Just Commentary October 2012

Vol 12, No.10 October 2012

.US AMBASSADOR’S DEATH: FRUITS OF USFOREIGN POLICY

BY TONY CARTALUCCI .............................................P3.THE CHINA JAPAN DISPUTE OVER DIAOYU: LET

THE TRUTH PREVAIL!BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR .........................................P6 .REFLECTIONS: TORTURE OF THE FAITHFUL

POST-9/11BY EMILIE TEREBESSY ..........................................P10

ARTICLES

TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (TPP):FREE TRADE AIN’T FREE

By Mickey Z.

.TEHRAN NON ALIGNED SUMMIT — A REBUFF TO

WESTERN HEGEMONY

BY RANJAN SOLOMON ...........................................P10

continued next page

“TPP is Wall Street’s global powergrab—a death sentence for people withAIDS, for endangered rainforests,family farmers, and U.S. jobs.”

- Adam Weissman

Free (sic) trade agreements have a wayof altering our lives in unexpectedways. For example, thanks tosomething called the “trade-relatedintellectual property rights” section ofthe General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade (GATT)—precursor to theWorld Trade Organization (WTO)—when a human gene is introduced to asheep’s mammary glands to producea protein called alpha-1-antitrypsin, asheep is no longer a mere “sheep.”

Instead, that woolly object is now alegally patented corporate commodityknown as a “mammalian cellbioreactor.”

Not a sheep, not a lamb, but amammalian cell bioreactor. Try it out:“Mary had a little mammalian cellbioreactor.”

If you don’t like it, don’t blame me.Blame GATT. Hell, you can blame all

these so-called trade agreementsbecause they’re really all aboutinvestors’ rights anyway.

For more details on the infamousWTO, here’s an article I wrote in Aprilof this year: “Roots of Occupy: TheBattle in Seattle, 1999.”

Of course, there’s also the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) which, since the time it wasenacted in 1994, the U.S. LaborDepartment has certified more than 2.5million American jobs as “destroyed byeither direct offshoring ordisplacement by imports.”

Mic Check: There’s a huge differencebetween “free trade” and fair trade.

All this backroom betrayal has led usright up to what has been called“NAFTA on steroids,” potentially themother of all free (sic) tradeagreements: the Trans-PacificPartnership or TPP .

Free Trade ain’t free…and it ain’teven tradeTPP, as described by the Citizens TradeCampaign, is a “massive newinternational trade pact being pushed bythe U.S. government at the behest oftransnational corporations. The TPP isalready being negotiated between theUnited States, Australia, BruneiDarussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia,Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singaporeand Vietnam — but it is also specificallyintended as a ‘docking agreement’ thatother Pacific Rim countries would joinover time, with Japan, Korea, China andothers already expressing some interest.It is poised to become the largest FreeTrade Agreement in the world.”

“Trade is only a minor part of theagreement,” add the folks at TPPWatch, who call it “a clever brandingexercise” and “an agreement that

.80 YANOMAMI PEOPLE MASSACRED AS SHELL

GETS ARCTIC DRILLING PERMIT

BY SUBHANKAR BANERJEE ..........................................P7

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

guarantees special rights to foreigninvestors.”

“TPP is a sweetheart deal forcorporations who profit fromhydrofracking, toxic dumping, mining,and the destruction of rainforests andother endangered ecosystems,”explains activist Adam Weissman. “Itgrants corporate environmentaldestroyers the power to suegovernments for unlimited sums ininternational tribunals for enforcingtheir environmental laws.Outrageously, corporations can sue notonly to recoup their investments, butcan demand compensation for all themoney they might have made if theyweren’t stopped from damaging theenvironment.”

How will all this—and more—bepossible? Under TPP, details PublicCitizen, corporations would gain anarray of privileges, e.g. • Rights to acquire land, naturalresources, factories withoutgovernment review

• Risks and costs of offshoring tolow wage countries eliminated

• Special guaranteed “minimumstandard of treatment” for relocatingfirms

• Compensation for loss of“expected future profits” from health,labor, and environmental, laws (indirector “regulatory” takings compensation)

• Right to move capital withoutlimits

• New rights cover vast definitionof investment: intellectual property,permits, derivatives

In addition:• A major goal of U.S. multinational

corporations for TPP is to impose onmore countries a set of extreme foreigninvestor privileges and rights and theirprivate enforcement through thenotorious “investor-state” system. Thissystem elevates individual corporationsand investors to equal standing witheach TPP signatory country’sgovernment—and above all of uscitizens.

• Under this regime, foreigninvestors can skirt domestic courts andlaws, and sue governments directly

before tribunals of three private sectorlawyers operating under World Bankand UN rules to demand taxpayercompensation for any domestic lawthat investors believe will diminish their“expected future profits.”

Such an agreement would also giveanimal agribusiness the opportunity topressure countries to eliminate importsafety standards and eliminate tariffson U.S. meat, dairy, and egg exports.Translation: More animals suffering onfactory farms, more climate changeand factory farm pollution, moredestruction of rainforests for livestockfeed, more diabetes, heart disease, andcancer in the global South, morecountries shifting to factory farmingto stay competitive, and moreoutbreaks of deadly diseases like birdflu and swine flu.

As one might imagine, Wall Street islicking its chops over provisions like:prohibitions against limiting the size offinancial institutions (i.e., safeguardsagainst “too big to fail”); prohibitionsagainst firewalls between differenttypes of financial institutions (i.e.,reinstating the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act); prohibitions against banson specific financial products (i.e.,banning the sale of toxic assets); andprohibitions against capital controls(i.e., tools designed to stabilize the flowof money into and out of a country).

To add insult to injury, under theauspices of TPP, the U.S. is activelyseeking to cut access to medicine inthe name of boosting Big Pharmaprofits.

Those of you in the “lesser (sic) evil”crowd please note that both wings ofthe one American corporate party areswooning over TPP.

