political reform in Libya until al-Gaddafi

passes from the political scene” which

would “not happen while Gaddafi is alive”;

hardly the image of a man bending to the

will of the West. Gaddafi had clearly not

been moved by the flattery towards Libya

(or “appropriate deference” as another US

Embassy cable put it) that was much in

evidence during the period of

‘rapprochement’. Indeed, at the Arab

League summit in March 2008, he warned

the assembled heads of state that, following

the execution of Saddam Hussein, a former

“close friend” of the US, “in the future, it’s

going to be your turn too...Even you, the

friends of America – no, I will say we, we

the friends of America - America may

approve of our hanging one day”. So much

for a new period of trust and co-operation.

Whilst business deals were being signed,

Gaddafi remained implacably opposed to

the US and European military presence on

the continent (as well as leading the fight to

reduce their economic presence) and

understood well that this might cost him

his life. The US too understood this, and

despite their outward flattery, behind the

scenes were worried and resentful.

Given what we know now about what has

taken place in Libya – both during the so-

called ‘rapprochement’ between 2004 and

2011, and from 2011 onwards – it is

appropriate to take stock of this experience

in order to see what lessons can be learned

about the West’s approach to its relations

with other countries of the Global South.

Lesson one: Beware rapprochement

As I have shown, the so-called

rapprochement period was anything but.

The US continued to remain hostile to the

independent spirit of Libya – as evidenced

most obviously by Gaddafi’s opposition to

the presence of US and European military

forces in Africa – and it now seems that

they and the British used this period to

prepare the ground for the war that

eventually took place in 2011.

The US, for example, used their newfound

access to Libyan officials to cultivate

relations with those who would become

their key local allies during the war. Leaked

diplomatic cables show that pro-Western

Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil

arranged covert meetings between US and

Libyan government officials that bypassed

the usual official channels and were

therefore ‘under the radar’ of the foreign

ministry and central government. He was

also able to speed up the prisoner release

programme that led to the release of the

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group insurgents

who ultimately acted as NATO’s shock

troops during the 2011 war. The head of

the LIFG – Al Qaeda’s franchise in Libya –

eventually became head of Tripoli’s military

council whilst Abdul-Jalil himself became

head of the ‘Transitional National Council’

that was installed by NATO following the

fall of the Jamahiriya.

Another key figure groomed by the US in

the years preceding the invasion was

Mahmoud Jibril, Head of the National

Economic Development Board from 2007,

who arranged six US training programmes

for Libyan diplomats, many of whom

subsequently resigned and sided with the

US and Britain once the rebellion and

invasion got underway.

Finally, the security and intelligence co-

operation that was an element of the

‘rapprochement’ period was used to

provide the CIA and MI6 with an

unprecedented level of information about

both Libyan security forces and opposition

elements they could cultivate that would

prove invaluable for the conduct of the war.

Lesson one therefore is – rapprochement,

whilst appearing to be an improvement in

relations, may actually be a ‘long game’ to

lay the groundwork for naked aggression,

by building up intelligence and sounding out

possible collaborators, effectively building

up a fifth column within the state itself. This

does not mean it should not be done; it

merely means it should be approached with

extreme caution and scepticism on the part

of states of the Global South. It should be

understood that, for the West, it is almost

certainly a means of waging ‘war by other

means’, to paraphrase Clausewitz. This is

particularly pertinent to the case of Iran, a

current recipient of the poisoned chalice

that is ‘warmer relations’ with the West

(although this ‘thaw’ may yet be scuppered

by a Zionist Congress with no patience for

the long game).

Lesson two: For the West, regime change

has become a euphemism for total societal

destruction

I try to avoid the term ‘regime change’, as

it implies a change of one ‘regime’ (usually

understood as relatively functional and stable

state, albeit a potentially ruthless one) to

another. In the recent history of so-called

‘regime changes’ by the West, this has never

happened. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya,

‘regimes’ have not been replaced by other

‘regimes’, but have rather been destroyed

and replaced instead by ‘failed states’, where

security is largely non-existent, and no single

armed force is strong enough to constitute

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

11

continued next page

continued from page 10itself as a ‘state’ in the traditional sense of

establishing a monopoly of legitimate

violence. This in turn leads to further societal

and sectarian divisions emerging, as no group

feels protected by the state, and each look

instead to a militia who will defend their

specific locality, tribe or sect – and thus the

problem perpetuates itself, with the

insecurity generated by the presence of

some powerful militias leading to the

creation of others. The result, therefore, is

the total breakdown of national society, with

not only security, but all government

functions becoming increasingly difficult to

carry out.

In Libya, not only were various sectarian

militia such as LIFG armed and empowered

by the US, Britain and France during the

war against the Jamahiriya, but their power

was then boosted by the new NATO-backed

government that followed. In May 2012,

Law 38 effectively granted impunity to the

militias, making them immune for

prosecution not only for crimes committed

during the war against the Jamahiriya (such

as the well documented slaughter of

immigrants and black skinned Libyans), but

also for ongoing crimes deemed “essential

to the revolution”. This law effectively gave

a free pass to the militias to murder their

real or imagined opponents, building on the

boost to the authority that they had already

gained two months earlier. In March 2012,

many of the militias had been incorporated

into a new police force (the Supreme

Security Committee) and a new army (the

Libya Shield) – not only legitimising them,

but providing them with further material

resources with which to continue their

violence and their ability to impose their will

on the country’s legal – but largely

powerless – authorities. Since then, the new

militia-run police force has led violent

campaigns against the country’s Sufi

minority, destroying several shrines in 2013.

