Mumbai Chaos

It’s not hard to understand why these soughts of things happen in India if one considers India’s history on inter-religious relations.  When Christians get slaughtered by Hindus nothing really happens to the perpetrators.

See: 100 die in anti-Christian attacks in India

“About 10,000 Christians – mostly Dalits and a few tribals – languish in state-run relief camps and are afraid to return home due to continuing threats by Hindu extremists,” the statement said. “

Chargrilled bodies of Muslims killed in Gujrat India.

and when Muslims are killed we find out through video confessions that the Police and the State Government were all involved. Imagine the Indians confessing on national television of how they hacked up Muslims and cut unborn babies from the stomachs of their mothers not being arrested or even spoken to by police. Thats right, the government minister told police to allow the killings to happen and he was re-elected with an increased majority. More than 3000 Muslims were systematically targeted and massacred. The killers still walk free. Don’t believe me? Well here is the complete investigation….

Video -Gujrat: Getting away with Murder

Gujrat 2002 – In the words of the men who did it.

and  Hindus confess to Gujarat Muslim massacre – IOL

 then Today:

Mumbai gunman goes on TV to justify terror attacks – SMH – 27 Nov.08

“Muslims in India should not be persecuted. We love this as our country but when our mothers and sisters were being killed, where was everybody?”

Any wonder??? The world’s biggest democracy????

Enjoy your cricket

Posted in India, South Asia | Leave a comment

US power ‘to decline by 2025’

Liberty

US economic and political power is set to decline over the next two decades and the world will grow more dangerous as the battle for scarce resources intensifies, a report by US intelligence agencies has predicted.

The current global financial crisis is the beginning of a weakening of the US dollar to the point where it becomes “first among equals”, said the National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) Global Trends 2025 report published on Thursday.

One of the main conclusions of the report is that “the unipolar world is over, [or] certainly will be by 2025”, said Thomas Fingar, the NIC’s deputy director, at a press conference in Washington DC.

China and India were likely to join the US at the top of a multipolar world and compete for influence, the report added.

Russia’s future was less certain, but Iran, Turkey and Indonesia were also seen by the report as gaining power.

“The world of the near future will be subject to an increased likelihood of conflict over scarce resources, including food and water, and will be haunted by the persistence of rogue states and terrorist groups with greater access to nuclear weapons,” said the report.

“Widening gaps in birth rates and wealth-to-poverty ratios, and the uneven impact of climate change, could further exacerbate tensions.”

Nuclear risk

The reports are produced every five years and based on a global survey of experts by US intelligence analysts.

Global Trends 2025

  • ‘Western’ economic liberalism, democracy and secularism will become less appealing.
  • US global influence will decline as developing powers like China and India join as world leaders.
  • Greater access to technology will increase the possibility of nuclear conflict.
  • Some states in Africa and South Asia will disappear after failing to provide security for their people.
  • Others in Eastern or Central Europe could be taken over by organised crime.

Read the full report here

This year’s was more pessimistic about US status than on previous occasions.

It also highlighted the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East where a number of countries have considered developing or acquiring technologies that would be useful to make nuclear weapons.

“Over the next 15-20 years, reactions to the decisions Iran makes about its nuclear programme could cause a number of regional states to intensify these efforts and consider actively pursuing nuclear weapons,” the report said.

It also said some African and South Asian states could wither away altogether and that criminal gangs could take over at least one state in central Europe.

The document also predicted that conflicts of food and water resources could increase but that new technology could help develop a replacement for oil-based technologies.

“Types of conflict we have not seen for a while – such as over resources – could reemerge,” it said.

Global wealth was seen as shifting from the West to the energy-rich Gulf states and Russia, and to Asia, the rising centre of manufacturing and some service industries.

Global disparities between the rich and poor would grow, the report said, leaving Africa vulnerable to increased instability.

Iraq record

Rahul Mahajan, a political analyst and author, told Al Jazeera the report was too pessimistic in some areas.

“It seems very pessimistic about the future political prospects of countries in the Third World. It seems to pay little or no attention to indigenous or self-generated prospects for democratisation and greater representation.”

Mahajan also said the report was “ridiculously optimistic” about the development of an alternative to oil as a fuel source.

“Its important to remember this is the same group of 16 intelligence agencies that got the Iraq WMD [weapons of mass destruction] analysis so strikingly wrong.”

Source

Posted in Download | Leave a comment

Why has the Muslim world failed to develop? – Adnan Khan

Crest

The Muslim world with its vast resources continues to generate much interest among economists, thinkers and policy makers. The Muslim world since the end of the Uthmani Khilafah has had its borders drawn and redrawn after various powers interfered in the running of its affairs. The Muslim world includes the Arabian Peninsula, Turkey, North Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the south eastern countries of Malaysia and Indonesia.

Development economics is a branch of economics, which deals with how simple forms of organisation can transfer to complex forms of organisation and production. Development is seen as the ability to increase production without any consideration applied to its distribution. Economists do make a distinction between growth and development – growth is seen as more of the same goods and services whilst development is the structural and technological infrastructure behind the production. In terms of GDP, the measurement used to calculate the value of total production of goods and services, the Muslim world is second only to China with growth rates of 7% in some countries. These are growth rates most European countries would be proud of. However reading between the figures reveals many problems.

If we define development as the building of the necessary infrastructure to fulfil the basic needs of the people such as food, clothing, shelter, security and education, here the Muslim worlds comes in at the bottom of the list. Wealth in the Muslim world suffers from huge misdistribution.

The Middle East for example relies heavily upon oil revenue’s therefore it is affected greatly by changes in oil prices. Very little oil revenue actually trickles down to the population but rather ends up in US bank accounts. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud of the Saudi monarchy is valued at over $20 billion with half of his wealth invested in the US.

In the Arab world one in five Arabs still live on less than $2 a day. And, over the past 20 years, growth in income per head, at an annual rate of 0.5%, was lower than anywhere else in the world except sub-Saharan Africa.

In Pakistan 40% of land is in the hands of 23 families.

Government investment in infrastructure and public services is minimal considering the large population of the Muslim world.

The Muslim world’s elections are at best a farce, with autocratic kings and presidents only rescinding their authority when they die.

Half of the Muslim world is treated as lesser legal and economic beings, and more than half the young, burdened by joblessness and un-Islamic economic policies want to get out of their country as soon as they can.

The role of the IMF and World Bank in countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Egypt has directly aided some of the underlying economic problems. The general solution provided by such institutions is the engaging of trade to climb out of poverty and for development. In reality there are a number of obstacles placed by the developed nations that ensure developing nations will never reach a level where they can compete. What this actually means is that Western goods should be imported rather than allow imports from poorer countries. The theory is that only via trade will nations pull themselves out of poverty. Whilst encouraging the third world to lower their market barriers such as tariffs and quotas on various goods, the Western nations do not do the same for their markets. Western economies have not been developed by such subscribed policy, as outlined by Dr Ha Joon Chang in his book “Kicking away the ladder.” The continued failure of the World trade organisation clearly shows the unwillingness by Europe and the US to lower its trade barriers whilst at the same time lobbying India and China to remove their barriers.

This situation in the Muslim world stems from the colonial era and is summed up best by David Fromkin, Professor and expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago: “Massive amounts of the wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able to organize and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty.”

The absence of any organised way of generating wealth and allocating wealth has created a situation where everyone in the Muslim world needs to fend for themselves and attempt to make the best out of a chaotic situation. This just compounds the problem further as many resort to bribery, stealing and fraud to make ends meet. This shows that the people in the Muslim world are not inherently corrupt or born to steal, rather as can be seen with the Gulf States many Muslims when given the opportunities are hard working and can be relied upon.

The question that really needs to be answered is where we begin to develop the Muslim world. The Muslim world fails in applying a set of consistent polices and this has resulted in such nations being unable to unify the populace on the direction of the economy. Many policies by the rulers are time specific or usually motivated by the political climate of the time. The unfortunate result of this is that a whole host of contradictory policies are applied within the Muslim world and hence the nation doesn’t move in the same direction. Although Pakistan has the worlds largest untapped coal reserves it imports over 2 million tonnes of coal a year to meet its energy needs. Across the Muslim world there exist manufacturing companies and mining companies. However the contract to mine the Muslims world’s precious resources always go to foreign companies.

The development of the Soviet Union is a good example of how consistent polices lead to development. Socialism emerged as a very powerful force across Europe and many were attracted to it after witnessing the wide disparities in wealth distribution in Capitalist nations. The Communists after gaining power due to the failures of the Tzar set about implementing a five year plan starting in 1928, in order to build a heavy industrial base.

