Archive for January, 2009

Kerry Kenney: Remarks About War on Terror

January 31, 2009 at 8:13 am · Filed under War Against Terror

clip_72

Conference on Innovative Policies to Advance Security Governance
United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, January 22, 2009

It is hard to believe more than seven years have passed since the Bush administration launched the unfortunately named Global War on Terror – insisting that any country wanting to remain an ally sign up.

We have had time to reflect on that strategy, and all evidence points to the fact that it has not only been a failure, but worse. It has actually buttressed the very extremists it was designed to defeat. As we consider the future of counter-terrorism, I suggest we embrace a three-pronged approach. We must act globally, we must proceed in a lawful manner consistent with our values, and we must enhance human rights.

We must act globally because terrorism is a global problem. No city is immune–not New York, not Madrid, not Bali, London, Riyadh, Amman, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Mumbai. Not any place. So counter terrorism requires a coordinated international effort. Clearly there are steps governments must take to combat terrorism, and doing so in conjunction with the world community makes sense. Many of those steps will be discussed during the course of today’s conference. But labeling those efforts as the so called Global War on Terror has been destructive.

First, terrorists are criminals who target the innocent. But calling this a war on terror makes them sound like warriors, and we think of warriors as heroic. We should not make terrorist cowards into heroes.

Second, in much of the Muslim world the Global War on Terror is seen as a code word for a war on Islam. This has undermined our efforts and increased suspicion of our motives.

Third labeling these collective efforts under the rubric of the Global War on Terror has allowed nations to lump together things that ought not to be conjoined. Because of the failure to clearly define the word terrorism, governments have often labeled whatever they don’t like as “a terrorist threat to National Security.” As a result, Russians have targeted Georgians, Arab governments have targeted opposition politicians, Chinese have targeted Tibetans, the Sudanese target the people of Darfur. Elsewhere journalists, trade union organizers, women’s rights advocates and even shepherds from the wrong tribe have been labeled terrorists and hauled off to jail.

The governments that comprise the United Nations must take some responsibility for this, because they have failed for years to come up with an international definition for “terrorism.” The un has drafted more than a dozen treaties addressing terrorism, but without an agreed upon definition of the term, the central treaty on the subject, the Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism, is both incomplete and un-ratified. It lays dormant. So today the onus is on governments to work through the United Nations to end this impasse and to define the term. The absence of a clear definition has allowed too much harm carried out in the name of counter terrorism for far too long.

Beyond defining terms, we must proceed lawfully, and consistently with universal values. Too often, law enforcement is rank with corruption, and preys upon rather than protects the public. There is a range of actions countries can take to combat terrorism by improving the professionalism of law enforcement, from assuring decent wages to improving techniques for surveillance, investigation, and evidence gathering, For the sake of today’s discussion, I’d like to focus specifically on interrogation methods.

The underlying theory of interrogation should be to build trust with the interrogated, so that, over time, the person being questioned views his or her interrogator as their last best hope. A person in detention who is being interrogated is in isolation. Experience interrogators know that they can turn this relationship into a major advantage and play on the fact that they are the detainee’s sole regular contact to the outside world. As Air force interrogator Matthew Alexander put it in his book How to Break a Terrorist: “The quickest way to get most captives talking is to be nice to them. That means, getting to know the subject better than he knows himself and then manipulating him by role playing, flattering, misleading, and nudging his perception of the truth slightly off center. The goal is to turn the subject around so that he begins to see strong logic and even wisdom against his own comrades or cause. Respect, rapport, hope, cunning and deception are our tools.”

Of course this methodology, in addition to being the most effective, has the added virtue of being legal.

In contrast, torture and other forms of forced coercion are not only illegal, morally repugnant, and harmful to any country’s image, they also are ineffective. Torture victims will tell tormenters whatever they think they want to hear to make the pain or cruel treatment stop. Thus information obtained using official cruelty is often misleading and useless.

In addition, the use of torture plays precisely into the hands of the very extremists we are trying to stop. Their argument is that we are corrupt, unjust regimes that must be toppled. So when we use torture, we become morally corrupt and unjust, proving their point. Indeed, Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that the number one recruiting tool for insurgents in Iraq were the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”

We owe it to our troops and other security services to remove this stain that ultimately will only expose more of them to risk.

Beyond interrogation, the idea of using preventive detention, and holding people indefinitely is a misguided police. So is the idea of creating national security courts. These measures are not needed and invite denials of basic due process of law to people suspected of committing terrorist crimes or participating in conspiracies linked to such crimes. These people ought to be investigated diligently, charged with crimes and tried in national courts. These prosecutions should be vigilant and those found guilty punished.

The military commissions in Guantanamo have been a failure by every possible measure. It was gratifying to see that President Barack Obama in one of his first acts as President made the call to suspend the military tribunals in Guantanamo. I am pleased to announce that just a few moments ago, he ordered Guantanamo closed as soon as possible and has instructed his legal team to begin reviewing all 245 cases of the people still being held there to determine how to best resolve those cases. Many will be transferred to their home countries. Some will be resettled in third countries. Some of these cases should I think end up in US Federal courts.