The same year, they also besieged several

government ministries, in a (successful)

attempt to force the government to pass a

law criminalising supporters of the former

government (a move which will jeopardise

security yet further by barring hundreds of

thousands of experienced officials from

government work). The Libyan Shield,

meanwhile, carried out a massacre of 47

peaceful protesters in Tripoli in November

last year, and later kidnapped the Prime

Minister Ali Zeidan. They are currently

involved in a war to oust the newly elected

government that has likely cost the lives of

thousands since it started this June. This is

not ‘regime change’ – what NATO has

created is not a new regime, but conditions

of permanent civil war.

Many in both Libya and Syria now regret

having acted as NATO’s foot soldiers in

sowing the seeds of destruction in their own

countries. Anyone expecting future ‘regime

change’ operations conducted by the West

to result in stable democracies – or even

stable sharia theocracies for that matter –

need look no further than Libya for their

answer. Western military power cannot

change regimes – it can only destroy

societies.

Lesson three – Once Western military

powers get their foot in the door, they won’t

leave voluntarily until the state has been

destroyed

Although the war on Libya was begun under

the authorisation of UN Security Council

resolution (1973), it is important to note that

this resolution only authorised the

establishment of a no-fly zone and the

prevention of Libyan state forces entering

Benghazi. This was achieved within days.

Everything that NATO did subsequently

was beyond the terms of the resolution and

therefore illegal; a point that was made

vehemently by many who had supported

(or at least not opposed) the resolution,

including Russia, China, South Africa and

even elements within the Arab League.

Regardless of the pretext, once the US and

UK are militarily involved in a country on

their hit list, they should not be expected to

stick to that pretext. For them, UNSC 1973

allowed them to bomb Libya. The precise

legal goals became immaterial – once they

had been given the green light to bomb,

they were not going to stop until the

Jamahiriya was destroyed and Gaddafi dead,

whatever the original legal reasoning that

allowed them to go in.

A useful analogy here is that of a robber

going to an old lady’s house posing as a gas

man. Once he is inside, he is not going to

stick to reading the gas meter - he is going

to rob her house.

Obviously, this lesson is most pertinent in

Syria, where the US, likely to be soon joined

by the UK, are conducting airstrikes

ostensibly ‘to destroy ISIS’. Given their

avowed long term aim to topple the Syrian

state, and their only recent (and arguably

half hearted at best), conversion to seeing

ISIS fighters as enemies rather than valiant

freedom fighting allies, this is to be taken

with a large pinch of salt.

Lesson four - State destruction cannot be

achieved without ground forces

A little noted aspect of the Libyan war (which

has, however, been covered in detail by

Horace Campbell) is the fact that the capital,

Tripoli, was taken largely by Qatari ground

forces co-ordinated by French and British

special forces (in direct contravention of

UNSC 1973). Indeed, no part of Libya was

held by the rebels alone for any significant

length of time without massive NATO

bombardment of Libyan state forces; after

the first three weeks, once the Libyan army

got on top of the insurgency, not a single

battle was won by the rebels until NATO

started bombing. Even then, rebels could

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

12

continued from page 11

continued next page

generally only take towns if NATO forces

had completely destroyed the resistance first

– and would still often be chased out again

by the Libyan army a few days later. This

is despite the fact that many of the Misrata

militias were under the direct command of

British special forces.

This state of affairs meant the taking of the

capital was always going to be deeply

problematic. The solution was Operation

Mermaid Dawn – an invasion of Tripoli in

late August by Qatari ground forces, French

intelligence and the British SAS, preceded

by several days of intensified airstrikes.

Whilst it is true that local collaborators joined

in once the invasion was on the way, and

indeed some rebel units had prior

knowledge, the reality is that the fall of

Tripoli was overwhelmingly a foreign

planned and executed operation.

This is all highly relevant to the situation in

Syria right now. For most of this year,

momentum in the Syrian war had been on

the side of the government, most obviously

in its retaking of the former rebel stronghold

of Homs in May. Whilst this momentum

was to some extent reversed by ISIS

following its gains in Iraq, nevertheless it

remains clear that hopes of a rebel victory

without a Western air campaign seem

unlikely. What Libya shows, however, is

that even WITH air support, rebel militias

are unlikely to achieve victory without an

accompanying ground occupation. In

Syria’s case, this may be even more

necessary, as switching airstrikes from ISIS

to Syrian government forces will be far

more difficult than in Libya given the

sophisticated S-3000 anti-aircraft missiles

provided by Russia last year. This may make

ground occupation the more viable option.

With Western media attempting to put

pressure on Turkey to mount a ground

occupation, there may be hopes that

Turkish forces will play in Syria the role

that Qatari forces played in Libya.

