Just Commentary November 2013

Vol 13, No.11 November 2013

Turn to next page

ARTICLES

AFFIRMING LIFE TOGETHER IN THEFACE OF BELLIGERENT EMPIRE

. HOW THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION

COVERED UP IRAQ’S NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE

BY NAFEEZ AHMAD...............................................P 8

. THE MILITARY- INDUSTRIAL- PUNDIT

COMPLEX

BY AMY GOODMAN & JUAN GONZALEZ.................P 4

By Participants of 3rd People’s Forum of Peace for Life

. MORE THAN JIHADISM OR IRAN, CHINA’S ROLE

IN AFRICA IS OBAMA’S OBSESSION

BY JOHN PILGER...................................................P 6

.HOW THE SUNNI- SHIA SCHISM IS DIVIDING

THE WORLD

BY ROBERT FISK....................................................P 10

The JUST Commentary carries below a statement issued by participants at an International People’s Forum in Jeju,South Korea from 23rd to 27th October 2013, on the above theme. –editor

We note with concern that thegovernment of the Republic of Koreahas enforced a naval baseconstruction in Gangjeong village, JejuIsland since 2007, without properconsultation with villagers andconsideration of villagers’ right toenvironment, land and peace. We aredistressed to witness how a large-scale development profiting bigcorporations can destroy peace in avillage under the name of protectingnational security. For seven years thepeople of Gangjeong village haveresisted the base construction andsuffered unjustly from abuse byauthorities in response to their non-violent campaign against theconstruction of a naval base which

will militarise the sea of East Asia.We witnessed the strong resistanceof the historic tradition of Jeju womenlived out in the Gangjeong villagestruggle against the base construction.They have been accompanied byactivist groups from around the world.The Catholic Church, in particular, hasbeen a presence for the last twoyears, offering mass every day todraw attention to this travesty.

We, the participants of the 3rdPeople’s Forum, stand in solidaritywith the people of Gangjeong villagein their peaceful struggle againstmaritime militarisation. Jeju peoplehave a full right to resist the repeatof the last century’s tragedy, the April

3rd massacre in 1948 of tens ofthousands of Jeju islanders. Thepeople of Gangjeong village present astrong call to open a new era of peaceand cooperation in East Asia forthemselves and for all of us.

The Not-so-Innocent Language ofEmpire: Toward a Counter-NarrativeThe emerging US national securitystate is a symptom of an increasinglydesperate empire seeking to maintainits hegemony, harming the livingconditions of many of its own and otherpeoples while repressing dissent at homeand in politically “hot” regions. Theimperial system wages war on 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

2

continued next page

continued from page 1

L E A D A R T I C L E

people of the world. It is defined by thenexus of the national security state andpredatory corporate capitalism.

Beginning with the end of the SecondWorld War, the US led imperial modelhas been imposed in several parts ofthe world, in Central and LatinAmerica, the Middle East, SoutheastAsia, and Africa. Key instruments ofthe imperial system are militarizationand coups, capture of internationalfinancial and trade institutions,neoliberal market economy, andsocio-cultural controls of media,communication, and education.

The Empire employs deceptivelanguage and consciousness tolegitimize its ambitions. In thesolidarity mission to Jeju, we noted theruthlessness of the innocent-sounding“US pivot to Asia.” Instead ofincreasing friendly relations with Asia,it involves the new geo-politicalimperatives of Empire regardingChina and the American presence inthis economically dynamic region.

Nuclear weapons and nuclear powerare two dimensions of one reality, whichthe nuclear military industrial complexpromotes and benefits from. There isno peaceful use of nuclear power(“Atoms for Peace”), as the disaster atFukushima shows. Forced evacuationof 150,000 people continues, highlyradioactive contaminated water has notbeen brought under control, and effortsto restart nuclear power plants areunderway, as well as export of suchplants.

The Empire claims to “fight terror”,“protect national security,” and“advance democracy and human andwomen’s rights.” These discourses of“Western” values advance imperialdominance. Activism for justice andpeace is branded as “terrorism”, andMuslims resisting colonization and

wars in their lands are termedterrorists. The imperial promotion ofhuman and women’s rights has theopposite effect of what is proclaimed.

We need to expose the moral andpolitical-intellectual bankruptcy ofthese imperial claims, and advance acounter-understanding of the threatsto the lives of both the human- andnon-human living world, as well as thelife of the planet. We must offeralternative approaches in order to livejustly, sustainably, and peacefully inthis world.

Toward an Interfaith Praxis ofResistance to EmpireWe are at a time when a global,powerful, and meaningfulphenomenon like religion can nolonger ignore the multiple crisessurrounding it and catastrophicallyaffecting its adherents. In particular,the “war on terror” has harmedMuslim-Christian relations in Africa,Asia and the Middle East. One of themost effective legitimating factors forthe violence of the powerful in theworld today is religion in general, andespecially some powerful institutionalactors located within the variousreligious traditions.

This trend needs to change and thereare increasing voices which arecalling on their religious leaders andcommunities to rekindle the realliberating spirit and ethos of theirreligious traditions. This is a timewhen all of the great, lively religiousand spiritual traditions that providefundamental values of justice,sustainability, and peace are underpressure to be co-opted by thepowerful to support ongoing injusticeand inequality in the world.