In these and related areas must be vigilant to assure that we pursue policies that promote collective security and individual liberties. In my view this is not a zero sum game. It is mistaken to assume that we must sacrifice liberty to achieve security or vice versa.

Our society can embrace various security policies that are prudent and erode no rights. We are all now more willing than ever before, to endure the inconveniences of heightened security, longer lines at airports, metal detectors in all government buildings, and the like. But we should proceed with wisdom and caution when any government or leader proposes policies like the use of coercive interrogations which play to our worst fears. A war on terror which undermines the most basic values of society- life, liberty, the rule of law, is not worth waging if we end up creating a society which mirrors the repression we battled in the first place. Instead, we must be vigilant to conduct ourselves in manner which strictly adheres to the UN Charter and the International covenants on human rights.

This leads to my third and final point:

There will always be extremists in society, from Timothy McVeigh to Osama bin Laden. We must isolate and contain the most dangerous elements. But for isolation to be truly effective, the fanatics must be regarded as treacherous by society at large. Thus people who live under repressive governments must have viable means to create change-to create a more just and peaceful world for themselves and their children– without turning to violence.

We should work to assure all governments comply with the international human rights instruments which assure peaceful means to create change through elections, as well as free expression.

In societies which are repressive, we should identify the agents of change and buttress their work. Sometimes this will mean calling attention to individuals who advocate for human rights. But we must proceed with caution. Sometimes drawing unwanted attention to an activist can undermine her or his work. In many cases, supporting activists will mean echoing the aspirations of the citizens of the country at large. Iran is a good example. Rather than criticizing Ahmadinejad for his country’s nuclear program- criticism which he has successfully manipulated into nationalist support for his rule– we may be more effective at calling his leadership into question by directing tough questions to issues like why he has failed to deliver decent schools, clean water, and good wages to his people – in addition to asking why he has smothered internal dissent. This tactic demonstrates an understanding of the frustrations felt by the many Iranian people who are our natural allies and can help agents of change in the quests for respect for human rights.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must assure that all people, endowed as they are with inalienable rights, have the knowledge and capacity to demand respect for those rights. That is why we at the Robert F Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights have developed the Speak Truth to Power human rights education program.

At RFK Speak Truth, we teach students about the fundamentals of international human rights law, and provide students with a toolkit for action, so they can create change in their communities, their countries and the larger world on everything from free expression to trafficking to corporate responsibility. With such knowledge in hand, the next generation is free from the siren call to violence which has so plagued our world, and instead can take charge of their own destinies.

We must not let the ideas of war and fear guide our terrorism policy, but use all the power of a free society to thwart it. To quote philosopher Bertrand Russell:

“Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom, in the pursuit of truth as in the endeavor after a worthy manner of life.”

Leave a Comment

Obama’s Policy Options in the Tribal Areas (FATA)

January 30, 2009 at 7:42 am · Filed under Talibanization, War Against Terror

Report, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
January 26, 2009
Author: Hassan Abbas, Research Fellow, Project on Managing the Atom/International Security Program
Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security; Science, Technology, and Public Policy

clip1INTRODUCTION
There is an emerging consensus among foreign policy experts that the growing insurgency and militancy in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) poses the greatest security challenge not only to Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also to the United States. Some scholars even project that a major terrorist act with al-Qaeda footprints in the United States might result in an American strike and ground invasion of this area. President Barack Obama has repeatedly talked about stepping up military action in Afghanistan as a panacea to the expanding crisis in that country and hinted as early as August 2007 that if elected, he would sanction direct military strikes in FATA if there were “actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets” and if Pakistan failed to act. Situation has deteriorated in the region during the last year further complicating Obama’s policy options for stabilizing South Asia.

Turbulence and insurgency is not new to the Pak-Afghan tribal borderland. In the historical context, Afghanistan was a flashpoint of Anglo-Russian rivalry in the nineteenth century, and tribes living in the borderland played a crucial role in what is often termed the “great game.” The Soviet-American confrontation in the last quarter of the twentieth century further re-energized the traditional warrior-like ethos of the area’s tribes, as FATA became the base camp for religious warriors from around the world eager to confront the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Abundant financial resources and armaments were made available by the West (primarily the United States and the United Kingdom) as well as Saudi Arabia for the cause, and Pakistani intelligence services delivered the goods. The doctrine of jihad was conveniently reframed to inspire the fighters. Eventually, the Soviet Union could not bear the burden and had to retreat, leaving Afghanistan open to all local and regional contenders for power. Consequently, a brutal civil war erupted in 1989 and the western handlers of the war sneaked out without any notice. Pakistan and Iran tried to manage and manipulate the crisis through their favorites; however, this strategy backfired and the Taliban, posing as a stabilizing force, emerged on the scene in 1994. Pakistan quickly adopted them, and Saudi support came in handy. Until September 11, 2001, Taliban brutality and oppression reigned supreme in Afghanistan, and FATA served as the conduit for the Pakistani support. Tragically, none of the players that brought Afghanistan to this plight felt any guilt. Even if they did, they never expressed it.