The Libya war opened the eyes of many –

or should have. But the overriding lesson –

if it needed reiterating - should be the

realisation that the US, the UK, France and

their allies will stop at nothing, including

even the imposition of total societal collapse,

in order to attempt to reverse their declining

global economic position through military

destruction. This is the reality behind all talk

of protecting civilians, humanitarianism, and

democracy promotion, and all Western

military intervention should be seen in this

light.

14 December 2014

Dan Glazebrook is author of Divide and

Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy in an

Age of Crisis.

Source: Countercurrents.org

THE BASES OF WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST: A PERMANENT

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PERMANENT WAR

By David Vine

From Carter to the Islamic State, 35 Years

of Building Bases and Sowing Disaster

With the launch of a new U.S.-led war

in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State

(IS), the United States has engaged in

aggressive military action in at least 13

countries in the Greater Middle East since

1980. In that time, every American

president has invaded, occupied,

bombed, or gone to war in at least one

country in the region. The total number

of invasions, occupations, bombing

operations, drone assassination

campaigns, and cruise missile attacks

easily runs into the dozens.

As in prior military operations in the

Greater Middle East, U.S. forces fighting

IS have been aided by access to and the

use of an unprecedented collection of

military bases. They occupy a region

sitting atop the world’s largest

concentration of oil and natural gas

reserves and has long been considered

the most geopolitically important place

on the planet. Indeed, since 1980, the

U.S. military has gradually garrisoned the

Greater Middle East in a fashion only

rivaled by the Cold War garrisoning of

Western Europe or, in terms of

concentration, by the bases built to wage

past wars in Korea and Vietnam.

In the Persian Gulf alone, the U.S. has

major bases in every country save Iran.

There is an increasingly important,

increasingly large base in Djibouti, just

miles across the Red Sea from the

Arabian Peninsula. There are bases in

Pakistan on one end of the region and in

the Balkans on the other, as well as on

the strategically located Indian Ocean

islands of Diego Garcia and the

Seychelles. In Afghanistan and Iraq, there

were once as many as 800 and 505

bases, respectively. Recently, the Obama

administration inked an agreement with

new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to

maintain around 10,000 troops and at

least nine major bases in his country

beyond the official end of combat

operations later this year. U.S. forces,

which never fully departed Iraq after

2011, are now returning to a growing

number of bases there in ever larger

numbers.

In short, there is almost no way to

overemphasize how thoroughly the U.S.

military now covers the region with bases

and troops. This infrastructure of war

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

13

continued next page

continued from page 12

has been in place for so long and is so

taken for granted that Americans rarely

think about it and journalists almost never

report on the subject. Members of

Congress spend billions of dollars on base

construction and maintenance every year

in the region, but ask few questions about

where the money is going, why there

are so many bases, and what role they

really serve. By one estimate, the United

States has spent $10 trillion protecting

Persian Gulf oil supplies over the past

four decades.

Approaching its 35th anniversary, the

strategy of maintaining such a structure

of garrisons, troops, planes, and ships

in the Middle East has been one of the

great disasters in the history of American

foreign policy. The rapid disappearance

of debate about our newest, possibly

illegal war should remind us of just how

easy this huge infrastructure of bases has

made it for anyone in the Oval Office to

launch a war that seems guaranteed, like

its predecessors, to set off new cycles

of blowback and yet more war.

On their own, the existence of these

bases has helped generate radicalism and

anti-American sentiment. As was

famously the case with Osama bin Laden

and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, bases

have fueled militancy, as well as attacks

on the United States and its citizens. They

have cost taxpayers billions of dollars,

even though they are not, in fact,

necessary to ensure the free flow of oil

globally. They have diverted tax dollars

from the possible development of

alternative energy sources and meeting

other critical domestic needs. And they

have supported dictators and repressive,

undemocratic regimes, helping to block

the spread of democracy in a region long

controlled by colonial rulers and

autocrats.

After 35 years of base-building in the

region, it’s long past time to look

carefully at the effects Washington’s

garrisoning of the Greater Middle East

has had on the region, the U.S., and the

world.

“Vast Oil Reserves”

While the Middle Eastern base buildup

began in earnest in 1980, Washington had

long attempted to use military force to

control this swath of resource-rich

Eurasia and, with it, the global economy.

Since World War II, as the late Chalmers

Johnson, an expert on U.S. basing

strategy, explained back in 2004, “the

United States has been inexorably

acquiring permanent military enclaves

whose sole purpose appears to be the

domination of one of the most

strategically important areas of the

world.”

In 1945, after Germany’s defeat, the

secretaries of War, State, and the Navy

tellingly pushed for the completion of a

partially built base in Dharan, Saudi

Arabia, despite the military’s

determination that it was unnecessary for

the war against Japan. “Immediate

construction of this [air] field,” they

argued, “would be a strong showing of

American interest in Saudi Arabia and

thus tend to strengthen the political

integrity of that country where vast oil

reserves now are in American hands.”

By 1949, the Pentagon had established a

small, permanent Middle East naval force

(MIDEASTFOR) in Bahrain. In the early

1960s, President John F. Kennedy’s

administration began the first buildup of

naval forces in the Indian Ocean just off

the Persian Gulf. Within a decade, the

Navy had created the foundations for

what would become the first major U.S.

base in the region — on the British-

controlled island of Diego Garcia.