“President Obama is slamming MittRomney for refusing to release histaxes and for offshoring jobs at BainCapital,” Weissman adds, “but theObama administration is negotiating andrefusing to release the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an 11-countryinternational outsourcing agreementthat makes Bain look like a bunch ofamateurs by comparison.”

Translation: You ain’t gonna stop TPPby voting.

You down with TPP?All right, now that you’ve heard some(key word: some ) of the sordid details,you might be wondering what—ifanything—can stop TPP frombecoming a rapacious reality.Well, here’s the good news…

If you think NAFTA and GATT werethe stuff of nightmares, the MultilateralAgreement on Investment (MAI) wasa plot, cloaked in secrecy, designed toessentially eliminate those pesky nation-to-nation boundaries that stop our poor,neglected multinational corporationsfrom competing in the globalmarketplace.

U.S. CEO at the time, Bill Clinton, failedin his effort to fast-track MAI in 1997,but it was back on the table a year later.If implemented, the MAI would’vegranted transnational corporations aunique brand of sovereignty thatsuperseded national borders.

However, by April 1998, MAI had beensoundly defeated thanks to perhaps thefirst ever Internet activist campaign—a campaign that mobilized some 20million people to speak out against andstop this global nightmare.

(Subsequently defeated by sustainedpublic action: the “Millennial Round”of the WTO in 1999 and The FreeTrade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in2003).

Like all battles against the 1%, the oddsare long and the game is tilted in theirfavor, but it’s powerful to rememberthat: 1 As stated above, agreements likeTPP have been defeated when theresponse was immediate, informed,broad-based, and sustained. 2 Occupy Wall Street (OWS) hashelped bring corporate malfeasanceinto the public’s awareness as neverbefore.

We can begin by educating ourselvesand the general public about theavaricious agenda of the 1%. Let’s

continued next page


3

continued next page

spread the word that TPP isn’t anarcane exercise in D.C. double-talk. Itwill directly affect us—from accessto medicine, a lack of food safety,more jobs lost, a faster rate of climatechange, and too many more ways tolist here.

Some resources: • Trade Justice • Citizens Trade Campaign • Trade Watch • Flush the TPP • Occupy the TPP • Stop TPP

Of course, we can and should go theusual route, the methods that beat backMAI, FTAA, etc.— letters, petitions,etc.— but I think if we also occupy a

major effort towards public outreach,we stand a better chance.

If we can relentlessly and effectivelyexpose how this deceptive design iswhitewashing our past, oppressing ourpresent, and jeopardizing our future, itwould not only help us defeat TPP butalso inspire others to more easilyrecognize the big connections.

In 1998, one activist said MAI was“like a political Dracula” which “simplycannot survive sunlight.” It’s our job,our duty to the future, to let the sun shinebrightly on TPP and collectively drive astake through its gluttonous heart.

So…I’ve laid out some of the detailsabove and now I put it to you: Whatcan/should we do about TPP? What

are you willing to do and how soonwill you do it? E-mail me ([email protected] ) with yourideas.

I’d say it’s now or never…

But then again, what do I know? I’vealways been the black mammalian cellbioreactor in my family.

14 September, 2012

Mickey Z. is a writer, editor, blogger, andnovelist living in New York City. He writesa bimonthly column, "Mickey Z. Says",for VegNews magazine and he has alsoappeared on the C-SPAN network's BookTV program. He is also a regularcontributor to Planet Green, ZNet,CounterPunch, and other websites.Source: Countercurrents.org


US AMBASSADOR’S DEATH: FRUITS OF US FOREIGN POLICYBy Tony Cartalucci

The US has sworn to “make pay” thoseresponsible for the death of USAmbassador Christopher Stevens. Inreality, those responsible for Stevens’death are fully armed, funded, trained,and coordinating with NATO specialforces in Libya, across North Africa,and in Syria.

No one will “pay” beyond perhapsa wedding party attacked by USdrones, or a limited liquidation of selectterrorist groups the US created andarmed during 2011’s violent overthrowof the Libyan government. Meanwhile,US warships and Marines will swarmaround Libya simply to fulfill Westernpublic expectations that “something”will be done.

The embassy attacks were tacitlysupported by the respective client-regimes recently installed by USpolitical and military destabilization, andwere designed to re-establish anadversarial narrative to countergrowing public awareness of the US’use of terrorist proxies, andspecifically, Al Qaeda in nations likeLibya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. We are

now expected to believe that Egypt’snew dictator Mohamed Morsi, and theterrorists of Libya whom the US is rightnow arming and supporting in Syria,are once again our implacable enemies.

In all likelihood, those behind theattacks on the embassies intended theviolence to be limited in scope, andwithout any high-profile deaths -designed simply to lend sorely lackinglegitimacy to America’s growing list ofclient-states. Ambassador Stevensapparently was caught in smoke whileescaping from the US consulate inBenghazi, and died of asphyxiation - avictim of unforeseen circumstances,not the victim of a targetedassassination. However, with a high-ranking US diplomat dead in Libya, in

Benghazi, the very den of Al Qaeda, itleaves the United States and its foreignpolicy, especially in regards to Syria,in tatters.

US Support of Terrorism in LibyaStretches Back Three Decades The details of the plan were sketchy,but it seemed to be a classic CIAdestabilization campaign. One elementwas a ‘disinformation’ programdesigned to embarrass Kaddafi and hisgovernment. Another was the creationof a ‘counter government’ to challengehis claim to national leadership. A third— potentially the most risky — was anescalating paramilitary campaign,probably by disaffected Libyannationals, to blow up bridges, conductsmall-scale guerrilla operations anddemonstrate that Kaddafi was opposedby an indigenous political force. -Newsweek, “A Plan to OverthrowKaddafi,” August 3, 1981

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group(LIFG), along with its affiliates andpredecessors, have been armed, trained,its leaders coddled and supported by

L E A D A R T I C L E

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D4

A R T I C L E Scontinued from page 3the West for over 30 years. One ofthese predecessors, the US-CIA backedNational Front for the Salvation ofLibya (NFSL) made multiple attemptsto assassinate Qaddafi and initiatearmed rebellion throughout Libyaduring the 1980s.