The five year plan was a list of economic goals that was designed to strengthen the USSR’s economy between 1928 and 1932, making the nation both militarily and industrially self-sufficient. The five year plan was to harness all economic activity to the systematic development of heavy industry, thereby transforming the Soviet Union from a primitive agrarian country into a leading industrial and military power. Carrying the plan out, the Stalin government poured resources into the production of coal, iron, steel, railway equipment, and machine tools. Whole new cities, such as Magnitogorsk in the Urals, were built with enthusiastic participation of young workers and intellectuals. This ambitious plan fostered a sense of mission and helped mobilise support for the regime. The Soviet Union played a direct role in the defeat of Hitler in World War 2 – which launched the Soviet Union to superpower status.

Islam is the only common denominator between everyone in the Muslim world. Islam has a glorious history in the region and propelled the Muslims from the deserts of Arabia to the far reaches of the earth. Therefore this would be the place to begin deriving economic policies for the Muslim world. These policies would be accepted by all Muslims as they are from Islam and would actually bring confidence in the Islamic rules once people see they can work.

Practically this means that Islam should be applied in the Muslim world and Islam’s polices on trade, ownership, companies, public finance, investment, currency and poverty elimination would need to all be applied. The derivation of such polices from the same foundations would ensure no contradictions occur as they are all coming from the same basis. All foreign policies from Socialism, the Capitalist free markets, Nasserism, Kemalism and any other ‘ism’ should be removed as these have proven to be failures.

Source

Posted in Disclosure, Economics, Empire, Middle East, Religion of Abraham | Leave a comment

Obama and the Politics of Race and Religion in America By M. SHAHID ALAM

It is perhaps a bit late in the day, nearly two weeks after November 4, to be writing about Barack Obama’s electoral victory. This want of alacrity, however, is intentional.

I thought it would be cruel to write any sooner, when whites and blacks alike were so effusively celebrating Obama’s victory. It would be unseemly to strike a discordant note when a clear majority of Americans was savoring this putative post-racial moment in their history.

Did this victory signal a shift in America’s racial tectonic plates?

Memories are so short. In the weeks following his choice of Sarah Palin on August 29, John McCain began closing the gap behind Obama. The election got closer after Palin electrified the Republican Convention with her line about how “We grow good people in our small towns…” The message to blacks, Hispanics and Asians in America’s cities was clear: they are not “good people.”

In the absence of the financial meltdown that began in early September, the election could have easily gone the other way. Sarah Palin too may have helped Obama a bit when she began displaying the breathless scope of her ignorance.

Who should we thank for Obama’s victory?

The answer is sobering. We can thank the financial meltdown and, in some measure, the threat of an Armageddon – likely to follow Palin’s succession to a geriatric McCain – for Obama’s victory. There was no shifting of tectonic plates on this continent.

If anything, America’s unquestioning identification of Obama as a ‘black’ candidate is deeply problematic. It demonstrates that the United States remains firmly rooted in ideas of race that go back to the era of slavery and Jim Crow Laws.

Obama’s mother was white and, apparently, so were all her forebears; while his father was a black African and, apparently, so were all his forebears. Obama is biracial – half-black and half-white. Why did that, automatically, make him black? If being half-black makes Obama black, by the same logic we could identify him as white.

Why didn’t we?

The answer is rooted in the history of racism in the United States, in the categorical rejection by whites of the mixing of white and black races. A person was ‘black’ if it was known that there was black ancestry, anywhere, in her lineage. This was the arithmetic of white racism. White + Black = Black.

The ban on mixed marriages in the US began quite early. It was first introduced in 1691 in slave-holding Virginia, followed a year later by another slave-holding state, Maryland. It soon spread to all the states.

At the height of the Jim Crow Era, starting in 1910, one by one the Southern states passed the one-drop rule to define race. A person with any known trace of black ancestry was condemned as black.

This arithmetic was the manifestation of white power. Its power to define race and make it stick. This arithmetic ensured that blacks could not escape their low status by marrying into whites. It would discourage whites from marrying blacks because their offspring – and their offspring – would be born into the low status of blacks.

Another aspect of Obama’s ‘race’ is conveniently forgotten. Obama is black but he is not quite African-American – the way that Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were African-American. As a ‘black,’ Obama is not descended from generations of Americans who were victimized as slaves and blacks till 1865, as blacks under Jim Crow Laws till 1964, and as America’s underclass till the present day. Arguably, some whites were more comfortable voting for a black candidate who is not ‘burdened’ with the history of blacks in this country.

Lest we forget this shame, Obama’s candidacy highlighted a new form of racism that has been on the rise since the fall of the Soviet Union, but has become quite respectable since 9-11. Concerted efforts were made by some Republicans to sink his candidacy by accusing him of being a Muslim, of having attended a madrasah.

Obama protested that he is Christian. He did not seek to distance to himself, however, from the racist premise of this accusation. On the contrary, he took care to stay away from Muslim groups who wished to meet him or host him during his campaign. On one occasion, his staff removed two Muslim women from the background that would be panned by the camera during Obama’s speech. They were a risk because they were wearing headscarves. Their presence would taint Obama’s campaign.

Is there no retreat from race in Obama’s victory? Perhaps, there is, but it is mostly symbolic. It is a brilliant victory for one black man, but will his presidency make a difference for the black underclass in this country. Will Obama make amends to the continent of his paternal forefathers by launching a new Marshall Plan for Africa? Can he dare do this?

Gladly, I voted for a Democrat this time, skipping a vote for Ralph Nader. And, when Obama won, I was relieved. We would not be staring over the next four years – with baited breath – at a gun-toting, moose-killing, hate-spewing, race-baiting, war-mongering, Rapture-seeking Sarah Palin just a heart-beat away from the Presidency of this country.

I cannot say that I felt a surge of hope at Obama’s victory. A president is only the visible face of lobbies and corporations who own this country and its ‘elected’ institutions. Unless the people are out in the streets demanding change, there will be none. Populist election-year slogans are forgotten once they have done their job at the polling stations.

Alas, my relief may be short-lived. The religious right in this country – the strongest constituency in the Republican Party – has been frustrated for now by the financial meltdown. But they are already plotting a comeback – in partnership with their Neocon cousins – riding a wave of fear-mongering and fight-them-there, alien-bashing, racist rhetoric.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University. He is author of Challenging the New Orientalism (2007). Send comments to alqalam02760@yahoo.com

Visit his website at: http://aslama.org.

Source

And

Behind the Mask – Is Obama the Muslim World’s Superman? By WAJAHAT ALI

Posted in Empire, Redneckia | Leave a comment

A Look Under the Hood of an Obama Administration By JOSHUA FRANK

Barrack Obama

Tuesday’s celebration hangovers have finally started to wear off, and the pieces are beginning to fall into place. Change will be coming to Washington in January, but it is difficult to decipher what form it will take. Early clues, however, suggest that Barack Obama’s administration will prove unlikely to alter the fundamental political machinery that has led us into war and economic turmoil. Below is a brief summary of Obama’s potential choices for a few key roles in his administration.

Chief of Staff

Obama’s key White House position will go to Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. While Emanuel knows his way around the corridors of Washington, qualifying him in the traditional sense, this alone doesn’t mean he’s the guy you want drawing up Obama’s policy papers day after day.

For starters, Emanuel is a shameless neoliberal with close ties to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), even co-authoring a strategy book with DLC president Bruce Reed. Without Emanuel, Bill Clinton would not have been able to thrust NAFTA down the throats of environmentalists and labor in the mid-1990s. Over the course of his career, Emanuel’s made it a point to cozy up to big business, making him one of the most effective corporate fundraisers in the Democratic Party. He’s also a staunch advocate of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

Emanuel’s shinning moment came in 2006 as he helped funnel money and poured ground support into the offices of dozens of conservative Democrats, expanding his party’s control of the House of Representatives. Emanuel, who supports the War on Terror, and expanding our presence in Afghanistan, worked hard to ensure that a Democratic House majority would not alter the course of US military objectives in the Middle East.

In short, Rahm Emanuel is not only a poor choice for Obama’s Chief of Staff; he’s one of the least progressive picks he could have made. While he may have decent views on abortion, tax policy, and social security, Emanuel’s broader vision is more of the same: war and corporate dominance.

Treasury Secretary
For arguably the most important position Obama will be appointing, the President-Elect may pick well-regarded economist Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Volker is one of Obama’s closest economic advisors and is thought to be the top-choice for the position of Treasury Secretary.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Volker, in an attempt to cut inflation, dramatically raised interest rates, which helped the elite maintain value in their assets but strangled the working class as credit dried up.

In his book, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, David Harvey writes that Volker personified one of the key facets of the neoliberal era.