We meet here to affirm that thesetraditions must have no tolerance forthe widespread, unfolding genocidetaking place against the world’s

peoples, and the concomitant ecocideof our home, planet Earth. Thepeoples of the world are sufferinglayer upon layer of injustice andbrutality, and our religious and spiritualcommunities can no longer maintaintheir silence or just pay lip service tojustice and peace. These communitiesmust continue their prophetic andauthentic missions of forcefullychallenging the empire and itspowerful allies, institutions, andpolicies and practices – in cooperationwith like-minded social movementsand people’s movements. We callupon our religious and spiritualcommunities to commit theirleadership, constituencies, andresources to mobilize against thesetrends of domination, subordination,and destruction of peace-lovingpeoples, societies, and our ecosphere.

Our Common CallWe continue to be inspired by theheroic resistance waged by socialmovements in Latin America, thePhilippines, India and many otherplaces against neoliberalism and UShegemony, and call for meaningfulsupport for and solidarity with theseprogressive forces.

Inspired by the long history ofecumenical witness for improvedNorth-South Korean relations,particularly between the two Christiancommunities, we offer our solidarityto a reinvigorated process of dialogueand exchange with a view togenerating a political environmentconducive for reunification, beginningwith renewed engagement betweenthe two sides to turn the Armisticeinto a peace treaty.

We urge resistance to financialinstruments and trade agreements,such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership,which undermine our commitment toplace people and the environment


3


continued next page


before profit.

We strongly condemn the corporateviolence leashed out in Odisha, India,on the struggling communities and theenvironment by the POSCO companyhand-in-glove with the Indiangovernment. We demand theimmediate release of people who arearrested and accused on fabricatedcases. We demand the withdrawal ofPOSCO so that the communities canlive in peace with nature. We ask thepeople of Gangjeong village in Jeju andother citizens of Republic of Korea tobe in solidarity with the people inOdisha, India.

We call on people of faith andconscience to continue their support ofthe Arab people’s resistance againsttyranny and occupation, and to opposethe regional and global counter-revolutionary political actors denying theiraspirations for human dignity and socialjustice. We especially reaffirm the needfor steadfast support for Palestiniannational liberation and maintain ourcommitment to our Palestine solidaritywork.

We call on the faith communities toactively combat the rising tide ofIslamophobia, which facilitates greaterimperial violence against Muslims.

We strongly denounce the growing

network of the U.S. military powerboth through building bases andexpanding access through VisitingForces and Status of ForcesAgreements throughout the world,including here in the Republic ofKorea, and the accompanyingpatriarchal and sexual violence,exploitation, and suffering inflicted onwomen. We are inspired by and giveour unconditional solidarity to theheroic resistance waged by womenagainst such barbarism.

We deplore the state and privatefinancing of bloated military budgetsand the arms trade, and call forsignificant reduction in militaryexpenditures and an end to the armstrade, so that these funds may beinvested in life affirming programs.We call on religious communities andpeoples committed to peace tocondemn the introduction and use ofdrone warfare, and demand an endto their use.

We affirm movements againstnuclear power plants in Japan, India,and many other countries, and supporttheir efforts to hold accountablegovernments and corporations forharm they have caused.

We call on the peoples of the nucleararmed states and those statesprotected by them to join with the 124nations resolving to never use nuclear

weapons.

We strongly encourage equitablenegotiations between the US and Iranwith a view to additional subsequentagreement on the imperative ofestablishing a Nuclear-Weapon-FreeZone in the Middle East. We affirmthat establishing similar zones in SouthAsia and Northeast Asia is also urgent.

We remain committed to our critiqueof global injustices and globalhegemony, although this in itself doesnot offer an alternative to theprevailing world order. Alternativestructures, institutions, laws andpolicies must be premised upon an all-embracing alternative consciousnesswhich privileges attitudes and valuesthat the Empire has hitherto ignoredor downplayed. Love, for instance,should be foregrounded as a definingattribute of the individual andcollective consciousness of the humanfamily. When love begins to shape ourbehaviour and action in a profoundmanner, it will have a huge impactupon all spheres of society includingeconomics and politics. For love hasthe potential to demolish ego-centricattitudes that boost the insane drivefor power and wealth that often leadsto hegemony.

Adopted 27 October 2013Jeju April 3 Peace Park, Republicof Korea

The 3rd People’s Forum also adopted another statement addressing specifically the struggles of thepeople of Jeju against the US naval base. Excerpts of the statement appear below. –editor

The Jeju Naval BaseThe Jeju naval base in fact will beused to realise the U.S. “Pivot toAsia,” especially via ROK-US missiledefense interoperability. Jeju naval

base will be a critical outpost of theROK-Japan-U.S. maritime militaryalliance targeting China which willdraw the Republic of Korea evenfurther into the escalation of this

regional conflict. In such a conflict,Jeju Island will become a primarytarget, leading to devastating loss oflife and destruction.


4


THE MILITARY- INDUSTRIAL- PUNDIT COMPLEX


Gangjeong village is one of the oldestand the most beautiful villages in JejuIsland. Its coastal waters are aunique natural habitat, designated anAbsolute Preservation Area and aUNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Livingwithin this area are many endangeredspecies, including the world’s largesttemperate soft coral forest. Thecommunity has a long tradition ofvenerating pools of water and ancienttrees, threatened by existence of thebase. A sacred 1.2 km lava rockbedcalled Gureombi has been blastedduring the construction, and iscurrently being built over.