Many of these fighters would alsoline the US-Saudi created front, AlQaeda, when first it was conceived inthe mountains of Afghanistan in the1980s. Most of these fighters lived andoperated from Libya’s eastern regionof Cyrenaica, and in particular, thecities of Benghazi and Darnah.

The US Army’s West PointCombating Terrorism Center (CTC)noted in its report, “Al-Qa’ida’s ForeignFighters in Iraq,” that these samefighters, drawn in particular fromBenghazi and Darnah, would then moveon to fighting US troops in bothAfghanistan starting in 2001, and Iraqbeginning in 2003, as well ascontributing to the sectarian violencethat made up the backbone of Iraq’sso-called “civil war.”

Whether or not their affiliation withAl Qaeda was official throughout thelast 3 decades, the CTC’s reportconfirms that by 2007, an announcedmerger was made:

The apparent surge in Libyan recruitstraveling to Iraq may be linked to theLibyan Islamic Fighting Group’s(LIFG) increasingly cooperativerelationship with al Qa’ida, which

culminated in the LIFG officiallyjoining al Qa’ida on November 3,2007. (page 9, .pdf)

It would seem unthinkable then thatthe US would pick what was theepicenter of terrorism in Libya to makecontacts with militants who had carriedout three decades of terrorism and hadeven fought directly with US troopsacross multiple theaters of war -especially after these terroristsofficially announced their merger withAl Qaeda. But that is exactly what theUnited States did.

Starting in March 2011, USPresident Barack Obama appointedChristopher Stevens as “SpecialRepresentative to the LibyanTransitional National Council,” andsent him to Benghazi to coordinate USmilitary, diplomatic, and financialsupport to a “counter government”constituted from Cyrenaica’s Al Qaedaterror battalions and a cadre of US-educated, politically cultivated proxiesacross the “National TransitionalCouncil” (NTC).

Eventually, Stevens’ mission wouldbecome a success. NATO-backedterrorists overran the Libyangovernment, overthrowing it in Tripoli,brutalizing the cities of Bani Walid andSirte - with the help of several monthsof aerial bombardment from NATO -and exterminating or exiling the entirepopulation (10,000 to 30,000 people)of Tawarga. And almost immediatelyafter the US’ success in Libya, the veryterror brigades NATO had beenfunding, arming, training, andproviding air support for, set out forthe Turkish-Syrian border where theybegan invading Syria.

Ambassador Stevens’ MurderersTied Directly to US-BackedTerrorists in SyriaEntire brigades fighting the Syriangovernment are led by Libyan LIFG

terrorists and include within their ranksSaudi-inspired Wahhabi extremists -the ones who surrounded and attackedthe US consulate in Benghazi, leadingto the death of Ambassador Stevens.

Reuters, in their article, “Libyanfighters join Syrian revolt,” reported,that Mahdi al-Harati, “a powerful militiachief from Libya’s westernmountains,” who is actually a militantof the US, British, and UN listedterrorist organization Libyan IslamicFighting Group (LIFG), “now leads aunit in Syria, made up mainly ofSyrians but also including some foreignfighters, including 20 senior membersof his own Libyan rebel unit.” Reuterswould go on to explain, “the Libyansaiding the Syrian rebels includespecialists in communications,logistics, humanitarian issues andheavy weapons,” and that they“operate training bases, teaching fitnessand battlefield tactics.”

Reuters concedes that the ongoingbattle has nothing to do withdemocracy, but instead is purely asectarian campaign aimed at “pushingout” Syria’s minorities, perceived to be“oppressing” “Sunni Muslims.”

To reach Syria, Libyan fightersmust cross the Mediterranean Sea andenter via Turkey, or cross Egypt, Israel,and enter via Jordan. The governmentof Syria has threatened Libya in noconceivable manner, making Libya’scampaign an intolerable act of militaryaggression. Worst of all, the NATO-installed government in Tripoli hasofficially approved of supportingmilitary operations in distant Syria.

In November 2011, the Telegraphin their article, “Leading LibyanIslamist met Free Syrian Armyopposition group,” would report: Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of theTripoli Military Council and the

continued next page

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 D5

A R T I C L E S

continued next page

continued from page 4former leader of the Libyan IslamicFighting Group, “met with Free SyrianArmy leaders in Istanbul and on theborder with Turkey,” said a militaryofficial working with Mr Belhadj.“Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interimLibyan president) sent him there.”

Another Telegraph article, “Libya’snew rulers offer weapons to Syrianrebels,” would admit Syrian rebels held secret talks withLibya’s new authorities on Friday,aiming to secure weapons and moneyfor their insurgency against PresidentBashar al-Assad’s regime, The DailyTelegraph has learned.

At the meeting, which was held inIstanbul and included Turkish officials,the Syrians requested “assistance” fromthe Libyan representatives and wereoffered arms, and potentiallyvolunteers.

“There is something being plannedto send weapons and even Libyanfighters to Syria,” said a Libyan source,speaking on condition of anonymity.“There is a military intervention on theway. Within a few weeks you will see.”

Later that month, some 600 Libyanterrorists would be reported to haveentered Syria to begin combatoperations and as recently as lastmonth, CNN, whose Ivan Watsonaccompanied terrorists over theTurkish-Syrian border and into Aleppo,revealed that indeed foreign fighterswere amongst the militants,particularly Libyans.

It was admitted that: Meanwhile, residents of the villagewhere the Syrian Falcons wereheadquartered said there were fightersof several North African nationalitiesalso serving with the brigade’s ranks.

A volunteer Libyan fighter has also

told CNN he intends to travel fromTurkey to Syria within days to add a“platoon” of Libyan fighters to armedmovement.