“[Volker] engineered a draconian shift in U.S. monetary policy. The long-standing commitment in the U.S. liberal democratic state to the principles of the New Deal, which meant broadly Keynesian fiscal and monetary policies with full employment as a key objective, was abandoned in favour of a policy designed to quell inflation no matter what the consequences might be for employment. The real rate of interest, which had often been negative during the double-digit inflationary surge of the 1970s, was rendered positive by fiat of the Federal Reserve. The nominal rate of interest was raised overnight … Thus began ‘a long deep recession that would empty factories and break unions in the U.S. and drive detour countries to the brink of insolvency, beginning a long-era of structural insolvency’. The Volker shock, as it has since come to be known, has to be interpreted as a necessary but not sufficient condition of neoliberalism.”

In supporting Henry Paulson’s bailout package, Volker would not re-regulate the banks nor provide more power to shareholders, he’s simply carry on one facet of neoliberalism: tightening federal budgets which inevitably will put great budgetary pressure on federal agencies.

Another potential pick for the post is Robert Rubin, who served under Clinton in the same position and is currently Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup. Rubin played a key role in abetting another neoliberal objective: deregulation. Where Volker was hung up on economic austerity, Rubin pushed for more deregulatory policies that ended up shifting jobs, and entire industries, overseas.

Rubin even pushed for Clinton’s dismantling of Glass-Steagall, testifying that deregulating the banking industry would be good for capital gains, as well as Main Street. “[The] banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933,” Rubin testified before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services in May of 1995.

“[Glass-Steagall could] conceivably impede safety and soundness by limiting revenue diversification,” Rubin argued.

While the industry saw much deregulation over the years preceding these events, the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act of 1999, which eliminated Glass-Steagall, extended and ratified changes that had been enacted with previous legislation. Ultimately, the repeal of the New Deal era protection allowed commercial lenders like Rubin’s Citigroup to underwrite and trade instruments like mortgage backed securities along with collateralized debt and established structured investment vehicles (SIVs), which purchased these securities. In short, as the lines were blurred among investment banks, commercial banks and insurance companies, when one industry fell, others could too.

Robert Rubin is in part responsible for supporting the policies that pushed us to the brink of a great recession. When the subprime mortgage crisis hit, instability and collapse spread across numerous industries.

Defense Secretary
While Obama’s choice for this important role is speculative, quite a few fingers are pointing to Richard Holbrooke.

After Gerald Ford’s loss and Jimmy Carter’s ascendance into the White House in 1976, Indonesia, which invaded East Timor and slaughtered 200,000 indigenous Timorese years earlier, requested additional arms to continue its brutal occupation, even though there was a supposed ban on arms trades to Suharto’s government. It was Carter’s appointee to the Department of State’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Richard Holbrooke, who authorized additional arms shipments to Indonesia during this supposed blockade. Many scholars have noted that this was the period when the Indonesian suppression of the Timorese reached genocidal levels.

During his testimony before Congress in February 1978, Benedict Anderson of Cornell University cited a report that proved there never was a United States arms ban, and that during the period of the alleged ban; the US initiated new offers of military weaponry to the Indonesians at Holbrooke’s request.

Over the years Holbrooke, who is philosophically aligned with Paul Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives, has worked vigorously to keep his bloody campaign silent. Holbrooke described the motivations behind his support of Indonesia’s genocidal actions:

“The situation in East Timor is one of the number of very important concerns of the United States in Indonesia. Indonesia, with a population of 150 million people, is the fifth largest nation in the world, is a moderate member of the Non-Aligned Movement, is an important oil producer — which plays a moderate role within OPEC — and occupies a strategic position astride the sea lanes between the Pacific and Indian Oceans … We highly value our cooperative relationship with Indonesia.”

Other foreign policy advisors may also include the likes of Madeline Albright, the great supporter of Iraq sanctions, which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Madeline Albright, when asked by Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes about the deaths caused by U.N. sanctions, infamously condoned the deaths. “I think this is a very hard choice,” she said. “But the price–we think the price is worth it.”

Samantha Power, that great cheerleader for humanitarian intervention, also has Obama’s ear and may even entice him to put U.S. forces in Darfur.

“With very few exceptions, the Save Darfur campaign has drawn a single lesson from Rwanda: the problem was the US failure to intervene to stop the genocide. Rwanda is the guilt that America must expiate, and to do so it must be ready to intervene, for good and against evil, even globally. That lesson is inscribed at the heart of Samantha of Power’s book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. But it is the wrong lesson,” writes author Mahmood Mamdani in the London Review of Books.

As Mamdani continues: “What the humanitarian intervention lobby fails to see is that the US did intervene in Rwanda, through a proxy … Instead of using its resources and influence to bring about a political solution to the civil war, and then strengthen it, the US signalled to one of the parties that it could pursue victory with impunity. This unilateralism was part of what led to the disaster, and that is the real lesson of Rwanda … Applied to Darfur and Sudan, it is sobering. It means recognising that Darfur is not yet another Rwanda. Nurturing hopes of an external military intervention among those in the insurgency who aspire to victory and reinforcing the fears of those in the counter-insurgency who see it as a prelude to defeat are precisely the ways to ensure that it becomes a Rwanda.”

The Next Step
While the election of Barack Obama is a blow to George W. Bush-Republicanism and a gain for racial equality in this country, it is in many ways only a symbolic victory. The future of the U.S.’s foreign and economic agenda will continue to be saturated with ideologies and individuals that are directly responsible for our current predicament, both in the Middle East and domestically.

Celebrating the end of the ugly Bush era is one thing. Celebrating the continuation of their policies with a different administration in the White House is quite another. With these prospective appointments, Obama seems to be moving backwards to Clintontime. This may be sufficient change for some, but it far from a progressive push toward social, economic, and environmental justice.

For significant change to happen, the kind that is needed in order to mend the wounds of the Bush years, we have to put down our Obama signs and force Congress and the new administration to end the wars in the Middle East, and push for regulating the financial industry while providing true universal health-care and economic safety-nets for all Americans.

Given the make up of his potential advisors, we’re in for a long uphill battle. So let’s drop our illusions and start organizing, beginning with a discussion of what “organizing” even means in today’s political climate.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the brand new book Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, published by AK Press in July 2008. He can be reached at: brickburner@gmail.com

Source

Rhetoric Alone Is Not Enough – Great Expectations By TARIQ ALI

Check this out..
A Plea from Israel Come, Obama, Change My Life By EDNA CANETTI 

No Signs of Change in Obama’s Middle East Policies – The Irresponsibility of Appointing Hillary Clinton Secretary of State By BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON

In 2005 Hillary Clinton stood in Palestine and praised the apartheid wall that the government of Israel was building with large amounts of U.S. aid in furtherance of the Zionist goal of destroying one of the world’s peoples — the Palestinians. This is the wall that the United Nations’ World Court has declared contrary to international law. And this is just one example of Hillary Clinton’s total support for all of Israel’s policies to oppress and eventually expel whatever elements of the Palestinian population remain west of the Jordan River…….

The Obama Letdown By MICHAEL HUDSON – 26 Nov.08

An Administration in Search of a Progressive: the Team Obama Should Have Picked

“Don’t Pee on Me and Tell Me It’s Raining…” – The Ideology of No Ideology – By NORMAN SOLOMON

Concerns grow over Obama choices

Posted in Disclosure, Empire, Redneckia | Leave a comment

Misconceptions of Obama fuel Republican campaign – 13 Oct 08

Fox news attacks Obama

Voting machine problems; Long lines at the polls today

Missing ballots, balky machines hamper voting in key states

Straight-ticket voting not straightforward

Tim Robbins clashes with poll worker

Posted in Empire, Redneckia | 1 Comment

Message of Massacre Lives on for Palestinians -The Executions at Kafr Qassem By JONATHAN COOK

pal-demo-13apr02-682.jpg

In a conflict that has produced more than its share of suffering and tragedy, the name of Kafr Qassem lives on in infamy more than half a century after Israeli police gunned down 47 Palestinian civilians, including women and children, in the village.

This week Kafr Qassem’s inhabitants, joined by a handful of Israeli Jewish sympathisers, commemorated the anniversary of the deaths 52 years ago by marching to the cemetery where the victims were laid to rest.

They did so as the local media revisited the events, publishing testimonies from two former senior police officers who recalled the order from their commander to shoot all civilians breaking a last-minute curfew imposed on the village, which lies just inside Israel’s borders.

The two men, who were stationed at villages close to Kafr Qassem, suggested that, had they not personally disobeyed the order when confronted with Palestinians returning from work, the death toll would have been far higher.

Taking part in the annual march was one of the few survivors of the massacre. Saleh Khalil Issa is today 71, but back in 1956 he was an 18-year-old agricultural worker.

He remembered returning to the village on his bicycle, along with a dozen other workers, just after 5pm on 29 October 1956.