In these early Cold War years, though,

Washington generally sought to increase

its influence in the Middle East by backing

and arming regional powers like the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Iran under the

Shah, and Israel. However, within

months of the Soviet Union’s 1979

invasion of Afghanistan and Iran’s 1979

revolution overthrowing the Shah, this

relatively hands-off approach was no

more.

Base Buildup

In January 1980, President Jimmy Carter

announced a fateful transformation of

U.S. policy. It would become known as

the Carter Doctrine. In his State of the

Union address, he warned of the potential

loss of a region “containing more than

two-thirds of the world’s exportable oil”

and “now threatened by Soviet troops”

in Afghanistan who posed “a grave threat

to the free movement of Middle East oil.”

Carter warned that “an attempt by any

outside force to gain control of the

Persian Gulf region will be regarded as

an assault on the vital interests of the

United States of America.” And he added

pointedly, “Such an assault will be

repelled by any means necessary,

including military force.”

With these words, Carter launched one

of the greatest base construction efforts

in history. He and his successor Ronald

Reagan presided over the expansion of

bases in Egypt, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and

other countries in the region to host a

“Rapid Deployment Force,” which was

to stand permanent guard over Middle

Eastern petroleum supplies. The air and

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

14

continued from page 13

continued next page

naval base on Diego Garcia, in particular,

was expanded at a quicker rate than any

base since the war in Vietnam. By 1986,

more than $500 million had been

invested. Before long, the total ran into

the billions.

Soon enough, that Rapid Deployment

Force grew into the U.S. Central

Command, which has now overseen

three wars in Iraq (1991-2003, 2003-

2011, 2014-); the war in Afghanistan and

Pakistan (2001-); intervention in Lebanon

(1982-1984); a series of smaller-scale

attacks on Libya (1981, 1986, 1989,

2011); Afghanistan (1998) and Sudan

(1998); and the “tanker war” with Iran

(1987-1988), which led to the accidental

downing of an Iranian civilian airliner,

killing 290 passengers. Meanwhile, in

Afghanistan during the 1980s, the CIA

helped fund and orchestrate a major

covert war against the Soviet Union by

backing Osama Bin Laden and other

extremist mujahidin. The command has

also played a role in the drone war in

Yemen (2002-) and both overt and covert

warfare in Somalia (1992-1994, 2001-).

During and after the first Gulf War of

1991, the Pentagon dramatically

expanded its presence in the region.

Hundreds of thousands of troops were

deployed to Saudi Arabia in preparation

for the war against Iraqi autocrat and

former ally Saddam Hussein. In that

war’s aftermath, thousands of troopsand a significantly expanded baseinfrastructure were left in Saudi Arabiaand Kuwait. Elsewhere in the Gulf, themilitary expanded its naval presence at aformer British base in Bahrain, housingits Fifth Fleet there. Major air powerinstallations were built in Qatar, and U.S.operations were expanded in Kuwait, theUnited Arab Emirates, and Oman.

The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 andof Iraq in 2003, and the subsequentoccupations of both countries, led to amore dramatic expansion of bases in theregion. By the height of the wars, there

were well over 1,000 U.S. checkpoints,outposts, and major bases in the twocountries alone. The military also builtnew bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan(since closed), explored the possibility ofdoing so in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan,and, at the very least, continues to useseveral Central Asian countries aslogistical pipelines to supply troops inAfghanistan and orchestrate the currentpartial withdrawal.

While the Obama administration failed to

keep 58 “enduring” bases in Iraq after

the 2011 U.S. withdrawal, it has signed

an agreement with Afghanistan

permitting U.S. troops to stay in the

country until 2024 and maintain access

to Bagram Air Base and at least eight more

major installations.

An Infrastructure for War

Even without a large permanent

infrastructure of bases in Iraq, the U.S.

military has had plenty of options when

it comes to waging its new war against

IS. In that country alone, a significant

U.S. presence remained after the 2011

withdrawal in the form of base-like State

Department installations, as well as the

largest embassy on the planet in Baghdad,

and a large contingent of private military

contractors. Since the start of the new

war, at least 1,600 troops have returned

and are operating from a Joint Operations

Center in Baghdad and a base in Iraqi

Kurdistan’s capital, Erbil. Last week, the

White House announced that it would

request $5.6 billion from Congress to

send an additional 1,500 advisers and

other personnel to at least two new bases

in Baghdad and Anbar Province. Special

operations and other forces are almost

certainly operating from yet more

undisclosed locations.

At least as important are major

installations like the Combined Air

Operations Center at Qatar’s al-Udeid

Air Base. Before 2003, the Central

Command’s air operations center for the

entire Middle East was in Saudi Arabia.

That year, the Pentagon moved the center

to Qatar and officially withdrew combat

forces from Saudi Arabia. That was in

response to the 1996 bombing of the

military’s Khobar Towers complex in the

kingdom, other al-Qaeda attacks in the

region, and mounting anger exploited by

al-Qaeda over the presence of non-

Muslim troops in the Muslim holy land.

Al-Udeid now hosts a 15,000-foot

runway, large munitions stocks, and

around 9,000 troops and contractors

who are coordinating much of the new

war in Iraq and Syria.