CNN also added: On Wednesday, CNN’s crew met aLibyan fighter who had crossed intoSyria from Turkey with four otherLibyans. The fighter wore fullcamouflage and was carrying aKalashnikov rifle. He said more Libyanfighters were on the way.

The foreign fighters, some of themare clearly drawn because they see thisas … a jihad. So this is a magnet forjihadists who see this as a fight forSunni Muslims.CNN’s reports providebookends to 2011’s admissions thatlarge numbers of Libyan terrorists flushwith NATO cash and weapons hadheaded to Syria, with notoriousterrorist LIFG commanders makingthe arrangements.

So who exactly will the US make“pay” for the death of AmbassadorStevens? Will they pull the funds andweapons they are using currently towage terror upon the people of Syria?Will they liquidate the terrororganizations and bases in Libyarecruiting and training militants to fightAmerica’s proxy war in Syria?Unlikely.

US Foreign Policy is HegemonyThrough Terror, Couched in“Democracy Promotion”Clearly, those involved in overthrowingthe government of Libya, and

attempting to overthrow thegovernment of Syria, are not “freedomfighters,” but listed terrorists. The US,UK, and EU are in violation of both theirown domestic anti-terrorism laws (andhere), as well as international law intheir continued support of listed-terrorist organizations.

What was to be a relatively benignpublic relations stunt to disassociate theUS and its “democracy promotion”from terrorist organizations, has nowleft a high ranking US diplomat deadand the West’s foreign policy narrativein further tatters.

This illustrates operationalincompetence as well as Wall Street andLondon’s increasing reliance oncomplex ploys to manage publicperception. Stakeholders in the WallStreet-London international order willinevitably begin asking themselveswhether or not they will share the fateof Stevens if they do not begin anorderly divestment from a crumblingparadigm.

Furthermore, an increasingly awarepublic will still be able to look at boththe Libyan and Egyptian governmentsand see proxy-regimes desperatelyseeking “street-credit” through anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric (orembassy raids). However, for example,Egypt’s Morsi cannot erase his USeducation, the US citizenship of hischildren, nor his current policy ofcapitulation to the IMF, and his supportof the US-Saudi-Israeli proxy assaulton Syria.

America’s “democracy promotion”is simply a rhetorical mechanism withinwhich hegemonic ambitions arecouched. US State Department fronts,including Freedom House and theNational Endowment for Democracyhave their boards of directors full ofNeo-Conservative warmongers and


6A R T I C L E S

continued next page

continued from page 5representatives of corporate-financierinterests. They use issues of“democracy” and “human rights” todress up naked military aggression andglobal corporate-financier expansion.

Wall Street and London, realizingthat many of their policy makers havebecome hopelessly discredited, theirpublic opinions dismissed out of handas warmongering and unacceptable,have established new fronts with newfaces to give their agenda “left cover.”Obama’s presidency itself can beclearly seen as just such a publicrelations front. The Henry JacksonSociety’s Michael Weiss, a Neo-Conin cheap liberal clothing, regularly hashis propaganda aired by the likes of theTelegraph - despite his colleagues

within the halls of the Henry JacksonSociety including notorious Neo-ConsMax Boot, Michael Chertoff, CarlGershman, Robert Kagan, MaxKampelman, William Kristol, RichardPerle, and James Woolsey.

The corporate-financier interests ofWall Street and London hope that thosein the West continue to make falsedistinctions between “left” and “right,”as well as fall for new faces telling oldnarratives. They also hope thatregardless of your political views, youcontinue paying into their corporationsand institutions, so that they continuereceiving the resources they need tocarry on with their agenda.

In the game of chess, pawns arefirst sacrificed for tactical advantages.

When these are expended, higher-valued pieces are next. AmbassadorStevens’ is just such a “piece.” Hisdeath was caused by a riskygeopolitical stunt for the benefit of hisown government, involving extremistshe helped arm, train, fund, and installinto power. Stevens’ contemporariesmust ask themselves if they too arewilling to join him in his “sacrifice,”as all the pawns have either been spent,or are stuck in stalemates upon theboard.

13 September, 2012

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appearedon many alternative media websites,including his own at Land DestroyerReport.Source: Activist Post

THE CHINA JAPAN DISPUTE OVER DIAOYU: LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL!By Chandra Muzaffar

Tensions are rising in the disputebetween China and Japan over theDiaoyu Islands — 5 tiny islands and 3rocks covering a mere 7 squarekilometres in the East China Sea.

It is a pity that this is happeningespecially when Chinese-Japaneseeconomic ties have reached a new levelsince the end of last year with the twocountries agreeing to use theirrespective currencies in their bilateraltrade, instead of the US dollar.

To de-escalate tensions, Japanshould make the first move. It was theJapanese government’s purchase of

three of the islands from the Kuriharafamily on 11 September 2012 thatignited the present crisis. That decisionshould be rescinded immediately.

In fact, Japan has been upping theante on Diaoyu — which Japan callsthe Senkaku Islands — for some timenow. It will be recalled that on 7September 2010 when a Chinesefishing boat collided accidentally witha Japanese patrol vessel near Diaoyu,the captain and the crew of the Chineseboat were detained by the JapaneseCoast Guard for a few days. Thoughthey were all released in the end, theincident revealed a new toughness onthe part of the Japanese. The Chinesehave been reacting to this and othersuch incidents.

What explains this new toughness?Some analysts attribute it partly to thegrowth of the Political Right in Japanesepolitics. Japanese economic stagnationfor more than two decades and China’ssuccess in replacing Japan as the

world’s second most importanteconomy have increased the influenceof conservative nationalist forces inthe country who are now targetingChina. Impending elections within theruling Democratic Party and theforthcoming General Election have alsowidened the berth for conservativepolitics.