What he and the other villagers did not know was that earlier that day the Border Police, a special paramilitary unit that operates inside both Israel and the occupied territories, had agreed to set up checkpoints unannounced at the entrance to half a dozen Palestinian villages inside Israel.

The villages were selected because they lie close to the Green Line, the ceasefire line between Israel and Jordan, which was then occupying the West Bank, following the 1948 war.

At a briefing the commanding officer, Major Shmuel Malinki, ordered his men to shoot any civilian arriving home after 5pm.

Asked about the fate of women or children returning late, Malinki replied: “Without sentiment, the curfew applies to everyone.” Pressed on the point, he responded in Arabic: “Allah yarahmum [God have mercy on them]”, adding that this was the order from the brigade commander, Colonel Issachar Shadmi.

Mr Issa said that, when his group reached the village, they were stopped by three policemen. “They told us to get off our bikes and form a line. The commander asked where we were from. When we replied ‘Kafr Qassem’, he took three steps back and told his colleagues, ‘Cut them down!’”

Mr Issa, who was shot in the arm and leg, pretended to be dead among the bodies. He heard villagers’ cars arriving and the policemen ask the same question. Each new arrival was executed.

“Finally, I heard a bus arrive with female passengers, including young girls. I later learnt that there were 12 of them on board. They were forced to get out and shot too, though one survived like me.”

Mr Issa said the policemen checked to see if any of the victims were moving, and then fired more bullets at them. While the police officers were not watching, he crawled away and hid behind a tree. He was found the next morning and taken to a hospital in nearby Petah Tikva, along with 12 other injured.

Of the dead, seven were children and nine women, including one who was pregnant.

Mohammed Arabi, today 84, arrived at the same checkpoint later that evening. A tailor, he had spent the day in Tel Aviv buying materials and hitched a lift home in the back of a truck with 26 other villagers.

When the driver tried to drop 11 of them off just outside the village, they came under fire. The 11 jumped back into the truck, he said, and the driver sped up the hill towards the village.

“When we reached the entrance to the village, we saw bodies everywhere. The driver panicked, frightened to go back, but forced to drive over several corpses lying in the street to get away.”

A short distance ahead, however, a detachment of policemen stopped them. Mr Arabi overheard a debate between the policemen about whether to let them go home or take them to the eastern side of the village.

“I knew what was being suggested. The eastern side was the border with the West Bank. Palestinians were regularly shot on sight by the police for trying to cross into Israel. If we were killed there, it would look like we were infiltrators.”

The commander said he would follow behind the truck in his jeep and escort them to the village’s eastern entrance.

“We were saved by a shepherd who at that moment was driving a large flock of sheep into the village. The sheep separated us from the police, and the truck driver saw his chance. He drove off at top speed and escaped.

“He took us to his home and all 27 of us hid there for three days, too frightened to come out.”

Despite the appalling loss of life, Israel has been slow to come to terms with the massacre. Mr Issa and other villagers were repeatedly arrested in subsequent years as they tried to stage a commemoration.

On the insistence of the government, the plaque erected in the village square to commemorate the deaths refers to the event as a “tragedy” rather a “massacre”. No government official has ever attended the annual march.

Kafr Qassem had to wait until December last year to receive what some interpreted as an official apology. President Shimon Peres, who in 1956 headed the Defence Ministry, told the villagers that “in the past a very serious event occurred that we greatly regret”.

In another possible sign of shifting attitudes, the Israeli media re-examined the massacre this month by interviewing two former officers in the Border Police who were given the task of imposing the last-minute curfew on villages neighbouring Kafr Qassem.

The curfew was imposed in the immediate build-up to Israel’s surprise attack on the Sinai as part of the Suez war.

According to Israeli historian Tom Segev, it later emerged that the decision to seal off the villages was one element of a contingency plan to expel the inhabitants to Jordan under cover of the war. Mr Arabi pointed out that the entrances to Kafr Qassem were shut on three sides, leaving open only an exit to the West Bank.

The government hushed up the massacre for two months. Excerpts from the Israeli state archives released in 2001 reveal a heated cabinet debate as ministers argued about whether to try the police officers in secret.

The prime minister of the day, David Ben-Gurion, eventually decided to go public, adding that “those who gave the order will get a strict verdict. I don’t think the soldiers are guilty.”

In fact, the Israeli media reported at the time that the policemen involved “all received a 50 per cent increase in their salaries” and that they were treated in the courtroom “as heroes”.

When a trial was held, the commander, Col Shadmi, was found guilty of making an “administrative error” and fined a penny. Although his men received lengthy prison terms, they were pardoned and released after a short time.

Several went on to distinguished careers in public service, including Lieutenant Gavriel Dahan, who carried out the executions in Kafr Qassem. He was later appointed head of Arab affairs in the mixed town of Ramle.

Mr Issa, who was called to testify, said: “The trial was a farce. It was a game, to make it look as though they were dealing with the matter seriously.” He was later awarded 700 lire compensation, less than a year’s wage.

The main outcome of the trial was a recommendation from the court that some orders were “manifestly unlawful” and should be disobeyed – or what has come to be referred to as a “black flag order”.

This month the Haaretz newspaper published lengthy interviews with two surviving former Border Police officers who were part of a team charged with enforcing the curfew.

They admitted that Major Malinki had urged them to shoot civilians at the briefing.

Nimrod Lampert, now aged 74 but then a 22-year-old lieutenant posted at Kafr Bara, recalled that Malinki thought “it would be desirable to have a few people killed in each village … It was also clear to me that Malinki’s order was effectively to murder people in cold blood.”

When faced with villagers arriving after the 5pm curfew, Lampert ignored his instructions and told his men to spare them.

Lampert remembered the company commander Haim Levy’s arrival at Bara. “He asked, ‘Well, not one person has been killed here? In other places people have been killed.’ I replied: What to do – should we take people out of their homes and shoot them?”

As news of the massacre broke, Lampert was ordered to drive to Kafr Qassem. “When I got there I thought I was going to pass out. There was no one there – only dozens of bodies scattered everywhere.”

Lampert said that during the subsequent trial his fellow officers “were very angry with me for not doing what they did … I also received threats on my life. For two years after the trial I received telephone threats.”

Lampert was not alone in refusing the order. Binyamin Kol, now 77, was 25 in 1956 and the senior officer assigned to the village of Jaljulya.

A refugee from Nazi Germany, he had experienced Kristallnacht in 1938 when Nazi troops conducted a pogrom against the local Jewish population. He was saved when a Nazi policeman warned him: “Run home fast, boy.”

Remembering that moment 18 years later as Arab workers arrived at his checkpoint, he said: “I fired in the air and shouted in Arabic – ‘Yallah, go home fast’ – just like the German policeman who warned me on Kristallnacht.”

Like Lampert, Kol admitted to feeling ashamed during the trial for refusing to obey his orders. He testified in court that, when he heard about the growing number of dead in Kafr Qasem, he felt “envious” of the commander there, Lieutenant Dahan.

Analysing the transcripts of the trial, Mr Segev has noted that the reason why many of the policemen followed a “manifestly unlawful” order was because of a general racism in Israeli society: “They hated Arabs”.

The threat of expulsion continues to haunt the inhabitants of Kafr Qassem and its neighbouring villages. It is the main platform of Avigdor Lieberman, a politician who was appointed deputy prime minister at one point in Ehud Olmert’s government.

Mr Arabi observed that the massacre at Kafr Qassem had changed Palestinians’ response to Israeli violence. “In the 1948 war, many people fled when faced with the Israeli army, expecting to return after the fighting. After Kafr Qassem, Palestinians learnt that Israel did not play by the rules of war. We learnt that sumud [steadfastness] was our only defence.”

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.

Posted in Palestine | Leave a comment

World Tires of Rule by Dollar By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

In Greed We Trust

What explains the paradox of the dollar’s sharp rise in value against other currencies (except the Japanese yen) despite disproportionate US exposure to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?

The answer does not lie in improved fundamentals for the US economy or better prospects for the dollar to retain its reserve currency role.

The rise in the dollar’s exchange value is due to two factors.

One factor is the traditional flight to the reserve currency that results from panic. People are simply doing what they have always done. Pam Martens predicted correctly that panic demand for US Treasury bills would boost the US dollar.

The other factor is the unwinding of the carry trade. The carry trade originated in extremely low Japanese interest rates. Investors and speculators borrowed Japanese yen at an interest rate of one-half of one percent, converted the yen to other currencies, and purchased debt instruments from other countries that pay much higher interest rates. In effect, they were getting practically free funds from Japan to lend to others paying higher interest.

The financial crisis has reversed this process. The toxic American derivatives were marketed worldwide by Wall Street. They have endangered the balance sheets and solvency of financial institutions throughout the world, including national governments, such as Iceland and Hungary. Banks and governments that invested in the troubled American financial instruments found their own debt instruments in jeopardy.