The post-Taliban years (2002-08) witnessed FATA’s re-emergence as a hub of militant activity. Surprisingly, Pakistan and the United States paid little attention to this area and its dynamics in 2002-03, due to their myopic belief in the illusion that the Taliban were gone with the wind. The international community promised the Afghans a new life, and for a while there was hope in the air. But under the radar screens, Arab and Central Asian warriors who had enjoyed Taliban hospitality in the 1990s quietly started shifting to FATA where they found equally welcoming new hosts. They knew each other well. In the eyes of Pakistan’s military government at that time, the Taliban were not enemies. In fact, its friendly gestures toward the retreating Taliban were akin to an insurance policy, for Pakistan could very well require their services in the future. Given that the two countries share a 1,500-mile border in a largely unmarked mountainous terrain, Pakistan could neither regulate nor even monitor cross-border movement effectively.

Finally with American prodding, Pakistan moved its military units inside FATA — a first for Pakistan’s army. The tribal leadership reacted ferociously, as such an action was deemed contrary to established norms. In 2003-04, the army offered some peace deals to the local tribes, especially in the two Waziristan agencies, to control the situation. Such efforts were to little avail, however, for this was around the time when the “nation-building project” in Afghanistan started showing signs of stress and the reverse flow of the Taliban and the likes started taking place more robustly — from FATA to the Pashtun-dominated south of Afghanistan. By then, Hamid Karzai was routinely dubbed as merely “the mayor of Kabul” who needed foreign guards to provide his personal security. The limited mandate of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was partially responsible for this state of affairs. There were other factors as well, as according to Mark L. Schneider’s (senior vice president, International Crisis Group) April 2008 testimony before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia:

The current state of affairs was not inevitable. It resulted from policy choices early on in the international community; light military and political footprints with the co-opting of local and all too frequently corrupt militia leaders rather than international boots on the ground.

The situation on the Pakistani side was also deteriorating: FATA and some parts of the adjacent North West Frontier Province (NWFP) were gradually slipping out of its control to such an extent that in recent weeks, militants routinely hit NATO supply lines and storage depots in Peshawar, the capital of NWFP, thus forcing the United States and NATO to consider other more expensive logistic routes. On average in 2008, Pakistan experienced one suicide attack every five days: 66 attacks in all, which killed around 965 persons (651 civilians, 159 security forces personnel, and 155 policemen).The numbers are much higher if all types of terrorist attacks are counted. For instance, in the NWFP alone, the 475 terrorist attacks carried out in 2008 killed around 575 people.  Although militant groups based in other parts of the country (mostly Punjab province) were also involved in some of these attacks, FATA provided the major bulk. Analyzing the 2007 database of 26 cases of suicide attacks in Pakistan (out of a total of 61) where Special Investigative Unit of Pakistan’s FIA recovered crucial evidence, they concluded: “More than eighty percent of suicide bombers belong to Mehsud tribe (residing in South and North Waziristan) and were aged 15 to 20.”

Many suicide bombers who struck inside Afghanistan also traveled there from the NWFP and FATA. Presently, Pakistan’s security forces are battling various brands of Taliban in different parts of FATA as well as the NWFP in an expanding insurgency environment. Despite the success of the nationalist and anti-Taliban Awami National Party’s (ANP) electoral success in the NWFP’s February 2008 elections, the overall situation remains dire.

This report focuses on what all of this means for Pakistan and the United States and how these trends can be reversed. The above historical background was deemed necessary to set the stage for this, as a selective reading of history all too often distorts facts and limits policymakers’ vision. A basic assessment of the ground realities in FATA is presented and followed with an appraisal of the Bush administration’s policies and an effort to decipher the Obama administration’s thinking on the subject. Based on these evaluations, recommendations are made for both the Obama administration and the present government of Pakistan.

The full report may be downloaded here, courtesy of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.

For more information about this publication please contact the ISP Program Coordinator at 617-496-1981.

Full text of this publication is available at:

http://www.ispu.org%2Ffiles%2FPDFs%2Ffata_report.pdf

Leave a Comment

Three RAW Agents Arrested in Lahore

January 30, 2009 at 6:26 am · Filed under Terrorism in Pakistan ·Tagged ,

cid_7230884670web56614mailre3yahoo1

On Jan 29, 2009, three men said to be Indian agents were arrested in Lahore for their involvement in terrorist activities in the provincial capital and other parts of the country.

City police chief Pervaiz Rathore said at a press conference that a large quantity of explosives, remote-controlled bombs, sensitive documents, maps and drawings of sensitive installations and advanced weapons had been found in their possession.

He claimed the suspects had confessed to having crossed the border at least seven times and receiving training from officials of India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in New Delhi and Amritsar.

He said the suspected RAW agents had been tasked to disrupt law and order and cause destruction in different parts of Pakistan, especially in Lahore.

Mr Rathore said the accused Mohammad Fayaz alias Feja, of Mundyanwala, Burki; Mohammad Akram alias Mian Akram and Shahzad Bhatti of Mauza Ludhar, Burki, had been providing photographs of important places to RAW.