It is also not a coincidence that theJapanese Right has become more vocal— especially vis-a-vis China — at atime when the United States is seekingto re-assert its presence and its powerin the Asia-Pacific region. In the lastcouple of years, US political andmilitary officials have on a number ofoccasions underscored thesignificance of US-Japan security ties.Even on the Diaoyu dispute, the USgovernment, while professing toremain neutral, has through thePentagon made it clear that the Japan-US Security Treaty would come intoforce in the event of a military conflict

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 S7

continued from page 6between Japan and China. This stancehas to be viewed in the larger contextof the US’s active military alignmentwith the Philippines in its recent clashwith China over the Huangyan Islandin the South China Sea and its supportfor Vietnam in its longstanding tiff withChina over parts of the Spratly Islandsand the Paracels.

For both Japan and the US theremay also be other reasons why theDiaoyu Islands are important. In 1968-9, a United Nations agency, it is reported,had discovered potential oil and gasreserves near Diaoyu. The US military,it is not widely known, also uses one ofthe five islands — Kuba— as a practicerange for aircraft bombing.

Whatever the reasons for holdingon to Diaoyu, Japan’s claim toownership is weak. There are books,reports and maps from the 15th

century, during the period of the MingDynasty, that establish in no uncertainterms that Diaoyu is Chinese territory.The book Voyage with a Tail Wind andthe Record of the Imperial Envoy’s Visitto Ryukyu bear testimony to this. Evenwritings by Japanese scholars in thelate 19th century acknowledged this fact.

The challenge to Chinese ownershipof Diaoyu came from Japaneseannexation of the Islands in 1894-5following the first Sino-Japanese War.China under the Ching Dynasty wastoo weak to fight back and regain lost

territory. But annexation through militaryforce does not confer legitimacy uponthe act of conquest.

This is why when Japan wasdefeated in the Second World War thevictors who included China and the USrecognised that Diaoyu was Chineseterritory. Both the Cairo Declaration andthe Potsdam Declaration acknowledgedthis though for administrative purposesDiaoyu was placed under US controlas part of its governance over theRyukyu Islands. The US was then theoccupying power in Japan following thelatter’s surrender.

However, when China was takenover by the Chinese Communist Partyin 1949, the US changed its position andbegan to treat the Islands as part ofJapan. The Chinese communistleadership protested vehemently. In1971, the US Senate returned theDiaoyu Islands, together with Okinawa,to Japan under the Okinawa ReversionTreaty. Again, the Chinese governmentin Beijing objected, as did the Taiwangovernment which also regards theIslands as part of China.

Since the normalisation of relationsbetween China and Japan in 1972, bothsides have agreed to allow their fisherfolk to operate in the waterssurrounding the Islands withoutresolving the issue of ownership. Ofcourse, neither China nor Japan hasrelinquished even an iota of its claim inthe last 40 years. Recent incidents have

however forced this unresolved issueinto the open.

Apart from taking the first step byabrogating its purchase of the Islands,as we have proposed, Japan shouldalso come to terms with undeniablehistorical, legal and ethical facts. Itmust accept the irrefutable reality thatthe Diaoyu Islands belong to China. Werealise that there are powerful vestedinterests that will not allow Japan toembrace this truth. Nonetheless, weshould all try to persuade the Japanesegovernment and the Japanese peoplethat it would be in their best interest todo so. Governments in Asia shouldconvey this message to Japanese elitesthrough quiet diplomacy. Citizengroups throughout the continentshould speak up in a firm andcourteous manner. The media shouldplay its role by laying out the argumentsfor an amicable resolution of the disputewhich respects truth and justice.

17 September, 2012

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the Presidentof the International Movement for a JustWorld (JUST).

80 YANOMAMI PEOPLE MASSACRED AS SHELL GETS ARCTIC

DRILLING PERMITBy Subhankar Banerjee

It has been a painful day for me. Twopieces of news came in this morning:one about the massacre of up to 80Yanomami people at a settlement in theAmazon, and the other about Obamagreen lighting Shell’s drilling in theArctic Ocean. Both are about resource

wars that lead to killing—humans and/or animals, fast or slow, one to get gold,and the other to get oil.

“A massacre of up to 80 Yanomamipeople has taken place in the Venezuelanstate of Amazonas,” The Guardian

reported. “According to localtestimonies an armed group [illegal goldminers] flew over in a helicopter,opening fire with guns and launchingexplosives into Irotatheri settlement inthe High Ocamo area.”

continued next page

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 S8

continued next page

Survival International, a London–based NGO that works with indigenouscommunities around the world (overthe years I contributed my Arcticphotographs for their campaigns)stated in a news release, “Witnessesof the aftermath described finding‘burnt bodies and bones’ when theyvisited the community of Irotatheri inthe country’s Momoi region, close tothe border with Brazil.…The attack isbelieved to have happened in July, butnews is only just emerging.”

Today about 20,000 Yanomamipeople live in small communities in theAmazon rainforest bordering Brazil andVenezuela. I first came to know aboutthe Yanomami from the remarkablephotographs of artist–activist ClaudiaAndujar. In the 1970s Andujar gave upher career as a photojournalist andembarked on an in–depth photo–essayabout the Yanomami people. During thistime she was witness to, “one of themost significant cultural dislocations tooccur in Yanomami history, when thegovernment began construction of atranscontinental highway in NorthernBrazil. Villages were razed to paveroads, and the Yanomami suffered adevastating measles epidemic.” Then,during the 1980s, a new kind ofdevastation came into the Yanomamihomeland, when thousands ofgarimpeiros, illegal, small–scale golddiggers came to the Amazon to maketheir fortunes. Twenty percent of theYanomami died in the 1980’s as aconsequence of the gold mining

intrusion. Also the mining led toenvironmental destruction. Followinga 15–year campaign, in whichAndujar’s work played a crucial role,in 1992, with the help of Braziliananthropologists and SurvivalInternational, the Brazilian governmentestablished the Yanomami Park “forprotection and use by Yanomami people.”