Kuwait has been an equally important

hub for Washington’s operations since

U.S. troops occupied the country during

the first Gulf War. Kuwait served as the

main staging area and logistical center

for ground troops in the 2003 invasion

and occupation of Iraq. There are still

an estimated 15,000 troops in Kuwait,

and the U.S. military is reportedly

bombing Islamic State positions using

aircraft from Kuwait’s Ali al-Salem Air

Base.

As a transparently promotional article in

the Washington Post confirmed this

week, al-Dhafra Air Base in the United

Arab Emirates has launched more attack

aircraft in the present bombing campaign

than any other base in the region. That

country hosts about 3,500 troops at al-

Dhafra alone, as well as the Navy’s

busiest overseas port. B-1, B-2, and B-

52 long-range bombers stationed on

Diego Garcia helped launch both Gulf

Wars and the war in Afghanistan. That

island base is likely playing a role in the

continued from page 14

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

15

new war as well. Near the Iraqi border,

around 1,000 U.S. troops and F-16

fighter jets are operating from at least

one Jordanian base. According to the

Pentagon’s latest count, the U.S. military

has 17 bases in Turkey. While the Turkish

government has placed restrictions on

their use, at the very least some are being

used to launch surveillance drones over

Syria and Iraq. Up to seven bases in

Oman may also be in use.

Bahrain is now the headquarters for the

Navy’s entire Middle Eastern operations,

including the Fifth Fleet, generally

assigned to ensure the free flow of oil

and other resources though the Persian

Gulf and surrounding waterways. There

is always at least one aircraft carrier

strike group — effectively, a massive

floating base — in the Persian Gulf. At

the moment, the U.S.S. Carl Vinson is

stationed there, a critical launch pad for

the air campaign against the Islamic State.

Other naval vessels operating in the Gulf

and the Red Sea have launched cruise

missiles into Iraq and Syria. The Navy

even has access to an “afloat forward-

staging base” that serves as a “lilypad”

base for helicopters and patrol craft in

the region.

In Israel, there are as many as six secret

U.S. bases that can be used to

preposition weaponry and equipment for

quick use anywhere in the area. There’s

also a “de facto U.S. base” for the Navy’s

Mediterranean fleet. And it’s suspected

that there are two other secretive sites in

use as well. In Egypt, U.S. troops have

maintained at least two installations and

occupied at least two bases on the Sinai

Peninsula since 1982 as part of a Camp

David Accords peacekeeping operation.

Elsewhere in the region, the military has

established a collection of at least five

drone bases in Pakistan; expanded a

critical base in Djibouti at the strategic

chokepoint between the Suez Canal and

the Indian Ocean; created or gained

access to bases in Ethiopia, Kenya, and

the Seychelles; and set up new bases in

Bulgaria and Romania to go with a Clinton

administration-era base in Kosovo along

the western edge of the gas-rich Black

Sea.

Even in Saudi Arabia, despite the public

withdrawal, a small U.S. military

contingent has remained to train Saudi

personnel and keep bases “warm” as

potential backups for unexpected

conflagrations in the region or,

assumedly, in the kingdom itself. In

recent years, the military has even

established a secret drone base in the

country, despite the blowback

Washington has experienced from its

previous Saudi basing ventures.

Dictators, Death, and Disaster

The ongoing U.S. presence in Saudi

Arabia, however modest, should remind

us of the dangers of maintaining bases

in the region. The garrisoning of the

Muslim holy land was a major recruiting

tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama bin

Laden’s professed motivation for the 9/

11 attacks. (He called the presence of

U.S. troops, “the greatest of these

aggressions incurred by the Muslims

since the death of the prophet.”) Indeed,

U.S. bases and troops in the Middle East

have been a “major catalyst for anti-

Americanism and radicalization” since a

suicide bombing killed 241 marines in

Lebanon in 1983. Other attacks have

come in Saudi Arabia in 1996, Yemen in

2000 against the U.S.S. Cole, and during

the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Research has shown a strong correlation

between a U.S. basing presence and al-

Qaeda recruitment.

Part of the anti-American anger has

stemmed from the support U.S. bases

offer to repressive, undemocratic

regimes. Few of the countries in the

Greater Middle East are fully democratic,

and some are among the world’s worst

human rights abusers. Most notably, the

U.S. government has offered only tepid

criticism of the Bahraini government as

it has violently cracked down on pro-

democracy protestors with the help of

the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates

(UAE).

Beyond Bahrain, U.S. bases are found in

a string of what the Economist

Democracy Index calls “authoritarian

regimes,” including Afghanistan, Bahrain,

Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan,

Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE,

and Yemen. Maintaining bases in such

countries props up autocrats and other

repressive governments, makes the

United States complicit in their crimes,

and seriously undermines efforts to

spread democracy and improve the

wellbeing of people around the world.

Of course, using bases to launch wars

and other kinds of interventions does

much the same, generating anger,

antagonism, and anti-American attacks.

A recent U.N. report suggests that

Washington’s air campaign against the

Islamic State had led foreign militants to

join the movement on “an unprecedented

scale.”

And so the cycle of warfare that started

in 1980 is likely to continue. “Even if U.S.

and allied forces succeed in routing this

militant group,” retired Army colonel and

political scientist Andrew Bacevich writes

of the Islamic State, “there is little reason

to expect” a positive outcome in the

region. As Bin Laden and the Afghan

mujahidin morphed into al-Qaeda and the

Taliban and as former Iraqi Baathists and

al-Qaeda followers in Iraq morphed into

IS, “there is,” as Bacevich says, “always

another Islamic State waiting in the

wings.”