Those who used yen loans to purchase, for example, debt instruments from European banks or Icelandic bonds, faced potentially catastrophic losses. Investors and speculators sold their higher-yielding financial instruments in a scramble for dollars and yen in order to pay off their Japanese loans. This drove up the values of the yen and the US dollar, the reserve currency that can be used to repay debts, and drove down the values of other currencies.

The dollar’s rise is temporary, and its prospects are bleak. The US trade deficit will lessen due to less consumer spending during recession, but it will remain the largest in the world and one that the US cannot close by exporting more. The way the US trade deficit is financed is by foreigners acquiring more dollar assets, with which their portfolios are already heavily weighted.

The US government’s budget deficit is large and growing, adding hundreds of billions of dollars more to an already large national debt. As investors flee equities into US government bills, the market for US Treasuries will temporarily depend less on foreign governments. Nevertheless, the burden on foreigners and on world savings of having to finance American consumption, the US government’s wars and military budget, and the US financial bailout is increasingly resented.

This resentment, combined with the harm done to America’s reputation by the financial crisis, has led to numerous calls for a new financial order in which the US plays a substantially lesser role. “Overcoming the financial crisis” are code words for the rest of the world’s intent to overthrow US financial hegemony.

Brazil, Russia, India and China have formed a new group (BRIC) to coordinate their interests at the November financial summit in Washington, D.C.

On October 28, RIA Novosti reported that Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin suggested to China that the two countries use their own currencies in their bilateral trade, thus avoiding the use of the dollar. China’s prime Minister Wen Jiabao replied that strengthening bilateral relations is strategic.

Europe has also served notice that it intends to exert a new leadership role. Four members of the Group of Seven industrial nations, France, Britain, Germany and Italy, used the financial crisis to call for sweeping reforms of the world financial system. Jose Manual Barroso, president of the European Commission, said that a new world financial system is possible only “if Europe has a leadership role.”

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said that the “economic egoism” of America’s “unipolar vision of the world” is a ”dead-end policy.”

China’s massive foreign exchange reserves and its strong position in manufacturing have given China the leadership role in Asia. The deputy prime minister of Thailand recently designated the Chinese yuan as “the rightful and anointed convertible currency of the world.”

Normally, the Chinese are very circumspect in what they say, but on October 24 Reuters reported that the People’s Daily, the official government newspaper, in a front-page commentary accused the US of plundering “global wealth by exploiting the dollar’s dominance.” To correct this unacceptable situation, the commentary called for Asian and European countries to “banish the US dollar from their direct trade relations, relying only on their own currencies.” And this step, said the commentary, is merely a starting step in overthrowing dollar dominance.

The Chinese are expressing other thoughts that would get the attention of a less deluded and arrogant American government. Zhou Jiangong, editor of the online publication, Chinastates.com, recently asked: “Why should China help the US to issue debt without end in the belief that the national credit of the US can expand without limit?”

Zhou Jiangong’s solution to American excesses is for China to take over Wall Street.

China has the money to do it, and the prudent Chinese would do a better job than the crowd of thieves who have destroyed America’s financial reputation while exploiting the world in pursuit of multi-million dollar bonuses.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Source

“We’re All Linked” – Meet the World’s New Currency: the Chinese Yuan By MIKE WHITNEY

The End of the American Road – The New Neo-Con Reality By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Posted in Disclosure, Economics, Empire | Leave a comment

There are Alternatives to Free Market Capitalism! – Islamic Economics

Dinar

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 was heralded as a landmark event in history; it was considered the wholesale rejection of a way of life and end of Communism. The post – WW2 world was dominated by the competition between the Capitalist free market led by the US and state intervention led by the Soviet Union. Francis Fukuyama considered one of the most important living public intellectuals considered the development of ideas to have ended in his ‘end of history’ thesis as there was no meaningful debate left between Marxism and the market.

The Global credit crunch more then a year on shows no sign of slowing down and has now reached boiling point due to the number of banks that continue to collapse. Comparisons continue to be made with the great depression of the 1930’s, as many of the conditions present in the current crisis were also present on the eve of the great depression.

Prior to the collapse of many of Wall streets titans in September 2008 various thinkers and free market ideologues continued to argue just as their free market ancestors did in the 1930’s and against mounting evidence to the contrary, that time and nature would restore prosperity if governments refrained from manipulating the economy. Western governments have been forced to throw their Capitalist free market blueprint out of the window and intervene in the economy like never before. Over $5 trillion in total market capitalisation has been wiped out since October 2007, with over a trillion of this accounted for by the unravelling of Wall Street’s financial titans.

This crisis is much more then a financial crisis, this has now been accepted by free market ideologues that played down the prospects of a recession and labelled those who did as doomsayers, talking themselves into a recession. Such thinkers are now in hiding with very few economists prepared to remind the world of Capitalisms principled argument, as the Economist reminded us all: “excess and calamity are part of the package of Western finance. And still it is worth it.” With consumer deposits, savings and jobs all at stake this crisis has well and truly brought into question the suitability of the free market and as one geopolitical expert put it: “as the details of the present crisis reveal, there are huge ideological fault lines making for chaos and a potential meltdown of the Laissez Faire financial system.”

There are three reasons why the credit crunch crisis occurred:

1. The financial industry created complex financial contracts like derivatives that would securitize and make money from all forms of risk, this included exotic instruments such as credit default swaps and subprime loans. Banks continued to sell debt to customers with little ability to repay them, August 2007 was the point when such debt reached bursting point.

2. The speculative frenzy that gripped both the American market as well as Europe in the purchase of real estate which continued to send real estate prices to astronomical levels.

3. Greed played a direct role in the crisis as it led to predatory lending to people that had little means to make repayments. It also led to credit ratings agencies to rate investments less risky than they really were.

The events of September 2008 have for most brought to the forefront the potential demise of Capitalism as we know it and a discussion on potential alternatives. Like all previous crises any debate on alternatives is usually reduced to one of Socialist government intervention or to tinkering with regulation and transparency rules, there a number of reasons why the global credit crunch crisis represents a much deeper crisis at the heart of capitalism which was outlined by world renowned speculator George Soro’s: ‘what we are going through is the crisis of the gigantic circulatory system of a global capitalist system that is…coming apart at the seams.’

1. The periodic crash and crises as well as the boom and bust phenomena capitalism continues to historically descend into whether it is in Dutch tulips, the South sea bubble, the technology bubble as well as the dot.com crash and now the sub-prime crisis are fundamentally down to the aims Capitalism attempts to achieve with the economy. Perpetual economic growth (increasing GDP) will always lead to the development of a bubble in the economy as some section of the economy will always be needed to stimulate the remainder of the economy to ensure the economy keeps growing. The current crisis has at its heart the bubble in the housing market, the recession of 2001 across the Western world was due to the bursting of the dot.com bubble. The cyclical recession free market ideologues continue justify is something which proves the failure of Capitalism to maintain stability and is in no way due to seasonal trends.

2. The greed shown by speculators is not something isolated that has occurred for the first time in Capitalist history, it is something that forms the cornerstone of Capitalist belief and thought. The founding fathers of Capitalism concluded that if all consumers in society followed and acted upon their self-interests and greed then the right goods would get to the right people in a free market, it would lead to innovation as society competed to make items better and cheaper. Economists since then have continued to argue that greed goes hand in hand with the free market as it is necessary for consumers to pursue their greed for wealth to distribute around the economy. This has led to the current situation where hedge fund managers and company CEO’s have earned bonuses in the millions to the detriment of wider society. Greed is from the Capitalists belief; legislation and regulation in no way can curtail actions built upon values which are the foundations of the Capitalist belief.

3. The market has been sold to the world as the best method for sellers and buyers to conduct transactions and the most efficient way to distribute wealth around an economy. For years both the IMF and World Bank forced open economies in effect using the stick to ensure government intervention was completely removed from the economy. Academic textbooks in schools and colleges argued free markets mean competition will do away with companies that make any product inefficiently and it was the best way for all to partake in the wealth generation process as any individual with an innovation can meet any demand in the economy. The free market apparently got the right goods to the right people. In reality however the market works much differently, with little regulation sub-prime mortgages were created as well as derivatives. Short selling is a direct result of the free markets removal of regulation which resulted in speculative betting on the collapse of companies. The free market in the US which was for long America’s symbol of success has in affect brought the nation to its knees, this was outlined by John Gray former London Schools of Economics political philosopher: ‘the American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated. In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed.’