The July massacre wiped out anentire indigenous settlement. Not thefirst time. One of the worst Indianmassacres had taken place in thepredawn hours of April 30, 1871, thatcame to be known as the Camp GrantMassacre, in which nearly 150Apaches, including children, elders andwomen from a single settlement in theAravaipa canyon in Arizona had beenbrutally killed. Historian Karl Jacobywrites about that incident in hispowerful book “Shadows at Dawn: ABorderlands Massacre and the Violenceof History.” From the companionwebsite for the book you’ll learn aboutwhat Jacoby calls “the most familiarand yet the most overlooked subject inAmerican history—violence againstIndians.”

It will take time to figure out thedetails of the Yanomami massacre, butone thing is for certain, it’s a tragic caseof resource wars—gold, in this case.Unfortunately such events will likelyincrease in the coming decades becausemuch of the last remaining naturalresources left on Earth are in landsinhabited by indigenous communities,or underneath oceans on whichindigenous communities depend on—Amazon, Arctic, forests of India…Small illegal bands of garimpeiros orbig corporations supported bygovernments will do everything todestroy and displace human andnonhuman communities to extract thoseresources.

Resource wars connect theYanomami of the Amazon with the

Iñupiat of the Arctic. On August 30,the Obama administration gave Shellthe green light to begin drilling in theArctic Ocean—Beaufort and ChukchiSeas of Alaska. Shell’s spill responsebarge, the Arctic Challenger is stillsitting in Bellingham, Washington,waiting for the US Coast Guardcertification. The administrationcouched their approval with a softphrase, calling it “preparatory work.”What that means is that Shell will nowbegin drilling, but won’t get to thehydrocarbon layer until ArcticChallenger is certified and in place,which is expected to happen soon.

I have written extensively aboutShell’s Arctic drilling since May 2010.Here is the key concern: the Obamaadministration, Shell, and the media areall focused on minutiae to distract thepublic from the real issues, which atits most basic is the fact that theadministration has not done anEnvironmental Impact Statement on theArctic Ocean drilling, and no oneknows how to clean up a spill fromunderneath the ice, in the harshconditions of the Arctic.

As I write this, on the table, I havetwo books. The first one is: “ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge Coastal PlainResource Assessment Final Report:Baseline Study of the Fish, Wildlife,and Their Habitats, Volume 1.” It is a392–page report with chapters titled:“Soils and Vegetation,” “Birds,”“Mammals,” “Fish,” “Human Cultureand Lifestyle,” and “Impacts of FurtherExploration, Development andProduction of Oil and Gas Resources.”Despite the fact that the Reaganadministration gagged federal scientiststo promote Arctic drilling, hisadministration did publish this extensivereport in 1986. I learnt a lot about theArctic Refuge ecology from that report.

The second book is: “Cumulative


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

9

continued from page 8Environmental Effects of Oil and GasActivities on Alaska’s North Slope.” Itis a 288–page book published by theNational Research Council, a divisionof the US National Academies withchapters titled: “The HumanEnvironment,” “The Alaska NorthSlope Environment,” “History of Oiland Gas Activities,” “Future Oil andGas Activities,” “Effects on thePhysical Environment,” “Effects onVegetation,” “Effects on Animals,”“Effects on the Human Environment,”“Filling Knowledge Gaps,” and “MajorEffects and their Accumulation.”Despite the fact that the George W.Bush administration gagged federalscientists and manipulated majorscientific reports to promote Arcticdrilling, his administration did publishthis extensive report in 2003. It wasthe first of its kind and remains themost scholarly publication about thecumulative impact of oil developmenton Arctic tundra. Both reports areabout the terrestrial environment ofArctic Alaska. Nothing like that existsabout the Beaufort and Chukchi Seaswhich is home to more than 10,000endangered bowhead whales, morethan 60,000 beluga whales, nearly 4,000threatened polar bears, tens of thousandsof seals and walruses, and hundreds ofthousands of sea birds, to name a fewspecies. The Iñupiat people of the Arcticcoast depend on the Ocean that they call“the garden,” for their economic, culturaland spiritual survival.

Now, if you ask the Obamaadministration if there is a report onthe Arctic Ocean similar to the 1986Arctic Refuge baseline study, theanswer you will get would be: “nada,”“zero,” “zilch,” “zippo,” “zot,” “golla[that’s Bengali].” On September 13,2010, Seth Borenstein wrote in anAssociated Press story, “Tens ofthousands of walruses have comeashore in northwest Alaska because the

sea ice they normally rest on has melted.Scientists with two federal agencies aremost concerned about the one–tonfemale walruses stampeding andcrushing each other and their smallercalves near Point Lay, Alaska, on theChukchi Sea. The federal governmentis in a year–long process to determineif walruses should be put on theendangered species list.” Since then wehave heard more than a hundred timesthat Shell has spent more than 4 billiondollars in their Arctic venture, but haveyou heard about what’s happening tothe walruses? Over the past decade,Arctic warming has very significantlychanged the ecological and culturaldynamic of the North and we do not yethave a comprehensive understanding ofthese rapid changes, yet Shell will drillthere now, thanks to the Obamaadministration.

How is Obama getting away withapproving the most dangerous form ofdrilling anywhere on earth withouthaving done a comprehensive study onthe Arctic Ocean to a company that iscausing great destruction to the NigerDelta and the indigenous Ogoni people?Allow me to guess. With approvingShell’s drilling Obama has given hisboots to the face of the environmentalorganizations, and us. He has figuredhe cannot afford to upset Shell (thecompany might pour too much moneyto zabbledabble his re-electioncampaign, thanks to Citizens United),but he can indeed afford to piss off theenvironmental community, which hebelieves (my guess) is “wimpy,”

because they never challengedObama, only appealed to him politely,again, and again, and again. Imaginethe rage the green groups would haveexhibited to a Republican president ifshe/he had done the things Obama hasdone: he hasn’t done anything onclimate change and didn’t evenmention the phrase in his 2012 EarthDay Proclamation — remember his topclimate change advisor Carol Brownerresigned after realizing she won’t get athing done under this administration;sold the Powder River Basin ofWyoming to King Coal — a completelyunnecessary act; approved the buildingof the southern half of the Keystone XLPipeline, and now Shell’s Arctic drilling.