People of the village feel that theyhave been following the law and thatthe local and national authorities andthe base contractors are violating thelaw. Despite their “civil obedience,”villagers and their supporters haverepeatedly been detained, charged,fined and imprisoned. One of the mostserious abuses has come from theprivate security contractors hired bythe construction corporations.

The Gangjeong villagers’ rights to peaceand environment, freedom ofexpression, peaceful assembly, andfreedom of association must beguaranteed at all times. All the rights ofpeace activists and international humanrights defenders in solidarity with peopleof Gangjeong village should beprotected and promoted at all times.Everyone has the right to live in peace.

We, the participants of the 3rdPeople’s Forum, stand in solidaritywith the people of Gangjeong villagein their peaceful struggle againstmaritime militarisation. The Jejupeople have the full right to resist arepeat of last century’s tragedy, theApril 3rd massacre of tens ofthousands of Jeju islanders in 1948.The people of Gangjeong villagerpresent a strong call to open a newera of peace and cooperation in EastAsia for themselves and for us all.

We strongly urge the following:

- Stop the Jeju naval baseconstruction immediately.

- Guarantee the human rights topeace, environment, and freedom ofexpression for the people of Gangjeongvillage.

- Allow Gangjeong village to remain acommunity of life and peace, andkeep Jeju Island as the Island of WorldPeace.

-Immediately release and drop allcharges against all peace defendersand villagers who, seeking justice,peacefully protested against the navalbase construction.

- Say no to the militarisation of thesea. Make the sea of East Asia theSea of Peace.

- Say no to an arms race in the AsiaPacific. Say Yes to peace in the AsiaPacific.

Adopted 27 October 2013Jeju April 3 Peace Park, Republicof Korea

By Amy Goodman & Juan Gonzalez

New research shows many so-calledexperts who appeared on televisionmaking the case for U.S. strikes onSyria had undisclosed ties to militarycontractors. A new report by thePublic Accountability Initiativeidentifies 22 commentators withindustry ties. While they appeared ontelevision or were quoted as experts

111 times, their links to military firmswere disclosed only 13 of those times.The report focuses largely on StephenHadley, who served as nationalsecurity adviser to President GeorgeW. Bush. During the debate on Syria,he appeared on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews and Bloomberg TV. None ofthese stations informed viewers thatHadley currently serves as a directorof the weapons manufacturerRaytheon that makes Tomahawkcruise missiles widely touted as theweapon of choice for bombing Syria.He also owns over 11,000 shares ofRaytheon stock, which traded at all-time highs during the Syria debate.We speak to Kevin Connor of the

Public Accountability Initiative, a co-author of the report.

AMY GOODMAN: This isDemocracy Now!, democracynow.org,The War and Peace Report, as wemove on now to a very interestingstudy that has just come out. Juan?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, newresearch shows many so-calledexperts who appeared on televisionmaking the case for U.S. strikes onSyria had undisclosed ties to militarycontractors. The report by the PublicAccountability Initiative identifies 22commentators with the industry.

continued next page

This transcript is taken from Democracy Now!’s October 18 broadcast. –editor


5

continued next page

While they appeared on television orwere quoted as experts 111 times,their links to military firms weredisclosed only 13 of those times. Let’stake a look at how some of thosepundits were identified during recenttelevision appearances.

JAKE TAPPER: For insight intothis high-stakes diplomatic mission,I’m joined by former secretary of stateto the Clinton administration,Madeleine Albright.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:OK, let’s analyze all this now with ourpanel of experts. Former vice chairof the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GeneralJames Cartwright.

GREGG JARRETT: General JackKeane joins us, Fox News militaryanalyst, served as four-star generaland Army vice chief of staff. General,good to see you, as always.

JAKE TAPPER: I want to bring intwo former generals to talk about this.Anthony Zinni is the formercommander-in-chief of CENTCOM,and Michael Hayden is the formerCIA director. He’s now a principalwith the Chertoff Group, a riskmanagement firm.

FOLLY BAH THIBAULT: Well,joining me now, live from Washington,D.C., is former U.S. Defense SecretaryWilliam Cohen. Secretary Cohen, thankyou for being on Al Jazeera.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Joiningus is Ambassador John Negroponte.He served as the first U.S. directorof national intelligence, as well as U.S.ambassador to Iraq and the UnitedNations, and many more posts, Ishould add. Nice to see you, sir.

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Thankyou.

AMY GOODMAN: A sampling ofrecent TV coverage on Syria. All thepundits interviewed currently haveties to military and intelligencecontractors, investment firms with asignificant defense or intelligencefocus, or ties to consulting firms witha focus on defense or intelligence.General Jack Keane, for example, ison the board of General Dynamics.General Anthony Zinni is on theboard of BAE Systems. GeneralJames Cartwright is on the board ofRaytheon.

Joining us now from San Francisco,Kevin Connor, director and co-founder of the Public AccountabilityInitiative, co-author of the reportcalled “Conflicts of Interest in theSyria Debate.”