The Alternative: Islam

The current financial crisis has seriously eroded confidence the Western world had in the suitability of the free market. However the Western world when looking at alternatives only see remnants of Socialism or some state intervention in economy as feasible and workable systems. It is also this reason that allowes free market ideologues to continue citing more regulation, transparency i.e. more capitalism with some tinkering as solutions. This crisis represents an opportunity for all Muslims to present the Islamic alternative. It is important to show Islamic economics as much more then Islamic finance and Banking. This is exactly what Adnan Ahmed Yousif, CEO of the Bahraini-based Albaraka Banking Group and chair of the Union of Arab Banks outlined in an interview with the Middle East’s Asharq Al-Awsat when asked about the global financial crisis: ‘The success of Islamic banking will lead to serious consideration of Islamic economics, which continues to realize numerous achievements, as a viable alternative to the current global economic system which continues to be hit by these crises.’ With this in mind the following points should be borne in mind and when presenting Islam:-

1. The Islamic economy follows a philosophy which is very different to Capitalism, as a result the end objectives both economies attempt to achieve, widely differ and thus it would be invalid to measure one against the other as they both have different foundations and aims. Islam has detailed laws on the distribution of wealth and this is its ultimate aim with the economy – to ensure wealth circulates around the economy so all can share in the wealth that is generated.

2. Because all economic systems aim to address the same issues, there are many peripheral similarities between Islam and the free market. At a doctrinal level however Islam and Capitalism are two distinct systems. The Islamic economic system is fundamentally about people and their needs, this is the fundamental principal the Islamic economy is built around. In a narration from prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) it was said that “The son of Adam has no better right than that he would have a house wherein he may live and a piece of cloth whereby he may hide his nakedness and a piece of bread and some water” (Tirmidhi). The Islamic economy is geared towards fulfilling the basic needs of its citizens and these in origin were defined as food, clothing and accommodation. This forms the basis of the Economic system of Islam, all policies and rules are geared towards achieving such ends. Islam focuses on the needs of the people which the hadith outlined and not merely increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

3. Islam does not view the human as an economic unit and then look to find the most economically viable solution thus viewing all problems, whether from marriage to pensions to drugs to education, from the angle of the economic effect and cost. Neither does Islam view the human the way the Communists did which is that people are simply matter, just one aspect of nature, nothing more. Islam views the human as being composed of organic needs as well as instincts, all of which requires answers on how to satisfy them. So Islam organised these instincts and needs in a way that ensures the satisfaction of them all, such as the need to eat and the need to reproduce and others. However, this organisation is not arranged in Islam by satisfying some of them at the expense of the others, nor by suppressing some of them, setting others loose, or setting all of them loose. Instead, Islam has co-ordinated the satisfaction of all of them in a way to ensure comfort, preventing conflicts and a lapse to a primitive level through the anarchism of instincts.

4. Through its own economic system, Islam laid down rules for the means to acquire wealth and commodities, how they can be utilised and their manner of disposal. It certainly did not make freedom of ownership the basis of the economic system or even the socialist principal of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’. It did not define the basic problem as ‘unlimited wants, limited resources’. Islam views the resources to be ample enough to completely satisfy the basic needs of all. Therefore, amongst a host of other detailed rules, one will find the Shari’ah aims to secure the satisfaction of all basic needs (food, clothing and housing) completely for every citizen of the Khilafah State.

5. In order to facilitate the acquisition of goods and services Islam put forward rules related to the manner of possessing wealth without any complications. Islam defined the legal means of ownership, and it defined the contracts through which possession can take place. This left humanity free to develop the styles and means by which they earn, as Islam did not interfere in the production of wealth.

6. The Islamic economic system has extensive rules for ownership and disposal of citizen’s wealth and assets. Beyond this Islam recognises a sphere of the economy as the economic science i.e. through study and research a solution can be derived. Hence how to develop and economy or to industrialise, where the factories and the supply lines should be, how the steel and iron mills should be constructed fall under this category, however what is produced and how it is distributed falls under the ‘system’ for which Islam has extensive rules.

7. The Islamic economy is based upon wealth generation where participants partake in investment, employment and trade in the real economy. Islam does not have a dual economy where the real economy operates alongside a financial sector. The Islamic economy focuses all participants on the real economy, through employment, company profits, utilisation of land (agriculture) and manufacturing, wealth is generated in only one sector. This brings the huge benefit of wealth only circulating in one sector – the real economy, where all can participate. Derivatives would be withdrawn as this type of contract is not trade in real goods; rather it is betting on the price movements of a commodity and one must posses what they sell in Islam.

8. The Islamic system does not recognise the financial markets in their current form. One is able to purchase shares and transfer them without actually partaking in the running of the underlying company that the shares are meant to represent. In Islam ownership is a direct role in a company and not just a share certificate which in effect the stock market allows to be traded and re-traded. It is this ability to not have a direct role in a company that allows excessive speculation.

9. The Islamic economic system does not recognise the financial markets in their current form and has made the Western style Public Limited company (joint stock (share)) companies haraam for a number of reasons. Fundamentally this type of contract contradicts the Islamic rules for contracts. The company in the West represents a particular type of contract – the ‘Solitary Will,’ this is where an individual agrees to the written constitution of a company by purchasing its shares with no formal offer from anyone. This has come to be termed as the Individual Will whereby shares could be exchanged very quickly without the need for two people to continuously sit down and have a formal offer and acceptance. An example of this is the take-over bid of the world’s richest football club, Manchester United FC by Malcolm Glazier in 2005. He imposed his will on the company (i.e. he brought shares) and even though other shareholders were against such an action it was a legal form of acquiring ownership even though there was only one person in the contract. Most contracts involve two parties where one party offers terms and the other accepts, however under corporate law in the West setting up a business is a contract of ‘solitary will.’ It is not a contract between two or more people; rather it is an agreement that stipulates that all parties agree to it when they subscribe for shares in the company. So an individual joins himself to the conditions of a company – through purchasing their shares. This means to become a partner one does not need approval from the existing owners – this contradicts Islam.

10. Islam’s monetary policy is centred around a legal tender based upon the Gold and Silver standard and not one based upon interest rates to regulate inflation and the economy. In Islam when it comes to exchanging a commodity with a specific monetary unit, Islam has guided Muslims to the monetary unit by which the exchange is to take place. It has restricted the Khilafah to a specific type of money, which is gold and silver. The Islamic evidences have designated gold and silver as the primary measuring unit for prices and labour. This is understood from the actions of Muhammad (saw) when he collected Zakat, levied taxes and imposed fines, all were measured according to gold and silver. This means the notes and coins circulating in the economy would all be backed by gold and silver. This will no longer make possible the free printing of currency as the Khilafah would need to increase the actual holdings of gold and silver. This has a unique effect on Inflation which free market economies have been unable to contain.

11. Islam contains inflation by changing the role of banks. Currently banks practice fractional reserve banking whereby they create credit, borrow money from the financial markets and lend to depositors. This creates a big problem in the economy as very little equity can be used as collateral to borrow large sums of money which creates a bubble waiting to burst. Islam strips the ability of banks to create money and transfers this to the central treasury – bait ul mal. Money creation will be the sole role of the state.

12. The role of banks in Islam will be to collect the nation’s deposits and to also act as a central pool whereby money can be collected and invested in the economy, with the returns being distributed amongst investors. The banks would only be able to invest what they have in deposits and cannot create money as this is the role of the central treasury – bait ul mal. As interest (Riba) is haraam the main function of banks will become the pooling of wealth which can then be invested across the economy aiding wealth distribution and economic growth.

13. The Islamic economy is stripped of ‘interest’ as this is something Islam has categorically forbidden in the Qur’an. Holding wealth in a bank account will no longer accrue interest and any unused wealth for a year is liable for taxation. In this way such wealth is only productive if invested or spent, and this can only take place in the real economy. The removal of interest in the economy will act as a multiplier affect circulating wealth around the economy.

14. Islam does not have a concept of income tax; value added tax, excise duties, nor national insurance contributions. Rather Islam puts the emphasis of taxation on wealth rather than income. Take the average salary in the UK of £24,000. At current tax rates the tax burden alongside National Insurance contributions falls at 33%. This alongside indirect taxation (that is taxation on spending rather than income) as well as council tax, road tax and so forth mean that the real tax burden falls at closer to the 40-50% mark. This means that the average person in UK is losing between £10,000-12,000. So at higher wage levels, the monetary amounts lost towards taxation is much greater.

15. In Islam, although simplified, the wealth tax falls at 2.5%. This means that within one year, on average one can save at least £10,000. Therefore two or three people could easily enter into a business contract such as Mudharabah (An Islamic company where one provides the Capital and the second partner works with it) to supply some of the demand in the economy for consumer or manufactured goods thereby creating more employment in the economy. With no concept of interest rates and hoarding forbidden in Islam wealth will circulate quickly ensuring the public can purchase what they specifically need, creating employment and giving all more and more disposable income.