He said the terrorists had planned to target Mochi Gate and Chowburji in Lahore, Jamia Masjid, Millat Chowk in Faisalabad and some important buildings in Mansehra, Muridke and Chichawatni.

He said that during interrogation the accused had confessed to their involvement in terror attacks, including the Ferozpur Road blast of Nov 17, 2006, in which two people were killed and over two dozen injured.

He said the accused told police that they had visited India for smuggling goods and came into contact with RAW officials and started working for them.

The city police chief said the accused had provided to RAW photographs, maps and drawings of the under-construction Saryali bridge, Mochi Gate, Jamia Qudsia, Chowburji Chowk of Lahore; Azam Cheema Masjid-i-Aqsa of Bahawalpur, Jamia Masjid Millat Park Chowk of Faisalabad and important buildings and mosques in Mansehra, Muridke and Chichawatni.

 

The timing of these RAW agents’ arrests appear to be linked with the controversy surrounding the Mumbai attacks.

 

Comments (1)

Rawalpindi Police Claims to ve Arrested Terrorists Responsible for Major Crimes

January 30, 2009 at 6:21 am · Filed under Terrorism in Pakistan ·Tagged ,

att00386

On Jan 29, 2009, Rawalpindi Police claimed to have arrested nine suspected terrorists and seized 100kg of explosives, detonators and other material during a raid.

According to City Police Officer Rao Iqbal, the suspects belonged to a group formed by a Kenyan national who himself was killed during a terrorist attack. Addressing a press conference, he said the arrests were made when police and elite force personnel raided a house in the city’s Dhoke Lakhan area.

They also seized four motorbikes, one car, detonators with wires, nut and bolts weighing 20 kg, one timer, four hand-grenades and eight pistols.

One of the detained suspects is Dr Abdul Razzaq of the Cantonment Hospital who has been missing for some time and his case is in the Lahore High Court.

The CPO said the terrorist gang had indirect links with the militant group of Baitullah Mehsud in Wana.

He said they had confessed to having carried out a number of terrorist attacks, including the RA Bazaar bombing in which seven army personnel were killed, assassination of Lt-Gen Mushtaq Ahmed Baig, Melody suicide attack on police force, blast outside the Danish embassy and heinous attack on Italian restaurant.

The terrorists, CPO said, were planning a suicide attack during the March 23 Pakistan Day parade.

The terrorists were identified as Mohammad Ilyas alias Qari Jamil, Mohammad Rizwan alias Shamasul Haq, Faisal Ahmed Khan, Zeeshan Jaleel, Mohammad Sarfraz, Mohammad Naeem Shakir, Mohammad Nadeem and Osama Bin Waheed, besides Dr Abul Razzaq.

If CPO’s claim is correct, then the mystery surrounding all the terrorist acts mentioned by him should now be resolved.

Comments (1)

Lesbian Students Expelled in California

January 30, 2009 at 6:06 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , ,

cid_71078558190web56607mailre3

A United States appeals panel has found that a California Lutheran High School in Riverside County that expelled two 16-year-old girls is not a business and therefore doesn’t have to comply with a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The school expelled the girls for having “a bond of intimacy” that was “characteristic of a lesbian relationship”. The girls sued, contending the school had violated a state anti-discrimination law.

In response to that suit, an appeals court decided this week that the private religious school was not a business and therefore did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating. A lawyer for the girls said Tuesday that he would ask the California Supreme Court to overturn the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal.

The appeals court called its decision “narrow,” but lawyers on both sides of the case said it would protect private religious schools across California from such discrimination suits.

“Very troubling”
Kirk D. Hanson, who represented the girls, said the “very troubling” ruling would permit private schools to discriminate against anyone, as long as the schools used their religious beliefs as justification.

“It is almost like it could roll back 20 to 30 years of progress we have made in this area,” said the San Diego attorney. “Basically, this decision gives private schools the license to discriminate.”

John McKay, who represented the Riverside County-based California Lutheran High School, said the ruling correctly acknowledged that the school’s purpose was to “teach Christian values in a Christian setting pursuant to a Christian code of conduct.”

The girls were expelled in their junior year for “conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians,” said McKay, who added that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation. Hanson said the girls had been “best friends” and, citing their privacy, declined to discuss their sexual orientation. They are now in college, he said.

The dispute started when a student at the school told a teacher in 2005 that one of the girls had said she loved the other. The student advised the teacher to look at the girls’ MySpace pages. One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other’s page said she was “not sure” of her sexual orientation.

McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.

According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.

The principal “just looked at me like I was a disease and I was so wrong,” one of the girls later said. They were identified in the legal proceedings only as Jane Doe and Mary Roe.

Scout precedent
In ruling in favour of the school, the appeals court cited a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that said the Boy Scouts of America was a social organisation, not a business establishment, and therefore did not have to comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. That case also involved a discrimination complaint based on sexual orientation.

“The school’s religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions,” wrote Justice Betty A. Richli for the appeals court. “The whole purpose of sending one’s child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework.”

The school is affiliated with synods that believe homosexuality is a sin, the court said. The school’s “Christian conduct” code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact, on or off campus.