Lay out what you found, Kevin.

KEVIN CONNOR: Sure. Thereport really maps out the extent towhich the policy conversation on theairwaves around Syria was reallydominated by individuals with ties tothe defense industry. And these ties,as you laid out there, really werenever disclosed - rarely disclosed,only 13 times out of 111 appearancesthat we identified during the Syriadebate.

Now, the importance of that is thatreaders and viewers at home, whoare, you know, seeing these peoplecomment, are introduced to them ashaving gravitas and credibility -former secretaries of state, diplomats,generals with expertise. You wouldthink these are independent expertswho probably retired with a healthypension, when in fact they’rerepresenting interests that wouldprofit from heightened militaryactivity abroad in Syria. So that hasa corrupting effect on the publicdiscourse around an issue like Syriathat’s so - so important. And it really

goes back to the responsibility ofmedia outlets to disclose these ties andalso the individuals here who areimplicated in the culture of corruptionand the revolving door in Washington.

Anjali mentioned earlier, on the firstsegment, about the jobs program forthe defense industry. And there’s ajobs program in place for the foreignpolicy establishment as they move outof their public positions onto the boardsof these corporations. These aren’t -these are part-time positions, butthey’re very high-paying positions.They have financial incentives andfiduciary responsibilities to companiesthat are profiting from war, profitingfrom current levels of defensespending. And this is something thatviewers at home should be notified of.And it perhaps should preclude theirinvolvement in debates like this, orperhaps they should not get thepodium and platform they’re given fortheir views, given the fact that theyhave these conflicts of interest thatare quite serious in some cases.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Kevin,your report focuses largely on StephenHadley, who served as a nationalsecurity adviser to President GeorgeW. Bush. During the debate on Syria,he appeared on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, Bloomberg TV. None of thesestations informed viewers that Hadleycurrently serves as a director of theweapons manufacturer Raytheon thatmakes Tomahawk cruise missiles. Healso owns over 11,000 shares ofRaytheon stock, which traded at all-time highs during the Syria debate.Here’s Stephen Hadley beinginterviewed by Greta Van Susteren onFox News about the so-called red lineon Syria.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Did he,or didn’t he? And does it matter whodid, as we sort of fuss about this red


A R T I C L E S


6

continued next page


line? Joining us is Stephen Hadley,former national security adviser to theBush administration. Doesn’t - does it -did he set the line? And does it matter?

STEPHEN HADLEY: He did setthe line, and it probably doesn’t matter,because the line is set, and thecredibility of the country is on - is onthe line. And in some sense, theCongress needs to act in such a wayso as not to undermine the credibilityof President Obama. You know, weonly have one president at a time, andhe embodies the United States. So ifhis credibility is undermined, thecountry’s credibility is undermined.And I think that’s an argument thatpeople are beginning to think abouton the - on Capitol Hill.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That wasStephen Hadley. And, of course, theTomahawk missile that Raytheonproduces was the one that was goingto be used in the attack on Syria.Kevin, your response?

KEVIN CONNOR: Well, this is justa really egregious, significant conflictof interest that people should havebeen notified of. When Hadley wasmaking the rounds to the outlets youmentioned, he also published an op-ed in The Washington Post arguingstrenuously for war, and at the time,

as you mentioned, serves on theboard of Raytheon, has nearly$900,000 worth of stock in thatcompany, makes $130,000 a year incash compensation, actually chairs thepublic affairs committee for Raytheon,which means that he has oversight ofsort of the company’s public profileand image in the media and in policycircles. So this is really a quite clearconflict of interest, and it should havebeen disclosed to readers andviewers. The fact that -

AMY GOODMAN: The WashingtonPost has also been criticized for failingto inform its readers about StephenHadley’s defense ties. On September8th, as you said, Kevin, the paperpublished an op-ed by Hadley that washeadlined “To Stop Iran, Obama MustEnforce Red Lines with Assad.” Thearticle described Hadley simply as aformer national security adviser in theGeorge W. Bush administration. FredHiatt, editorial page editor at the Post,defended the paper’s move. Hiattsaid, quote, “More disclosure isgenerally better than less, but I’mconfident that Hadley’s opinion piece,which was consistent with theworldview he has espoused for manyyears, was not influenced by anyhypothetical, certainly marginal,impact to Raytheon’s bottom line.”That was Hiatt’s statement. KevinConnor, your response?

KEVIN CONNOR: Well, first, youknow, I would like to say kudos to TheWashington Post for actually coveringthe report and really requiring Hiattto respond. But his response is reallyabsurd. It demonstrates a really fuzzyunderstanding of conflicts of interestand ethical issues. This is a clearconflict of interest. The conflicts ofinterest actually raise the possibilityof corruption, the corruption of one’smotives. There are relationships thatmight call into question one’s motives,and this clearly does. And nothingHiatt said really, you know, defendsagainst that. Hiatt might, you know,have special insight into Hadley’sinner thinking, given that they areperhaps in the same foreign policycircles. Hiatt has written glowingarticles about Hadley in the past, so,you know, this is fairly standard forhim in terms of his worldview and hissort of milieu.