In her testimony in the recentlypublished anthology “Arctic Voices:Resistance at the Tipping Point” thatI edited, Iñupiat elder and communityleader Caroline Cannon wrote: “It feelsas if the government and industry wantus to forget who we are, what we havea right to, and what we deserve. Theyrepeatedly overwhelm us withinformation, requests, and deadlines,and it seems as if they hope that we willeither give up or die fighting. We arenot giving up. We must fight.”

The fate of indigenous communitiesaround the world is connected throughdestructive resource wars. For a longtime, dominant cultures had referred tomembers of tribal communities as“barbarians.” Is a Yanomami barbarian?Is an Iñupiaq barbarian? Is a thug of aplutocratic society barbarian? Time hascome to put that word ‘barbarian’ onits head. Indigenous communities areleft with no choice but to fight and resistdestruction. 31 August, 2012

Subhankar Banerjee is a writer,photographer, and activist. He has workedtirelessly to conserve ecoculturally significantareas of the Arctic, and to raise awareness aboutindigenous human rights and climate change.Source: Climatestorytellers.org


10

By Ranjan SolomanTEHRAN NON ALIGNED SUMMIT- A REBUFF TO WESTERN HEGEMONY

Irish journalist and political commentatorFinian Cunningham believes that the 16thsummit of the Non-Aligned Movementin Tehran which wrapped up on August31 was a “spectacular diplomatic coupfor the Islamic Republic of Iran” and a“puncturing of Western self-importance.” In unanimity, the summitrejected the US and Israel’s attempt towage war with Iran under dubiouspretexts. Instead, they expressed“respect and solidarity towards theIslamic Republic”. By endorsing Iran asPresident of the NAM for the next threeyears, the 120 nations gathered in Tehranwere affirming that “We respect and trustIran to lead the NAM in its central aim ofachieving world peace and defendingnations from aggression.”

NAM surfaced in the 1960s in thecontext of the bi-polar world; with theUnited States of America leading the‘Free World’ on the one hand, and theSoviet Union at the head of a coalition ofrevolutionary communist countries, onthe other.

Leaders of the new nations of Africaand Asia, such as Kwame Nkrumah(Ghana), Ahmed Sekou Toure (Guinea)Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt), EmperorHaile Selassie (Ethiopia) JawaharlalNehru (India), and Yugoslavia’s JosipBroz Tito argued that developingcountries should refrain from aligningtheir countries with either bloc, butpursue their own independent path ininternational affairs.

The Non-aligned Movement adoptedtwo ideological pillars to guide the workof the Movement;

1. Political decolonisation of allterritories under colonial domination and;2. Reform of an unjust global economicorder which consigned developingcountries to the underdog status of‘hewers of wood and water’, while the

advanced industrial countries producedmanufactured goods.

Since those heady days, NAM hasgone through its ups and downs alsoshaken by the collapse of the USSR, thefall of the Berlin Wall, the caving in ofEastern European economies and theircommunist systems. NAM went into acrisis of its own in the Uni-polar world towhich they had to readjust. The USemerged as the ‘Master Nation’ managingthe rest of the world as if it were its ownerand keeper, and assuming leadership ithad never won in a democratic process.With its military supremacy, it began tofunction as the world’s policeman,instigating and waging wars geared atasserting its economic ambitions,pilfering precious resources needed tomatch its materialistic and economicambitions. The post-cold war internationaleconomic order was characterised bymarginal countries extracting and exportingraw materials to the metropolitan countrieswhich turn these materials intomanufactured goods that are exported backto the periphery.

NAM went into a period of impotency.Some of its most influential membersplayed into the new world order underwhich the orders were passed by theWashington-led international alliance ofnations who were in the hunt to sneak backthe old colonial order through the back door.India was one of these- seeking the crumbsfrom under the tables of the ex-colonizers.

Thankfully, the next NAM summit willbe in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez will take overas President in 2016. This guarantees six yearsof strong and unambiguous anti-imperialthinking and leadership of the NAM.

Never before has NAM needed toreassert itself as a force in internationalrelations, to return to its history andfounding purposes of opposing thecolonial instincts of the ex-colonizer, the

imperialist designs of the US, and toirrevocably set out a trail that polarizesthe world if need be between those whoseek justice and those who seek powerto quench their unquenchable thirst forresources and riches that are not theirs.It matters little or nothing who the USwill elect as their President. They will, ashas been proven, be politically impotentmen who are controlled by corporates andZionists who give a damn if the rest of theworld were damned to doomsday.

The Non-Aligned Movement can stilloffer a platform to enable developingcountries to agree on a unified positionvis-à-vis the powerful developed nationson a wide range of issues – be theyclimate change, universal nucleardisarmament, United Nations Reform,Rights of the Palestinian peoples.

The NAM countries may not be ableto match the brute military capabilities ofthe western powers that have powerfulmilitary forces but they can speak as oneon the critical questions that confrontour world. They may never stir theconsciences of the rich and powerfulcountries. Power knows only conceit andarrogance. It does not know the contentof justice even if the word justice is onethat gets to be used in the discourse thatthe powerful engage in.

NAM must now become the voice ofthe people and countries from themargins. The rich nations have brazenlyappropriated the spaces and resourcesthat are not rightfully their own. To them,there is one and only one thing thatmatters – that the weak must surrenderto the rich what they wish to possess onterms that are unfair and perverse.