In addition to their discrimination claim, the girls complained that the school invaded their privacy and detained them unlawfully. The girls complained the principal sat “very close” to them and asked them if they were bisexual, if they had kissed each other, and whether they had done anything “inappropriate,” the court said.

Mary Roe said, “He got very close to me and he said, ‘Have you ever touched [Jane Doe] in . . . any inappropriate ways? And he looked me up and down when he asked that.”

But the court said there was no evidence that the principal had a prurient interest in the girls.

“It is hard to imagine how he could have determined whether they had a homosexual relationship without asking the questions that he in fact asked,” wrote Richli, appointed to the court by former Gov. Pete Wilson.

The school also did not break the law when it disclosed the girls’ “suspected sexual orientation” to their parents, the court said. The parents, “in light of their right to control their children’s upbringing and education, had a right to know why” they were being expelled, the court said.

Hanson said the entire episode was “very traumatic” and “humiliating” for the girls.

Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the ruling was based on “the particular circumstances of this school.”

“Labeling a young person or telling her she is ’sinful’ can be psychologically devastating,” Minter said. “Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, all adults have a responsibility to treat young people with compassion and respect.”

School officials could not be reached for comment.

Timothy J. Tracey, litigation counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, said the ruling “preserves the right of Christian schools in California to make admission and discipline decisions consistent with their religious beliefs.”

[Source: Los Angeles Times]

Further information

Leave a Comment

CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry Not Going to Solve Pakistan’s Problems

January 29, 2009 at 10:58 am · Filed under Asif Ali Zardari, Lawyers' Agitation ·Tagged , ,

cid_image001Chaudhry Iftikhar, the former chief justice, was used and thrown away when the PPP needed the NRO. Nawaz Sharif used him against Musharraf and forgot him later. Now all the enemies of President Zardari have suddenly remembered Iftikhar Chaudhry, the perpetual fall guy. But I am more stunned at some Pakistanis who think they’ll have free judiciary if Mr. Iftikhar is ‘restored’. Well, fat chance.

 

It’s almost two years. Iftikhar Chaudhry, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, has not been restored to his old job. And chances are he will never be, at least not in any real sense. But meanwhile, his ’cause’ – better known as the ‘lawyers’ movement’ – has single-handedly resulted in a list of unintended side effects:

 

His cause helped Dr. Condi Rice and her lieutenant, Richard Boucher, twist the arm of former President Pervez Musharraf to give better terms and concessions to the late Benazir Bhutto [and Asif Zardari] on the ‘deal’ that helped them return to power.

In this sense, Justice Iftikhar became one of the causes of NRO, the so-called reconciliation bill that whitewashed the corruption money of Pakistani politicians. He can oppose the bill all he wants, but the fact is that the lawyers’ movement created enough panic and stir in the country to scare a weak ruler into submission to Ms. Bhutto and the Americans. In the NRO case, Justice Iftikhar is as guilty as President Musharraf. In fact, Chaudhry Iftikhar bears the sin of knowing the alternative to Musharraf and yet he went full speed ahead in destabilizing the Pakistani system.

Justice Iftikhar’s cause helped turn 2007 into the most dangerous year in Pakistani history, when several internal and external players came together – maybe by chance like the lawyers movement – to bring Pakistan down on its knees, destroy the promising gains in the economy, and make Pakistan the butt of international jokes as a country whose people simply don’t know how to run it. And why did Iftikhar Chaudhry and Aitzaz Ahsan do this? Answer: for the dubious and questionable goal of removing Mr. Musharraf. Granted that the former president had become unpopular and had ruined it for himself, yet the price the country is paying for removing him – in the shape of Zardari-Gilani government – paid to remove him is too high.

Mr. Iftikhar’s cause helped Nawaz Sharif play a sad version of ‘revenge politics’. Both Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry and Mr. Nawaz Sharif became so blinded by their personal hatred that they let Mr. Asif Zardari become a President, adding one more blot to the dirty record of Pakistani politics.

Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry’s supporters proudly repeat at every occasion that that he played the biggest role in removing Mr. Musharraf from power. The right thing for them to say, and more accurate, would be: ‘Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry played the biggest role in bringing Mr. Zardari to power.’ That’s the bitter truth.

Justice Chaudhry was a compromised judge, who took oath of office from a military dictator, stabbing other more honest judges in the back to secure his job. His supporters conveniently forget this fact. It is as if saying no to Musharraf’s demand for his resignation absolved Mr. Chaudhry of any and all accountability.

 

It was Mr. Iftikhar’s stubborn nature, and the natural urge to cling to his cushy job that made Mr. Chaudhry a hero. Principles came later when he suddenly found himself the darling of all those who opposed Mr. Musharraf.

In fact, with hindsight, it wouldn’t be too much to say that the honorable judge proved to be a fool in the end. First he was fooled by Aitzaz Ahsan, his politician-lawyer. Mr. Ahsan, deliberately or unknowingly, handed the street movement on a golden platter to Benazir Bhutto, Richard Boucher and Condi Rice to use it to extract NRO, the so-called reconciliation bill.