The Carter Doctrine’s bases and military

buildup strategy and its belief that “the

skillful application of U.S. military might”continued next page

can secure oil supplies and solve the

region’s problems was, he adds, “flawed

from the outset.” Rather than providing

security, the infrastructure of bases in

the Greater Middle East has made it ever

easier to go to war far from home. It

has enabled wars of choice and an

interventionist foreign policy that has

resulted in repeated disasters for the

region, the United States, and the world.

Since 2001 alone, U.S.-led wars in

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen

have minimally caused hundreds of

thousands of deaths and possibly more

continued from page 15than one million deaths in Iraq alone.

The sad irony is that any legitimate desire

to maintain the free flow of regional oil

to the global economy could be sustained

through other far less expensive and

deadly means. Maintaining scores of

bases costing billions of dollars a year is

unnecessary to protect oil supplies and

ensure regional peace — especially in an

era in which the United States gets only

around 10% of its net oil and natural gas

from the region. In addition to the direct

damage our military spending has caused,

it has diverted money and attention from

developing the kinds of alternative energy

sources that could free the United States

and the world from a dependence on

Middle Eastern oil — and from the cycle

of war that our military bases have fed.

13 November 2014

David Vine, a TomDispatch regular, is

associate professor of anthropology at

The American University in Washington,

D.C.

Source: TomDispatch.com

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

16

IN MEMORY OF U.S. SOLDIER TOMAS YOUNG

By Ludwig Watzal

continued next page

US President George W. Bush and his Vice

president Dick Cheney are responsible for

the death of 4 488 American soldiers who

were sent into an illegal war against a

country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Both politicians belong before a military

court and put behind bars forever. Two days

after these attacks, Tomas Young joined the

army in order to “strike back” against the

terrorists. He was led astray like thousands

of others of his comrades by Bush and his

neoconservative gang in their so-called “war

on terror”. On March 18, 2013 , he wrote

a letter to both of them and accused them

of “egregious war crimes”.

On the eve of Veterans Day 2014, Young

died as a result of his injuries he had suffered

in Iraq after his fifth day of assignment. He

did not join the army to attack Iraq or

“liberate” the Iraqi people. Due to his severe

ailment, his video message (1) is difficult to

understand, that is why, Young’s deeply

moving message to these political

perpetrators is reprinted.

“I write this letter on the 10th anniversary

of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq

War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of

the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in

Iraq . I write this letter on behalf of the

hundreds of thousands of veterans who

have been wounded and on behalf of those

whose wounds, physical and psychological,

have destroyed their lives. I am one of those

gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an

insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City .

My life is coming to an end. I am living

under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and

wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of

children who have lost a parent, on behalf

of the fathers and mothers who have lost

sons and daughters and on behalf of those

who care for the many thousands of my

fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I

write this letter on behalf of those veterans

whose trauma and self-revulsion for what

they have witnessed, endured and done in

Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the

active-duty soldiers and Marines who

commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write

this letter on behalf of the some 1 million

Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless

Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf

of us all—the human detritus your war has

left behind, those who will spend their lives

in unending pain and grief.

You may evade justice but in our eyes you

are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of

plunder and, finally, of murder, including

the murder of thousands of young

Americans—my fellow veterans—whose

future you stole.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr.

Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because

I think you grasp the terrible human and

moral consequences of your lies,

manipulation and thirst for wealth and

power. I write this letter because, before

my own death, I want to make it clear that

I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow

veterans, along with millions of my fellow

citizens, along with hundreds of millions

more in Iraq and the Middle East , know

fully who you are and what you have done.

You may evade justice but in our eyes you

are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of

plunder and, finally, of murder, including

the murder of thousands of young

Americans—my fellow veterans—whose

future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions

of dollars of personal wealth, your public

relations consultants, your privilege and

your power cannot mask the hollowness

of your character. You sent us to fight and

die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged

the draft in Vietnam , and you, Mr. Bush,

went AWOL from your National Guard unit.

Your cowardice and selfishness were

established decades ago. You were not

willing to risk yourselves for our nation but

you sent hundreds of thousands of young

men and women to be sacrificed in a

senseless war with no more thought than it

takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11

attacks. I joined the Army because our

country had been attacked. I wanted to

strike back at those who had killed some

3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join

the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had

no part in the September 2001 attacks and

did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much

less to the United States. I did not join the

Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down

mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction

facilities or to implant what you cynically

called “democracy” in Baghdad and the

Middle East . I did not join the Army to

rebuild Iraq , which at the time you told us

could be paid for by Iraq ‘s oil revenues.

Instead, this war has cost the United States

over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the

Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-

emptive war is illegal under international law.