AMY GOODMAN: Kevin Connor,we want to thank you for being withus, and we’ll certainly link to yourreport. Kevin is director and co-founder of the Public AccountabilityInitiative, co-author of the reportcalled “Conflicts of Interest in theSyria Debate,” which was releasedlast week.

18 October, 2013Source: Democracy Now!

By John Pilger

MORE THAN JIHADISM OR IRAN, CHINA’S ROLE IN AFRICA IS

OBAMA’S OBSESSION

Where America brings drones, theChinese build roads. Al- Shabaaband co march in lockstep with thisnew imperialism.

Countries are “pieces on a chessboardupon which is being played out a greatgame for the domination of the world”,wrote Lord Curzon, the viceroy of

India, in 1898. Nothing has changed.The shopping mall massacre inNairobi was a bloody facade behindwhich a full-scale invasion of Africaand a war in Asia are the great game.

The al-Shabaab shopping mall killerscame from Somalia. If any country isan imperial metaphor, it is Somalia.

Sharing a language and religion,Somalis have been divided betweenthe British, French, Italians andEthiopians. Tens of thousands ofpeople have been handed from onepower to another. “When they aremade to hate each other,” wrote aBritish colonial official, “good

A R T I C L E S

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


governance is assured.”

Today Somalia is a theme park ofbrutal, artificial divisions, longimpoverished by World Bank and IMF“structural adjustment” programmes,and saturated with modern weapons– notably President Obama’s personalfavourite, the drone. The one stableSomali government, the IslamicCourts, was “well received by thepeople in the areas it controlled”,reported the US CongressionalResearch Service, “[but] receivednegative press coverage, especially inthe west”. Obama crushed it; and lastJanuary Hillary Clinton, then secretaryof state, presented her man to theworld. “Somalia will remain gratefulto the unwavering support from theUnited States government,” effusedPresident Hassan Mohamud. “Thankyou, America.”

The shopping mall atrocity was aresponse to this – just as the TwinTowers attack and the Londonbombings were explicit reactions toinvasion and injustice. Once of littleconsequence, jihadism now marchesin lockstep with the return ofunfettered imperialism.

Since Nato reduced modern Libya to aHobbesian state in 2011, the lastobstacles to Africa have fallen.“Scrambles for energy, minerals andfertile land are likely to occur withincreasingly intensity,” report Ministry ofDefence planners. As “high numbers ofcivilian casualties” are predicted,“perceptions of moral legitimacy will beimportant for success”. Sensitive to thePR problem of invading a continent, thearms mammoth BAE Systems, togetherwith Barclays Capital and BP, warns that“the government should define itsinternational mission as managing riskson behalf of British citizens”. Thecynicism is lethal. British governmentsare repeatedly warned, not least by the

parliamentary intelligence and securitycommittee, that foreign adventuresbeckon retaliation at home.

With minimal media interest, the USAfrican Command (Africom) hasdeployed troops to 35 African countries,establishing a familiar network ofauthoritarian supplicants eager for bribesand armaments. In war games a“soldier to soldier” doctrine embeds USofficers at every level of command fromgeneral to warrant officer. The Britishdid this in India. It is as if Africa’s proudhistory of liberation, from PatriceLumumba to Nelson Mandela, isconsigned to oblivion by a new master’sblack colonial elite – whose “historicmission”, warned Frantz Fanon half acentury ago, is the subjugation of theirown people in the cause of “a capitalismrampant though camouflaged”. Thereference also fits the son of Africa inthe White House.

For Obama, there is a more pressingcause – China. Africa is China’ssuccess story. Where the Americansbring drones, the Chinese build roads,bridges and dams. What the Chinesewant is resources, especially fossilfuels. Nato’s bombing of Libya droveout 30,000 Chinese oil industryworkers. More than jihadism or Iran,China is Washington’s obsession inAfrica and beyond. This is a “policy”known as the “pivot to Asia”, whosethreat of world war may be as greatas any in the modern era.

This week’s meeting in Tokyo betweenJohn Kerry, the US secretary of state,

Chuck Hagel, the defence secretary,and their Japanese counterpartsaccelerated the prospect of war. Sixtyper cent of US naval forces are to bebased in Asia by 2020, aimed at China.Japan is re-arming rapidly under therightwing government of Shinzo Abe,who came to power in December witha pledge to build a “new, strong military”and circumvent the “peace constitution”.

A US-Japanese anti-ballistic-missilesystem near Kyoto is directed atChina. Using long-range Global Hawkdrones the US has sharply increasedits provocations in the East China andSouth China seas, where Japan andChina dispute the ownership of theSenkaku/Diaoyu islands. Bothcountries now deploy advancedvertical take-off aircraft in Japan inpreparation for a blitzkrieg.

On the Pacific island of Guam, fromwhere B-52s attacked Vietnam, thebiggest military buildup since theIndochina wars includes 9,000 USmarines. In Australia this week anarms fair and military jamboree thatdiverted much of Sydney is in keepingwith a government propagandacampaign to justify an unprecedentedUS military build-up from Perth toDarwin, aimed at China. The vast USbase at Pine Gap near Alice Springsis, as Edward Snowden disclosed, ahub of US spying in the region andbeyond; it is also critical to Obama’sworldwide assassinations by drone.