 

And now, once again, when another government needs to be destabilized, that of Mr. Zardari’s, Iftikhar Chaudhry and his movement is the tool of choice for all those who hate Mr. Zardari, including Mr. Nawaz Sharif, who used the lawyers to get back at Musharraf and will now use the lawyers to get back at Zardari.

And just like the first time, the politicians will throw away Iftikhar Chaudhry and the lawyers just like used napkins when the political scores are settled.

 

But no, tell this to Mr. Chaudhry or Aitzaz Ahsan or the lawyers and you will hear an earful about justice and how the country can’t live without it.

 

The only thing they forget is that the Pakistani judiciary, by and large, has been a compromised judiciary not because of dictators or anything else, but because of that disease that afflicts all third-world judicial systems: financial corruption.

 

Until bribes remain the order of the day, there cannot be a free judiciary in Pakistan. The corrupt politicians, feudal lords and the vested interest, who have enough money to buy judges, will ensure that the practice never dies.

After all, this is a country that rewards financial corruption with NROs. What stupid Pakistani judge won’t take the money, either before or after the ‘restoration’ of Iftikhar Chaudhry?

It is false and misleading to say that his ‘restoration’ will ensure free judiciary. Mr. Iftikhar’s ‘restoration’ will ensure only one thing: Revenge against Zardari. That’s the only real use left for Justice Chaudhry. Ask Nawaz Sharif and he’ll tell you. And if this is the real cause, then hurray to Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.

 

Comments (1)

Advice on Good Governance for the Bangladeshis

January 29, 2009 at 10:36 am · Filed under South Asia ·Tagged , ,

tarranumA Cautionary Note to Bangladesh’s PM Sheikh Hasina

Prof. Syed Ahsanul Alam Parvez*

 

After a landslide victory you are assuming the premiership of Bangladesh when the world is facing one of the worst recession of contemporary history. There are good reasons to believe that Bangladesh will face the trauma of the global recession by late 2009. The have-nots and the poor people of our country will not be able to bear it. So you have no option but to be proactive and act in time to surprise the world. Your and our creator gave you a lifetime chance to write your name in gold as the world’s most benevolent lady prime minister by turning Bangladesh to a middle income country during your office this time as prime minister. You have to address the issue of income distribution and social justice in our country very thoughtfully. You should be the first Prime minister of Bangladesh with the aim of raising awareness and creating framings and visions that promote equal dignity for all citizens in the country you govern.

 

I hope you will share with my concept- “Road map to good governance- The Nine-I model” (see www.goodgovernancebd.org for details) for building a democratic society ensuring good governance.

 

However political democracy rests on economic democracy, and economic democracy assumes a social order that provides equal opportunity for every member of the society to become economically self-sufficient and free from the dominance of some who control their subsistence in today’s world.

 

I am confident you will share the ideology of “the equitable distribution of wealth.” The key to economic self-sufficiency is growing the productiveness of the economy in such a way that lifts artificial barriers to equal access to those social institutions (e.g. Capital, credit) that determine who will become empowered as future capital owners. In Bangladesh only then can today’s property less citizens receive just share of their capital assets as well as wages for their work to meet their economic needs and develop to the fullest extent of their human capacities.

 

You have no time to rest but to move forward with your supporters as well as the supporters of Begum Zia, because at least 10- 12% of her supporters trusted you in this election for at least two reasons.

 

1. In view of many, the former prime minister wanted to salvage the “Maha Chors” and political cronies of her party which seemed like she wanted to present the nation a reign of corrupts and extremists. A political blunder on the part of an experienced former prime minister.

 

2. According to her critics, Begum Zia, during her honeymoon with “Razakars”, “Al-Badars”, and “Al-Shams” not only distributed political sweets but also distributed our national flag to them which was earned with the sacrifice of millions. The new generation voters expressed sharp reaction in this election by rejecting the collaborators of the genocide in 1971.

 

The world changed a lot. I know that now you know it better than anyone that you have to cope with international diplomacy of the world politics. Global circumstances cannot be ignored. See Barack Obama meticulously organized his team to salvage the sinking US economy and bring the change for which he is elected to his office.

 

You should meticulously arrange and rearrange the medium sized cabinet which you can gradually expand evaluating the performance of the cabinet members. You can throw out the bad performers after six months if they fail to give us good governance for which the country paid heavily last two years in both economic and political terms. If the credibility of any of your ministers are questionable or if anyone of them were convicted or corrupt at least by perception, kindly throw them out as soon as the first evidential complain against them reaches you. Congratulations for bringing new faces as ministers and junior ministers, thus creating a space for new leadership in your party.

 

Can you consider of giving some lessons to your cabinet crews so that they see how ministers in other democratic countries behave. Kindly arrange some cultural training for your ministers so that they can think, talk and act democratically.