And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know,

abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The

Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in

U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of

power in the Middle East . It installed a

corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government

in Baghdad , one cemented in power

through the use of torture, death squads

and terror. And it has left Iran as the

dominant force in the region. On every

level—moral, strategic, military and

economic— Iraq was a failure. And it was

you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started

this war. It is you who should pay the

consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had

been wounded fighting in Afghanistan

against those forces that carried out the

attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there

I would still be miserable because of my

physical deterioration and imminent death,

but I would at least have the comfort of

knowing that my injuries were a

consequence of my own decision to defend

the country I love. I would not have to lie in

my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my

life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that

hundreds of thousands of human beings,

including children, including myself, were

sacrificed by you for little more than the

greed of oil companies, for your alliance

with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your

insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans,

suffered from the inadequate and often inept

care provided by the Veterans

Administration. I have, like many other

disabled veterans, come to realize that our

mental and physical wounds are of no

interest to you, perhaps of no interest to

any politician. We were used. We were

betrayed. And we have been abandoned.

You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of

being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t

murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish

ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I

believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that

what you do to the least of your brothers

you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours

will come. I hope you will be put on trial.

But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you

find the moral courage to face what you

have done to me and to many, many others

who deserved to live. I hope that before

your time on earth ends, as mine is now

ending, you will find the strength of

character to stand before the American

public and the world, and in particular the

Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.”

Even this last wish of Tomas Young will

not come true, because politicians have no

character. For a European, the US justice

system seems to be lousy. Colored people

are incarcerated by the thousands, while

the white criminals walk away freely and

send the minorities into their wars. Young’s

death and the death of the other 4 488

American soldiers should not be in vain.

Justice must be done

13 November 2014

Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist

and editor in Bonn, Germany. He runs the

bilingual blog “between the lines.

Source: Countercurrents.org

FINAL STATEMENT OF THE 4TH GLOBAL INTER-RELIGIOUS

CONFERENCE ON ARTICLE 9 FROM SEOUL AND OKINAWA TO TOKYO

continued next page

Article 9 of Japan’s Peace Constitution.

Aspiring sincerely to an international

peace based on justice and order, the

Japanese people forever renounce war

as a sovereign right of the nation and

the threat or use of force as a means of

settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the

preceding paragraph, land, sea, and

air forces, as well as other war

potential, will never be maintained.

The right of belligerency of the state

continued from page 16

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

17

continued from page 17

will not be recognized.

All religions are universal, transcending

races and nations. Today, however,

there are cases where religions are used

to instigate and justify violence.

Religions should be purified to

their original inspiration, and their

followers should faithfully translate

these truths and realities about life in

word and deed in their respective

contexts. Each religion should be

an expression of the universal truths

like peace, and lead to collectively

proclaim and live these rather than

insist on differences that may lead to

disunity or even hostility.1

The 4th Global Inter-religious

Conference on Article 9 of the

Japanese Peace Constitution gathered

120 participants from Japan, South

Korea, China, Hong Kong/PRC,

Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia,

Myanmar, Australia, Congo, Norway,

Switzerland, Germany, Canada and the

USA. The conference was held at

the YMCA Asia Youth Center and its

participants hereby issue this

Statement.

This Conference follows upon the

1st, 2nd and 3rd Asia Inter-religious

Conference on Article 9, which were

held in 2007 (Tokyo), 2009 (Seoul)

and 2011 (Okinawa), but the name

was changed to the Global Inter-

religious Conference on Article 9, to

reflect the broadened base of

participation from abroad.

1) We reaffirm our commitment

and call the followers of all

religions to be accountable to the

values of justice, peace and care for

all life, nationally, regionally and

globally.

2) In the statements issued on

the occasions of the 2nd and the

3rd Asia Inter-religious Conference

on Article 9 of the Japanese Peace

Constitution, we affirmed that Article

9 is more than ever relevant, not only

for Japan, but for regional and

international relations, and that it is

forward-looking. It can be seen as an

essential step toward preventing and

ending all war, and as a unique

expression of the core value of a just,

peaceful, and sustainable future for all

communities around the world.

3) Together with our Japanese hosts

and partners, we are deeply concerned

that the Abe/Liberal Democratic Party

administration has reinterpreted and

further intends to revise and amend

Article 9, which is Japan’s pledge for

peace and to desist from war.

Revising the peace constitution of

Japan will bring about serious

instability in the region of Asia and

beyond. Japan should never be a threat

to neighboring countries, nor become

a destabilizing factor. This

constitutional reinterpretation and

proposed revision by the Abe

administration is contrary to the wishes

and desires of the people in this region,

and a threat to constitutional

democracy.

4) The Abe administration should

squarely reflect upon Japan’s modern

history of invasion and colonialism, and

express this reflection clearly before

the world. Not only should the

government of Japan protect the

Constitution, which is also the

Japanese people’s promise of non-

belligerence, but it should uphold

previously-made official Government

statements that reflect upon Japan’s

past invasions and colonialism, such

as the (Chief Cabinet Secretary)

Kôno Statement2, the (Prime

Minister) Murayama Statement 3 and

the (Prime Minister) Kan Statement4.

Members of the administration should

also not pay official homage visits to

the Yasukuni Shrine, which can be

perceived as a

provocative act of endorsing war

crimes. Genuine acknowledgement

and

apology for Japan’s invasions,

atrocities and colonial rule by the

Japanese government forms a

foundation for peace in the Asia region.

5) We demand that the government

of Japan strive to resolve regional

territorial disputes in accordance with

the letter and spirit of Article 9, through

dialogue and diplomatic negotiations.