‘We have to inform the British to keepthem on side,” McGeorge Bundy, anassistant US secretary of state, oncesaid. “You in Australia are with us,come what may.” Australian forceshave long played a mercenary role forWashington. However, China isAustralia’s biggest trading partner andlargely responsible for its evasion ofthe 2008 recession. Without China,there would be no minerals boom: no

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

HOW THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION COVERED UP IRAQ’SNUCLEAR NIGHTMARE

By Dr. Nafeez Ahmad

Ex- UN, WHO officials revealpolitical interference to suppressscientific evidence of postwarenvironmental health catastrophe.

Last month, the World HealthOrganisation (WHO) published a longawaited document summarising thefindings of an in-depth investigationinto the prevalence of congenital birthdefects (CBD) in Iraq, which manyexperts believe is linked to the use ofdepleted uranium (DU) munitions byAllied forces. According to the‘summary report’:

“The rates for spontaneousabortion, stillbirths and congenital birthdefects found in the study areconsistent with or even lower thaninternational estimates. The studyprovides no clear evidence to suggestan unusually high rate of congenital

birth defects in Iraq.”

Jaffar Hussain, WHO’s Head ofMission in Iraq, said that the report isbased on survey techniques that are“renowned worldwide” and that thestudy was peer reviewed“extensively” by international experts.

BacktrackBut the conclusions contrasteddramatically from previous statementsabout the research findings from IraqiMinistry of Health (MOH) officialsinvolved in the study. Earlier this year,BBC News spoke to MOHresearchers who confirmed the jointreport would furnish “damningevidence” that rates of birth defectsare higher in areas experiencing heavyfighting in the 2003 war. In an earlypress release, WHO similarlyacknowledged “existing MOHstatistics showing high number of CBDcases” in the “high risk” areas selectedfor study.

The publication of this ‘summarydocument’ on the World HealthOrganisation’s website has raisedquestions from independent expertsand former United Nations and WHOofficials, who question the validity of

its findings and its anonymousauthorship. They highlight theexistence of abundant researchdemonstrating not only significantrates of congenital birth defects inmany areas of Iraq, but also aplausible link to the impact ofdepleted uranium.

For years, medical doctors in Iraqhave reported “a high level of birthdefects.” Other peer-reviewedstudies have documented a dramaticincrease in infant mortality, cancerand leukaemia in the aftermath of USmilitary bombardment. In Fallujah,doctors are witnessing a “massiveunprecedented number” of heartdefects, and an increase in thenumber of nervous system defects.Analysis of pre-2003 data comparedto now showed that “the rate ofcongenital heart defects was 95 per1,000 births - 13 times the rate foundin Europe.”

The purpose of the WHO study wasto probe the data further, but somesay the project is deeply flawed.

Politicised scienceDr. Keith Bavistock of theDepartment of Environmental

weekly mining return of up to a billiondollars.

The dangers this presents are rarelydebated publicly in Australia, whereRupert Murdoch, the patron of theprime minister, Tony Abbott, controls70% of the press. Occasionally,anxiety is expressed over the “choice”that the US wants Australia to make.A report by the Australian StrategicPolicy Institute warns that any US

plan to strike at China would involve“blinding” Chinese surveillance,intelligence and command systems.This would “consequently increase thechances of Chinese nuclear pre-emption … and a series ofmiscalculations on both sides if Beijingperceives conventional attacks on itshomeland as an attempt to disarm itsnuclear capability”. In his address tothe nation last month, Obama said:“What makes America different, whatmakes us exceptional, is that we are

continued from page 7 dedicated to act.”9 October, 2013

John Pilger is an Australianjournalist based in London. He hastwice won Britain's Journalist of theYear Award. His documentaries,screened internationally, have gainedawards in Britain and worldwide.The journalist has also receivedseveral honorary doctorates. His newfilm, Utopia, was released on 15November.Source: The Guardian


9

continued next page


Science, University of EasternFinland, is a retired 13-year WHOexpert on radiation and health. He toldme that the new ‘summary document’was at best “disappointing.” Hecondemned the decision from “thevery outset to preclude the possibilityof looking at the extent to which theincrease of birth defects is linked tothe use of depleted uranium”, andfurther slammed the document’s lackof scientific credibility.

“This document is not of scientificquality. It wouldn’t pass peer reviewin one of the worst journals. One ofthe biggest methodological problems,among many, is that the documentdoes not even attempt to look atexisting medical records in Iraqihospitals - these are proper clinicalrecords which document thediagnoses of the relevant cases beingactually discovered by Iraqi doctors.These medics collecting clinicalrecords are reporting higher birthdefects than the study acknowledges.Instead, the document focuses oninterviews with mothers as a basis fordiagnosis, many of whom aretraumatised in this environment, theirmemories unreliable, and are notqualified to make diagnosis.”

I asked Dr. Baverstock if, given thedocument’s avoidance of analysingthe key evidence - clinical recordscompiled by Iraqi medics - there wasreason to believe the researchfindings were compromised underpolitical pressure. He said:

“The way this document has beenproduced is extremely suspicious.There are question marks about therole of the US and UK, who have aconflict of interest in this sort of studydue to compensation issues that mightarise from findings determining a linkbetween higher birth defects and DU.

I can say that the US and UK havebeen very reluctant to disclose thelocations of DU deployment, whichmight throw further light on thiscorrelation.”