12 September, 2012

REFLECTIONS: TORTURE OF THE FAITHFUL POST- 9/11By Emilie Terebessy

Over time, the definition of torture hasevolved to encompass its evolving formsin methods and severity withcomprehensive precision. The practise of

torture dates back to the primitive humandesire of the self-righteous to punishoffences of others. During thesecontemporary times, specifically post-9/

11, torture has once again reared its uglyhead with a new face. The most recentlyrevived form of torture is faith-based

continued next page

Rajan Soloman is a widely experiencedNGO/ecumenical leader with variedexperiences in organizational transformationand creating social change through advocacy,communications and issue education


11

torture. The thrust in the revival of faith-based torture was propelled by the Bushadministration in order to maintainnational security, includinginvestigations of “ticking-bomb”scenarios, at the sacrifice of upholdingmorality to fight the “war on terror.”According to reports by StephenBudiansky, “U.S. military intelligenceagencies have long known that tortureand humiliation are unreliable andcounterproductive means of securingintelligence” (qtd. in McCormick 156).Faith-based torture has its roots inreligious persecution that dates back toantiquity and it continues to be practisedglobally. Recently, faith-based torturehas expanded into aspects ofpsychological torture in order to escapelegal scrutiny. “Faith-based torture” is aproblematic expression that can lead tomisunderstanding, both in itsterminology and definition. Renamingand redefining the concept of “faith-based torture” from an objective stanceis the first step in eradicating the legalexploitation of human dignity andpromoting self-enforcement of theprohibition of torture.

The term “faith-based torture” is anoxymoron that does not accurately depictthe subject: torture of the faithful. Theuse of the word “based” in “faith-basedtorture” refers to origin; hence bydefinition, the expression implies thatfaith is the origin of torture. No religionpromotes the violation of basic humandignity, especially not for the sake ofachieving nationalistic goals likeinterrogating “enemy combatants” tosave a nation from an alleged threat.However, religion is vulnerable tomisinterpretation as the word of God isinterpreted through scriptures. It is thehuman error in interpretation of religionthat results in its misunderstanding suchas religion promotes torture. Human errorin interpretation can be minimized byclearly defining the boundaries of asubject in question.

Current literature does not provide anobjective definition of the term “faith-based torture” despite the availableinformation on torture and faith. I proposethe term “faith-based torture” be renamedas “torture of the faithful (TotF).” TotF will

be defined as: the intentional act ofassaulting individuals’ faith sensitivities toinflict either physical, mental, and/oremotional harm on the individual, or toinflict vicarious mental and/or emotionalharm on the associated population of theindividual. According to Liaquat Ali Khan,two conditions must be satisfied in orderto classify the perpetration of torture asfaith-based torture: “(a) the subject oftorture belongs to an identifiable religiouspopulation, and (b) the chosen form oftorture assaults deeply held religiousvalues of that population.” Theseconditions will continue to be appliedalongside the term TotF.

Let’s get one thing straight: torture isprohibited under international law. Withsuch prohibitions in place, how does thepractise of torture continue to penetrateour society? I believe there are two mainreasons as to why torture continues tobe legally practised: “the lack of politicalwill to implement the obligations of Statesunder international humanitarian andhuman rights law” (Kälin) and the lack ofobjective definition of torture leading toits legal exploitation to override basichuman rights. Firstly, the concept ofnational sovereignty has always been adelicate matter; international law cannotbe imposed on a State if the authoritiesrefuse to apply international law due to aperceived threat to sovereignty and thedesire to maintain independence.Secondly, the lack of objective definitionof TotF enables the exploitation ofloopholes through legal interpretation bygoverning bodies to conduct TotF. Withan objective definition in place, clearerstandards prohibiting TotF can beestablished and put into practise, thusdefending the physical and spiritualintegrity of potential victims.

There are various instances of TotFthat have been identified globally; nopolitical or religious grouping is exemptfrom culpability in this regard. The mostprominent examples can be found in U.S.-run detention camps in the “war onterror;” such examples involve thepractise of anti-Islamic torture. These canrange from ineffective anti-Islamic tacticsto more serious violations of Islamicmodesty such as forced nudity andpornographic abuse. Anti-Islamic torturewas committed to presumably cause the

detainees to lose their Islamic identity andthus submit to interrogational duress.Among some of the ineffective anti-Islamic tactics involve incidents wheredetainees were prohibited fromperforming prayers or interrupted mid-prayer, relevant information such as thedirection and time of prayer were withheldfrom them, prevented from reading theQur’an and others. However, the religiousidentity and commitment of thesedetainees were not perceptibly affectedby such anti-Islamic torture. This isbecause Islam provides a sufficientdegree of flexibility to accommodate evencases of necessity.

Another form of TotF that causesmuch uproar in the Muslim community isthe desecration of the Qur’an. A recentexample is from late February wheremultiple copies of the Qur’an confiscatedfrom prisoners were burned at NATO’sBagram military airbase; the incidentresulted in protests and civilian deaths.The incineration of the Qur’an by themilitary personnel can be interpreted as avicarious form of TotF. Vicarious TotFinvolves an additional step beyond itsphysical perpetration, which in this caseis the act of burning multiple volumes ofthe Qur’an. Knowledge of theperpetration of TotF must bedisseminated to the vicarious victims ofthe associated population; this is togenerate vicarious degradation amongstthe victimized population and invoke fearof the perpetrators. Essentially, TotFcommunicates to the victimizedpopulation what is not acceptableconduct in the eyes of the perpetrator.

The recent justifications in committingTotF post-9/11 tend to arise from self-serving political agendas. Our failure touphold collective human rights throughlegal means results in our failure to protectinnocent victims. TotF is a serious problemthat needs immediate and sustainedattention to defend basic human dignity.Awareness needs to be raised among therelevant authorities and the general publicas well. We need to create a sense of outragein order to provide impetus for effectivecollective action.

16 August, 2012


Emilie Terebessy was an intern with JUSTfrom July - August 2012.

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 October 2012