We call upon each country to refrain

from the use, or threatened use, of

armed force as a means of settling such

disputes.

6) The government of Japan should

take action, without delay, to mitigate

the crushing burden of U.S military

bases placed upon the people of

Okinawa and other Japanese

communities. We are witnessing the

pain of the people and ecological

destruction around the military bases.

We demand of the Japanese and US

governments the immediate closing of

Camp Futenma and the immediate halt

of construction of the new base in

Henoko. We demand that the United

States government recall its military

forces to the U.S., not only from

Japan but from other countries in the

region.

7) Remilitarization brings not more

security, but more vulnerability, to a

nation and a region. The cynical

manipulation of the idea of collective

self-defense through the Abe regime’s

reinterpretation of Art 9 will, we

fear, lead to a dangerous arms race

that will destabilize the entire region.

It is obvious that this remilitarization

of Japan is linked to and supported by

a US desire to strengthen its

hegemony in Asia. We call upon all

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

18

continued next page

nations to abstain from and reject

military solutions to polit ical

conflicts and diplomatic challenges.

We encourage the Japanese

government to show leadership that

is true to the letter and spirit of

Article-9, and to resist pressure from

other states to accept a

remilitarization of their country. We

are grateful to the efforts of people

in peace movements in the US

and other countries, and encourage

them to continue their work for true

peace.

8) We are hopeful that all people

around the world will overcome

narrow nationalism and, following

the spirit of Article 9, will construct

relationships based on the principles

of no-war, reconciliation, equality,

mutual respect and mutual benefit.

As consequence of the

commitment to non-violence as

expressed in Article 9, and as

persons of faith committed to life,

we plead to respect the human right

of conscientious objection to military

service.

9) In addition to the points raised

in the text above, we petition the

government of Japan in the spirit of

Article 9 to address the growing

problem of hate speech, which is

being directed against Korean and

other minority groups, as well as

peace advocates, in communities

across Japan. We urge the

government of Japan to institute laws

that would protect residents from

fear-inducing taunts and threats, and

to end the practice of lending police

protection to those who deliver hate

speeches under the cynical guise of

“protecting freedom of expression.”

10) We believe that ultimate security

can be guaranteed only by no

weapons and no military forces.

Acting on this belief, Conference

participants pledge to communicate

to their communities the importance

of Article 9, and to support the

reaffirmation of Article 9 by

correspondingly addressing their

governments. Our prayer is that

Article 9 will inspire people of all

nations.

Recommendations for Action

Religious Communities

• We call upon faith communities

in Japan, Korea and other Asian

nations to form country working

groups in East Asia, to implement

Article 9 activities.

• We call upon faith communities to

engage youth in the promotion of the

cause of Article 9, by use of creative

media and by the creation of education

materials.

•We call upon faith communities to

include a prayer for the spread of the

spirit of Article 9 on September 21st,

the International Day for Peace.

•We call upon faith communities

and advocates of peace in other

lands to remember Japan and Article

9 on May 3, Constitution Day, when

the people of Japan commemorate

the promulgation of the Constitution.

•We call upon the World Council

of Churches to consider the

possibility of hosting an international

interfaith Article 9 conference, as

part of its Pilgrimage of Justice and

Peace.

•We call upon our Muslim friends in

peace across Asia to consider the

possibility of hosting an interfaith

Article 9 conference in a majority

Muslim country in Asia.

•We call upon the Christian

Conference of Asia to help organize a

solidarity visit by article 9 leaders to

North and South Korea, to promote

peace, reunification and Article 9.

•We call upon the Asia Pacific Forum

of North America to organize an Article

9 solidarity visit to the United States.

Civil Society

•In order to actualize the spirit of

peace in article 9, we will make

efforts to strengthen our solidarity with

those who advocate for peace in civil

society.

•We will work with those who

advocate for peace in civil society to

make Article 9 and the commitments

arising from it a subject of instruction

in school.

•We will support the ongoing efforts

of peace advocates to seek nomination

and award of the Nobel Peace Prize

to the Japanese people who conserve

Article 9.

1 Excerpt from Our Mission: Inter-

Religious Conference on Article 9 and

Peace in Asia. Seoul, 2009.

2 Statement by the Chief Cabinet

Secretary Yôhei Kôno, on the result of

the study on the issue of

“comfort women.” 1993.08.04

3 Statement by Prime Minister

Tomiichi Murayama, on the occasion

of the 50th anniversary of the war’s

end. 1995.08.15

4 Statement by Prime Minister Naoto

Kan, on the occasion of 100 years

since the Japan-Korea

Annexation Treaty. 2010.08.10

5 December 2014

Participants of the 4th Global

Conference in Article 9.

continued from page 18

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

19

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

Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid

Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur

MalaysiaNo. WP 1385

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque

addressed to:

International Movement for a Just World

P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

or direct to our bank account:Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya Main

Branch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan,MALAYSIA

Account No. 5141 6917 0716

Donations from outside Malaysia should be made

by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$

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

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

JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed to

similar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if you

could share this copy of the JUST Com-

mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-

ter still invite him/her to write to JUST

so that we can put his/her name on our

Commentary mailing list.

TERBITAN BERKALA