 

People of Bangladesh no more wants to see vehicles carrying national flags in fish markets, marriage ceremonies, birthday parties, “gaye holuds”, clubs or community centers. Please teach them that, this is how they create a distance with their electoral and ensure confirm defeat in the future elections. There is a dogma in Bangla that “joto mantri toto porajoy.” Please instruct them not to irritate citizens with sirens and police men to demonstrate the presence of a minister. Ministers should limit themselves in using national flags in official business only and use sirens only while rushing to the airport or the parliament or any other urgency. In this way people will not hate them but will talk to them with open minds, irrespective of political identity. This approach will make them accountable to the people from all walks of life present in different social programs. This will pave the path towards a new accountable political culture. 

 

We have a very strong vibrant media now to act as a watchdog against misrule and misgovernance and corruption. Our media has always played an admirable role to see a truly participatory and functioning democracy in the country where hopes, aspirations and will of the people will prevail and not trampled by elected despotic and authoritarian rule. Kindly instruct your ministers not to waste time by countering the media. The media cannot bring down any government. The media can only inform the government in advance that the voters will bring them down in the next election. Unfortunately some politicians always failed to receive the media message until they miserably fail in elections. The ministers should correct themselves seeing the public reactions in the mirror of the media.

 

Give target to Bangladesh diplomatic missions abroad:

To combat the global recession you have to increase the flow of foreign remittance which is presently in the decrease. 

 

Please double the target of manpower export from Bangladesh to the countries that require skilled or semi-skilled manpower from Bangladesh . Let our ambassadors know that you will call them back if they fail to fulfill the new target of manpower export. Instruct them to explore new markets and also to create demand for our manpower in the countries already importing manpower from us. They should perform just like bank managers or have to come back home to do some other job. This is how you can fulfill your election pledge to create one job each house. Also remittances will show an uptrend and will give us a better position to combat the global recession.

 

Form Council of experts with people who wants to volunteer:

Many experts from different subject matters do neither want to become minister nor get other government facilities in lieu of their service to develop the economy and governance. They only need your patronization to render service to develop different sectors to take the country ahead. There is no harm if you consider council of experts in different fields like

1.Governance

2.Trade and commerce,

3.Banking

4.Insurance

5.Exploring new markets for manpower exports

6.Employment creation

7.Regulating price

8.Monitoring law and order, etc.

 

These councils will submit reports to you every three months to assist you to call the respective ministers for a brainstorm towards policy decisions. This will help you to remain well informed and will also stop the ministers from going in the wrong direction.

 

Beware of Cars without number plate and MP’s without tin numbers:

Will your government allow anybody to drive vehicles without a number plate? Your voters are eager to see whether you will allow MP’s and ministers without tin number to run the country. Please don’t allow tax evaders to handle the money of the tax payers. Give two options to the MP’s without tin number which are- 1. They should rush to the NBR to get a number or 2. Quit from the government headed by the daughter of Bangabandhu. If mistakenly anybody without a tin number is sworn as a minister, instruct him to quit as he will be a glaring example for citizens not to pay tax.

 

Beware of Isolation syndrome:

May I draw your kind attention to the historical fact that some viruses in the civil-military bureaucracy and political nexus infect the prime ministers to develop a disease termed “Isolation Syndrome.” The disease becomes chronic when political cronies build air tight, air con compartments for the Prime minister, creating a No  way to talk—No way to write—No way to reach situations. Due to Isolation syndrome Prime ministers can’t hear the people—can’t read the mind of their people. The voters can only see their Prime minister in small T.V. screens. No wonder everybody understands the gravity of security threats for any prime minister, especially security threats for the daughter of the father of the nation. But at least fix a fax or e-mail for complains to reach you, which you can see during your breakfast. I am confident everybody responsible for governance will be highly alert.  

 

When I was writing this open letter from the University of Chittagong , you were busy taking oath. I was overwhelmed with millions of other democracy loving people of Bangladesh to see a group of clean people (perceived) as cabinet ministers. Once again Congratulations Prime minister Sheikh Hasina.

 

 

*Author Syed Ahsanul Alam is a Governance Analyst, Associate Professor at the University of Chittagong, Bangladesh and Chairman-Center for Good Governance. His recent administrative post includes Vice rector- Premier University, Director-S.B Corporation (Sadharon Bima Corp), Treasurer-USTC (SWC), Representative of the President, USTC. He lectured widely at various business schools including University of Science and Technology, Open University, ABAC Thailand and also in Singapore . Rotarian Syed Ahsanul Alam is a well known Academician, Institution Building Personality and Activist for Good Governance. The Author may be reached at Cell:  880-1711 748 748, Fax: 880-31-2550872, E-mail: professorparvez@gmail.com, www.goodgovernancebd.org.

 

Leave a Comment

Top 10 Most Expensive Accidents in History

January 24, 2009 at 7:46 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged ,

clipTitanic – $150 Million
The sinking of the Titanic is possibly the most famous accident in the
world. But it barely makes our list of top 10 most expensive. On April
15, 1912, the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage and was considered to be the most luxurious ocean liner ever built. Over 1,500 people lost their lives when the ship ran into an iceberg and sunk in frigid waters. The ship cost $7 million to build ($150 million in today ‘ s dollars).