16. Islam considers poverty as one matter for humans in any country and in any generation. Poverty in the view of Islam is the non-satisfaction of the basic needs in a complete way. Islam defined these basic needs as three things, which are food, clothing and accommodation. This is seen from the following evidences “The duty of feeding and clothing nursing of mothers in a seemly manner is upon the father of the child.” (Al-Baqarah: 233) and “Lodge them where you dwell, according to your wealth.” (At-Talaq: 6). Specifically Islam made the financial support (Nafaqah) compulsory from the revenues of the Bait ul-Mal and from Zakah. From a Macroeconomic perspective the removal of interest, the financial markets and direct taxation allows wealth to freely circulate around the economy so all citizens can partake in the wealth generation process.

17. Islam has ordained the state to play a direct role in the economy and does not leave things completely to the market. Islam lays out three types of property; state, public and private. It designated any utility regarded as indispensable for the community, such that its absence would require people to search far and wide for it, as public property. It would then be publicly owned and the revenue generates would be administered for the benefit of all citizens. This is derived from the hadith of the Prophet (SAW) “Muslims are partners in three things: in water, pastures and fire”. Although the hadith mentioned just three things we can utilise qiyas (analogy) and extend the evidence to cover all instances of indispensable community utilities. Thus water sources, forests of firewood, pastures for livestock and the like are all public utilities as well as the mosques, state schools, hospitals, oil fields, electricity plants, motorways, rivers, seas, lakes, public canals, gulfs, straits, dams etc. Islam would allow ownership if it were not indispensable for the community. This solution will have a unique effect, as it will ensure all will receive the basic requirements to live and not be at the will of monopolies or high prices.

Conclusions

The rejected $700-billion and all subsequent buyout of banks’ bad mortgaged-backed securities is not a strategy but mainly a desperate effort to shore up confidence in the system, to prevent the erosion of trust in the banks and other financial institutions and preventing a massive bank run such as the one that triggered the Great Depression of 1929. Having created the conditions that produced history’s biggest bubble, America’s political leaders appear unable to grasp the magnitude of the dangers they are facing. As the rejection of the original bailout package showed they are mired in their rancorous squabbling among themselves.

What has been very clear from the contradictory moves of allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse while taking over AIG, and engineering Bank of America’s takeover of Merrill Lynch — there’s no strategy to deal with the crisis, just tactical responses.

Islam offers the Western world its last salvation from descending into complete chaos as the Western world’s deposits continue to shrink through further collapses and the last remaining strategy the Western world has left – the printing of more money.

Source

Posted in Economics, Religion of Abraham | 1 Comment

Not one shred of evidence – SMH – 25 Oct.08

Haneef

Federal police knew they had nothing to link Mohammed Haneef to terrorism, but pressed on regardless writes David Marr.

Even before charging him last year, the Australian Federal Police knew Mohammed Haneef’s old SIM card was not used by a terrorist cell. In the public’s mind, that card was the one sexy piece of evidence somehow linking the Gold Coast doctor to botched attempts by his cousin Kafeel Ahmed to blow up a London nightclub and Glasgow airport. The police have now admitted they knew the card was never used and never there. But it grounded the charge.

From the mountain of paper about the Haneef fiasco – to which the AFP added last Thursday a brief public defence of its role in what was known as “Operation Rain” – it is now clear the Australian police had run out of options by the time the Indian medico was charged with recklessly giving his card to a terrorist cell. The case was threadbare. The lawyers were circling. It had come down to this: Haneef had to be charged or released.

For 11 days the AFP had been holding him in the Brisbane watchhouse under brand new powers that allow terrorism suspects to be imprisoned without charge virtually indefinitely. Public scrutiny was intense. The laws had never been used before. The Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Police Commissioner were calling almost daily press conferences in Canberra to underscore the grave allegations Haneef faced.

But despite the public air of national emergency, Operation Rain was in trouble. Intense police efforts here and in Britain were yielding nothing to implicate this man in the British outrages. Police had their suspicions. They had seized a huge amount of material to analyse. There were many interesting leads to follow. But after nearly a fortnight they had found nothing that would hold up in court.

And they knew it. A document released to Haneef’s lawyers under freedom of information shows a senior investigator with Operation Rain concluding at this time: “I do not believe that I currently have sufficient evidence to charge Haneef.” ASIO was delivering the same verdict to the Government. Queensland police attached to Operation Rain also believed there was insufficient evidence to charge the man.

But three days later, at the end of an all-night interrogation, Haneef was charged under section 102.7(2) of the Commonwealth’s Criminal Code with providing a SIM card to a terrorist organisation a year earlier and “being reckless as to whether the organisation was a terrorist organisation”. How and why that charge was laid is the central question to be answered by John Clarke, QC, the former NSW Supreme Court judge now investigating the Haneef shemozzle.

Haneef found his visa cancelled and facing the prospect of immigration detention and deportation. A mighty national controversy erupted. A fortnight later the then Commonwealth DPP Damien Bugg, QC, intervened to discontinue the charge. He too was “not convinced that the evidence establishes a reasonable prospect of conviction against Dr Haneef”.

Embarrassment, acrimony and blame-shifting followed. The AFP is still ladling it out in the submission to Clarke released this week. It is blaming the DPP for the charge ever being laid; Scotland Yard for supplying incorrect information; the DPP again for not publicly correcting crucial errors in police briefings; Haneef’s legal team for releasing transcripts of his interrogation; and the press for too often getting the story wrong: “The erroneous reporting was not only unhelpful to Dr Haneef and the AFP, it was unfair to the Australian community who might reasonably have expected that accurate information on such an important issue was being made available to them.”

Meanwhile, the AFP has been extremely reluctant to make basic information available. It has declined to release the full submissions plus witness statements and documents actually given to Clarke. No “UK-sourced information” has been released. A pile of documents obtained under FOI by Haneef’s legal team are heavily redacted. But they – together with submissions to Clarke from the DPP, ASIO, the Queensland Police and even the AFP – allow a fairly complete answer to be given to the question: what on earth was going on here?

In a nutshell: they never had anything concrete to link Mohammed Haneef to his cousin’s crimes; they were never very interested in the SIM card; they were living all along in the hope that something damning would turn up in Britain. The mantra of Operation Rain and the hapless DPP official drawn into the police net was: something’s on its way from over there. But it never came.

Two Mercedes-Benz cars packed with gas canisters, petrol and nails were parked in central London early in the morning of June 29 last year by Kafeel Ahmed and an accomplice. Police allege the second man was Dr Bilal Abdulla, an Iraqi diabetes specialist now on trial for this crime in Britain. The bombs failed to explode. The next day, the two men mounted a suicide ram raid on Glasgow airport. This, too, was a fiasco. The only casualty was Kafeel who later died of burns.

On his way north, Kafeel had sent his brother, Dr Sabeel Ahmed, an email confessing his mission. British police and courts have accepted this jihad message as evidence that Sabeel knew nothing of his brother’s plans. Haneef had left his SIM card with Sabeel in the summer of 2006 as he prepared to fly out to a new job and a new life in Australia. Sabeel was not a terrorist or the member of a terrorist cell. Giving him a SIM card could not assist – recklessly or otherwise – a terrorist organisation.

The AFP has now admitted it knew of the jihad email but this critical information never reached Haneef’s lawyers and was not given to the DPP before Haneef was charged. The AFP argues in its submission to Clarke that the email had to be tested to make sure it was not created to help mask Sabeel’s “true knowledge” of the terrorists’ plans. Despite the verdict of the British courts, the AFP’s submission still does not clearly endorse the email as genuine.

Phone records alerted British police to Haneef’s existence. Far from being useful as an untraceable component in a terrorist bomb, the SIM card revealed a connection between Haneef – in whose name the card remained registered – and his cousins Sabeel, who usually paid the fees, and Kafeel, who paid them once. With the help of some neighbours in Liverpool, England, and Sabeel’s mother in India, British police then got a message through to Haneef at the Southport Hospital on the Gold Coast: please ring.

He tried half a dozen times without success to get through to Scotland Yard’s Tony Webster. These attempts punctuated a crowded day in which Haneef took leave from his job; had his father-in-law buy him a ticket home to Bangalore; left his car, laptop, documents and wife’s jewellery for safekeeping with his colleague Dr Asif Ali; spoke several times to family members in India; and left for Brisbane airport where, a little before midnight, he was taken into custody.

The magistrate supervising Haneef’s detention in the watchhouse never heard of those attempted calls to British police. But it was worse than that. Haneef’s lawyers say in their submission to Clarke: “No public statement of which we are aware by any Australian agency has referred to this crucial information as a matter relevant to or taken into account by them in their decisions concerning Dr Haneef. The AFP’s actions in respect of this information require the closest scrutiny by the inquiry.”