If so, it would not be the first time theWHO had reportedly quashedresearch on DU potentiallyembarrassing for the Allies. In 2001,Baverstock was on the editorial boardfor a WHO research project clearingthe US and UK of responsibility forenvironmental health hazards involvedin DU deployment. His detailededitorial recommendations accountingfor new research proving uranium’snature as as a genotoxin (capable ofchanging DNA) were ignored andoverruled:

“My editorial changes weresuppressed, even though some of theresearch was from Department ofDefense studies looking at subjectswho had ingested DU from friendlyfire, clearly proving that DU wasgenutoxic.”

Baverstock then co-authored his ownscientific paper on the subject arguingfor plausibility of the link between DUand high rates of birth defects in Iraq,but said that WHO blocked publicationof the study “because they didn’t likeits conclusions.”

“The extent to which scientificprinciples are being bent to fitpolitically convenient conclusions isalarming”, said Baverstock.

Environmental contaminationfrom the Iraq WarOther independent experts have alsoweighed in criticising the WHO study.The British medical journal, TheLancet, reports that despite thestudy’s claims, a “scientific standardof peer review... may not have beenfully achieved.”

One scientist named as a peer-reviewer for the project, SimonCousens, professor of epidemiologyand statistics at London School ofHygiene and Tropical Medicine(LSHTM), told The Lancet that he“attended a relatively brief meetingof around one and a half hours, sojust gave some comments on an earlypresentation of the results. I wouldn’tclassify that as thorough peer review.”

Just how distant the new WHO-sponsored study is from the lastdecade’s scientific literature is clearfrom a new report released earlierthis year by a Tokyo-based NGO,Human Rights Now (HRN), whichconducted a review of the existingliterature as well as a fact-findingmission to Fallujah.

The HRN report investigatedrecorded birth defects at a majorhospital in Fallujah for the year 2012,confirmed first hand birth defectincidences over a one-month periodin 2013, and interviewed doctors andparents of children born with birthdefects. The report concluded therewas:

“... an extraordinary situation ofcongenital birth defects in both natureand quantity. The investigationdemonstrated a significant rise ofthese health consequences in theperiod following the war... Anoverview of scientific literaturerelating to the effects of uranium andheavy metals associated withmunitions used in the 2003 Iraq Warand occupation, together withpotential exposure pathways, stronglysuggest that environmentalcontamination resulting from combatduring the Iraq War may be playing asignificant role in the observed rateof birth defects.”

The report criticised both the UN and


10


continued next page

the WHO for approaches that are“insufficient to meet the needs of theissues within their mandate.”

Definitive evidence

According to Hans von Sponeck,former UN assistant secretarygeneral and UN humanitariancoordinator for Iraq, the gap betweenprevious claims made by MOHresearchers about the study, and thenew ‘summary document’, justifiedpublic scepticism.

“The brevity of this report isunacceptable”, he told me:

“Everybody was expecting aproper, professional scientific paper,with properly scrutinised andcheckable empirical data. Although Iwould be guarded about jumping toconclusions, WHO cannot besurprised if people ask questions aboutwhether the body is giving into

bilateral political pressures.”

Von Sponeck said that US politicalpressure on WHO had scupperedprevious investigations into the impactof DU on Iraq:

“I served in Baghdad and wasconfronted with the reality of theenvironmental impact of DU. In 2001,I saw in Geneva how a WHO missionto conduct on-spot assessments inBasra and southern Iraq, wheredepleted uranium had led todevastating environmental healthproblems, was aborted under USpolitical pressure.”

I asked him if such political pressureon the UN body could explain theunscientific nature of the latest report.“It would not be surprising if such USpressure has continued”, he said:

“There is definitive evidence of analarming rise in birth defects,leukaemia, cancer and other

carcinogenic diseases in Iraq after thewar. Looking at the stark differencebetween previous descriptions of theWHO study’s findings and this newreport, it seems that someone,somewhere clumsily decided that theywould not release these damningfindings, but instead obscure them.”

The International Coalition to BanDepleted Uranium (ICBUW) hascalled for WHO to release theproject’s data-set so that it can besubjected to independent, transparentanalysis. The UN body continues toignore these calls and defend theintegrity of the research.

13 October, 2013Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executivedirector of the Institute for PolicyResearch & Development and authorof A User’s Guide to the Crisis ofCivilisation: And How to Save Itamong other books.Source: The Guardian

HOW THE SUNNI- SHIA SCHISM IS DIVIDING THE WORLDBy Robert Fisk

The Muslim world’s historic – anddeeply tragic – chasm between Sunniand Shia Islam is having worldwiderepercussions. Syria’s civil war,America’s craven alliance with theSunni Gulf autocracies, and Sunni (aswell as Israeli) suspicions of Shia Iranare affecting even the work of theUnited Nations.

Saudi Arabia’s petulant refusal lastweek to take its place among non-voting members of the SecurityCouncil, an unprecedented step by anyUN member, was intended to expressthe dictatorial monarchy’s displeasurewith Washington’s refusal to bombSyria after the use of chemicalweapons in Damascus – but it alsorepresented Saudi fears that BarackObama might respond to Iranian

overtures for better relations with theWest.

The Saudi head of intelligence, PrinceBandar bin Sultan – a true buddy ofPresident George W Bush during his22 years as ambassador inWashington – has now rattled his tindrum to warn the Americans thatSaudi Arabia will make a “majorshift” in its relations with the US, not

just because of its failure to attackSyria but for its inability to produce afair Israeli-Palestinian peacesettlement.

What this “major shift” might be –save for the usual Saudi hot air aboutits independence from US foreignpolicy – was a secret that the princekept to himself.

Israel, of course, never loses anopportunity to publicise – quiteaccurately – how closely many of itsMiddle East policies now coincidewith those of the wealthy potentatesof the Arab Gulf.

Hatred of the Shia/Alawite Syrianregime, an unquenchable suspicion of

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


Shia Iran’s nuclear plans and ageneral fear of Shia expansion isturning the unelected Sunni Arabmonarchies into proxy allies of theIsraeli state they have often sworn todestroy. Hardly, one imagines, the kindof notion that Prince Bandar wishesto publicise.

Furthermore, America’s latestcontribution to Middle East “peace”could be the sale of $10.8bn worth ofmissiles and arms to Sunni Saudi Arabiaand the equally Sunni United ArabEmirates, including GBU-39 bombs –the weapons cutely called “bunker-busters” – which they could use againstShia Iran. Israel, of course, possessesthe very same armaments.

Whether the hapless Mr Kerry –whose risible promise of an“unbelievably small” attack on Syriamade him the laughing stock of theMiddle East – understands the degreeto which he is committing his countryto the Sunni side in Islam’s oldestconflict is the subject of much debatein the Arab world. His response to theSaudi refusal to take its place in theUN Security Council has been almostas weird.

After lunch on Monday at the Parishome of the Saudi Foreign Minister,Saud al-Faisal, Kerry – via his usualanonymous officials – said that hevalued the autocracy’s leadership inthe region, shared Riyadh’s desire tode-nuclearise Iran and to bring an endto the Syrian war. But Kerry’sinsistence that Syrian PresidentBashar al-Assad and his regime mustabandon power means that a Sunnigovernment would take over Syria;and his wish to disarm Shia Iran –however notional its nuclear threatmay be – would ensure that Sunnimilitary power would dominate theMiddle East from the Afghan borderto the Mediterranean.

Few realise that Yemen constitutesanother of the Saudi-Iranianbattlegrounds in the region.

Saudi enthusiasm for Salafist groupsin Yemen – including the Islah party,which is allegedly funded by Qatar,though it denies receiving any externalsupport – is one reason why the post-Saleh regime in Sanaa has beensupporting the Zaidi Shia Houthi“rebels” whose home provinces ofSa’adah, al Jawf and Hajja borderSaudi Arabia. The Houthis are –according to the Sunni Saudis –supported by Iran.

The minority Sunni monarchy inBahrain – supported by the Saudisand of course by the compliantgovernments of the US, Britain, et al– is likewise accusing Shia Iran ofcolluding with the island’s majorityShias. Oddly, Prince Bandar, in hiscomments, claimed that BarackObama had failed to support Saudipolicy in Bahrain – which involvedsending its own troops into the islandto help repress Shia demonstrators in2011 – when in fact America’s silenceover the regime’s paramilitaryviolence was the nearest Washingtoncould go in offering its backing to theSunni minority and his Royal Highnessthe King of Bahrain.

All in all, then, a mighty Western loveaffair with Sunni Islam – a love thatvery definitely cannot speak its namein an Arab Gulf world in which“democracy”, “moderation”,“partnership” and outright dictatorship

are interchangeable – which neitherWashington nor London nor Paris (norindeed Moscow or Beijing) willacknowledge. But, needless to say,there are a few irritating – andincongruous – ripples in this mutualpassion.

The Saudis, for example, blameObama for allowing Egypt’s decadentHosni Mubarak to be overthrown.They blame the Americans forsupporting the elected MuslimBrother Mohamed Morsi as president– elections not being terribly popularin the Gulf – and the Saudis are nowthrowing cash at Egypt’s new militaryregime. Assad in Damascus alsooffered his congratulations to theEgyptian military. Was the Egyptianarmy not, after all – like Assad himself– trying to prevent religious extremistsfrom taking power?

Fair enough – providing we rememberthat the Saudis are really supportingthe Egyptian Salafists who cynicallygave their loyalty to the Egyptianmilitary, and that Saudi-financedSalafists are among the fiercestopponents of Assad.

Thankfully for Kerry and hisEuropean mates, the absence of anyinstitutional memory in the StateDepartment, Foreign Office or Quaid’Orsay means that no one needremember that 15 of the 19 mass-killers of 9/11 were also Salafists and– let us above all, please God, forgetthis – were all Sunni citizens of SaudiArabia.

24 October, 2013Robert Fisk is Middle Eastcorrespondent for The Independentnewspaper. He is the author of manybooks on the region, including TheGreat War for Civilisation: TheConquest of the Middle East.Source: The Independent

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

Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid

Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur

MalaysiaNo. WP 1385

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Chequeaddressed to:

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

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

Account No. 5141 6917 0716

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

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

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

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

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

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

TERBITAN BERKALA

Documents

Just Commentary November 2013