Police had many reasons to be suspicious. British police were “linking” this man to botched attempts at mass murder; he appeared to be doing a bunk; he had only an expensive one-way ticket; in his baggage were documents that seemed hardly useful on a seven-day dash home; and the sudden concern to see his newborn child seemed odd as the baby was by this time six days old.

That the AFP needed to investigate Haneef is beyond dispute. The question is: did they have the right to detain him for nearly a fortnight without charge in the Brisbane watchhouse while they did so? At one point over the next few days, one of the police gave Haneef his snapshot view of the situation: they would hold him until they were absolutely certain he had had no part in the British bomb attempts. “We obviously investigate things to a point that we can say Mohammed’s definitely not involved and we are happy and can categorically state that.”

But Haneef’s lawyers argue that this turns the law on its head. The AFP could only hold him without charge under the anti-terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code while officers had a “reasonable belief” that he had actually committed the crime for which he was detained: giving his SIM card to a terrorist cell. His lawyers say that certainly after the first day’s interrogation – when Haneef gave his explanation for the issues concerning police – his continued detention was unlawful. The evidence wasn’t there to sustain a “reasonable belief” in his guilt. “There was a duty … for the state of arrest to be brought to an end, and for Dr Haneef to be released.”

CLIVE PORRITT only heard about Haneef from the media. Porritt was the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions’ man in Brisbane. Normally, the AFP would bring him in at an early stage of such operations. Not this time. So Porritt rang the police on the first morning of Haneef’s detention. The DPP’s submission to Clarke states: “The officer said he appreciated [Porritt’s] offer of assistance but did not have the time to talk further.” Porritt checked again next day and was told, “The AFP did not anticipate this matter coming to court imminently.”

Porritt was brought in on various bits and pieces of the case, but the DPP’s man had no role in the central, controversial and untried system of judicial supervision of a suspect’s detention. Essentially that meant the police asking magistrate Jim Gordon for extensions of time to hold their prisoner. The magistrate would never speak to Haneef. Police material handed to Gordon was full of errors. Little or nothing exculpatory was shown to the magistrate. Gordon was told time and again of the “enormity” of the task facing police. They always needed more time.

A huge police operation in Britain and Australia was under way. Though heavily redacted, police documents obtained under FOI show the AFP was barely interested in the SIM card. Operation Rain’s first priority was tracking down Haneef’s petty but complex financial dealings – including payments to and from his terrorist cousin Kafeel of a few thousand dollars over the years. Police did not accept Haneef’s claim that these were gifts or remittances through Kafeel to his own family in Bangalore.

The question in Brisbane was: how much longer could they hold Haneef? With the encouragement of officers involved in his case, Haneef had hired a solicitor, Peter Russo, and he brought Stephen Keim, SC, onto the legal team. The balance was shifting. The lawyers were demanding to see some of the police material. So far they had seen none. Gordon gave police what they wanted on July 5, but on July 9 he rejected a request for 120 hours and granted only 48.

A fallback strategy was already in place. Plans were well advanced to cancel Haneef’s visa and transfer him to immigration detention if the magistrate should order his release. This was not a last-minute exigency as it would later appear, but an integral part of the strategy all along. By whatever machinery was available, Haneef was to be kept locked up.

July 11, when Gordon would be asked for the next extension of time, was looming as the showdown. In preparation, the AFP collated a summary of the facts. Clearly it did not make compelling reading. The author of a heavily redacted AFP document – probably the senior investigating officer of Operation Rain, Ramzi Jabbour – wrote: “Having reviewed the material in possession of the investigation team at this stage and assessed that against the offences outlined above, I do not believe that I currently have sufficient evidence to charge Haneef.”

ASIO was delivering much the same conclusion on July 11 in written advice to “the Government and various agencies”. In its submission to Clarke, ASIO says its inquiries had turned up nothing to show Haneef had foreknowledge of the British attacks. “Nor was there any information to indicate that Dr Haneef was undertaking planning for a terrorist attack in Australia or overseas.”

Keim was allowed to see some of the AFP documents handed to the magistrate that day. Tucked away in a sub-paragraph is the first admission that the SIM card was found, not at the scene of any of Kafeel’s crimes, but with his brother in Liverpool. This correction of Scotland Yard’s original advice appears to have made absolutely no difference to the AFP’s approach to the case.

Gordon gave the police another 48 hours. The showdown was postponed. Early next morning, the AFP Commissioner, Mick Keelty, rang the Commonwealth DPP Damien Bugg who was waiting to catch a plane at Melbourne airport. According to the DPP’s submission to Clarke, Keelty remarked: “He did not think that at that stage of the investigation that there was a case against Dr Haneef.”

Yet later that day in Brisbane, Clive Porritt was at last called in by Operation Rain to assess the case against the prisoner. He was shown a mass of material which he found “incomplete and unfocused” but there was enough there for him to tell police they could not charge Haneef with financing terrorism. It was the SIM card or nothing. Police promised to prepare a briefing paper overnight.

Porritt spent most of the next day, July 13, at AFP headquarters digesting a 48-page brief that came with complex charts and statements. His superiors say they made it clear to him early that afternoon that he was not to approve a charge. If the police wanted to go down that track, it was to be on their head alone. But for reasons that are not clear in the DPP’s submissions to Clarke, Porritt gave police what they wanted. He says he “felt an unspoken but extreme pressure to provide positive reassurance to police that they were lawfully entitled to charge Dr Haneef … It was a fraught and stressful time.”

Porritt advised Haneef could be charged with intentionally providing “resources” – that is, the SIM card – to a terrorist organisation “consisting of a group of persons including Sabeel Ahmed and Kafeel Ahmed, being reckless as to whether the organisation was a terrorist organisation”.

By the time he confirmed his advice in writing about 6pm, the second long interrogation of Haneef was under way. It would go for 12 hours until abruptly terminated about 4.30am. To Haneef’s barrister Keim it seemed the second examination showed how little headway the AFP had made in its investigations. The most interesting new material was a chatroom exchange in which a number of ambiguous statements were made by Haneef and his brother. Once again, this raised suspicions but fell way short of proof of any offence.

About dawn, Haneef’s interrogators and several Queensland police attached to Operation Rain met its commander, Ramzi Jabbour. They had been up all night observing the interrogation. In its submission to Clarke, Queensland police make it clear they still didn’t think Haneef had a case to answer. Detective Superintendent Gayle Hogan, the most senior Queensland officer attached to Operation Rain, told Jabbour that, based on what was known at that time, “there was insufficient evidence to support a charge against Dr Haneef”.

The submission continues: “Detective Superintendent Hogan was present when Senior Investigating Officer Jabbour had a telephone conversation with his senior AFP management and heard Senior Investigating Officer Jabbour articulate during that conversation that the [Queensland police] view was that there was insufficient evidence to charge Dr Haneef. Detective Superintendent Hogan was then advised by Senior Investigating Officer Jabbour that he was going to charge Dr Haneef.”

A fortnight later, Haneef flew home to India a free man. Australia couldn’t keep him. Britain didn’t want him. The AFP’s plans had gone terribly wrong from the moment of his charging. First, the magistrate Jacquie Payne, unimpressed by the case against him, granted him bail. That spurred an immediate review of the case by the DPP himself, Damien Bugg. He opted not to appeal the magistrate’s decision.

Haneef remained for the moment in detention. Plan B had been activated and his visa cancelled. That caused public uproar. Embarrassment for the AFP and the Government deepened on July 20 when the ABC’s London correspondent, Rafael Epstein, broke the story that the SIM card – despite all public impressions to the contrary – was not connected to the London and Glasgow bombing attempts. That was no news to the police.

As the DPP pressed them for more evidence, they fought back, insisting Haneef was only charged because of Porritt’s advice. Keelty would even claim later that he was “surprised” by the charging. The AFP has told the Clarke inquiry: “If the AFP had ignored the CDPP advice this would have been without precedent. The AFP would have been severely criticised for refusing to accept the advice, which it understood to be the settled corporate advice of the CDPP.”

Budd gave the AFP a deadline of midday July 26 to advise if there was any material forthcoming “to address the concerns about the sufficiency of the likely evidence”. There wasn’t. Next day, Budd pulled the plug. Haneef left the country. The AFP continued to investigate Haneef for a year without result. In April this year, the Clarke inquiry was set up with high expectations and essentially no powers to investigate the fiasco. It is due to report on November 14.

“This has impacted so much of my life – my family, my career, my reputation,” Mohammed Haneef told the Herald this week. “I hope that this inquiry gives a comprehensive account of what happened and address all the wrongs that have been done to me. My family needs to be assured that all wrongs are corrected and redress is given.”

Posted in Conspiracy, Redneckia | Leave a comment