Tanker Truck vs Bridge – $358 Million
On August 26, 2004, a car collided with a tanker truck containing 32,000 liters of fuel on the Wiehltal Bridge in Germany . The tanker crashed through the guardrail and fell 90 feet off the A4 Autobahn resulting in a huge explosion and fire which destroyed the load-bearing ability of the bridge. Temporary repairs cost $40 million and the cost to replace the bridge is estimated at $318 Million.

jpeg-3

MetroLink Crash – $500 Million
On September 12, 2008, in what was one of the worst train crashes in
California history, 25 people were killed when a Metrolink commuter
train crashed head-on into a Union Pacific freight train in Los Angeles
. It is thought that the Metrolink train may have run through a red
signal while the conductor was busy text messaging. Wrongful death
lawsuits are expected to cause $500 million in losses for Metrolink.

jpeg-10

B-2 Bomber Crash – $1.4 Billion
This B-2 stealth bomber crashed shortly after taking off from
an air base in Guam on February 23, 2008. Investigators blamed distorted data in the flight control computers caused by moisture in the system. This resulted in the aircraft making a sudden nose-up move which made the B-2 stall and crash. This was 1 of only 21 ever built and was the most expensive aviation accident in history. Both pilots were able to eject to safety.

Exxon Valdez – $2.5 Billion
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was not a large one in relation to the world
‘ s biggest oil spills, but it was a costly one due to the remote location of Prince William Sound (accessible only by helicopter and boat). On March 24, 1989, 10.8 million gallons of oil was spilled when the ship ‘ s master, Joseph Hazelwood, left the controls and the ship crashed into a Reef. The cleanup cost Exxon $2.5 billion.

jpeg-8

Piper Alpha Oil Rig – $3.4 Billion
The world ‘ s worst off-shore oil disaster. At one time, it was the
world ‘ s single largest oil producer, spewing out 317,000 barrels of
oil per day. On July 6, 1988, as part of routine maintenance,
technicians removed and checked safety valves which were essential in preventing dangerous build-up of liquid gas. There were 100 identical safety valves which were checked. Unfortunately, the technicians made a mistake and forgot to replace one of them. At 10 PM that same night, a technician pressed a start button for the liquid gas pumps and the world ‘ s most expensive oil rig accident was set in motion.  Within 2 hours, the 300 foot platform was engulfed in flames. It eventually collapsed, killing 167 workers and resulting in $3.4 Billion in damages.
jpeg-6

Challenger Explosion – $5.5 Billion
The Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed 73 seconds after takeoff due on January 28, 1986 due to a faulty O-ring. It failed to seal one of the joints, allowing pressurized gas to reach the outside. This in turn
caused the external tank to dump its payload of liquid hydrogen causing a massive explosion. The cost of replacing the Space Shuttle was $2 billion in 1986 ($4.5 billion in today ‘ s dollars). The cost of
investigation, problem correction, and replacement of lost  equipment cost $450 million from 1986-1987 ($1 Billion in today ‘ s dollars).

jpeg-4

Prestige Oil Spill – $12 Billion
On November 13, 2002, the Prestige oil tanker was carrying 77,000 tons of heavy fuel oil when one of its twelve tanks burst during a storm off Galicia , Spain . Fearing that the ship would sink, the captain called for help from Spanish rescue workers, expecting them to take the ship into harbour. However, pressure from local authorities forced the captain to steer the ship away from the coast. The captain tried to get help from the French and Portuguese authorities, but they too ordered the ship away from their shores. The storm eventually took its toll on the ship resulting in the tanker splitting in half and releasing 20 million gallons oil into the sea.  According to a report by the Pontevedra Economist Board, the total cleanup cost $12 billion.
jpeg-2

Space Shuttle Columbia – $13 Billion
The Space Shuttle Columbia was the first space worthy shuttle in NASA ‘ s orbital fleet. It was destroyed during re-entry over Texas on February 1, 2003 after a hole was punctured in one of the wings during launch 16 days earlier. The original cost of the shuttle was $2 Billion in 1978. That comes out to $6.3 Billion in today ‘ s dollars. $500 million was spent on the investigation, making it the costliest aircraft accident investigation in history. The search and recovery of debris cost $300 million. In the end, the total cost of the accident (not including replacement of the shuttle) came out to $13 Billion according to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Chernobyl – $200 Billion
On April 26, 1986, the world witnessed the costliest accident in
history. The Chernobyl disaster has been called the biggest
socio-economic catastrophe in peacetime history. 50% of the area of
Ukraine is in some way contaminated. Over 200,000 people had to be evacuated and resettled while 1.7 million people were directly affected by the disaster. The death toll attributed to Chernobyl , including people who died from cancer years later, is estimated at 125,000. The total costs including cleanup, resettlement, and compensation to victims has been estimated to be roughly $200 Billion. The cost of a new steel shelter for the Chernobyl nuclear plant will cost $2 billion alone. The accident was officially attributed to power plant operators who violated plant procedures and were ignorant of the safety requirements needed.

Comments (1)

As the Arabs see the Jews

January 23, 2009 at 9:39 am · Filed under Clash of Civilizations, Islam ·Tagged , , , ,

100-0051_img“As the Arabs see the Jews”
His Majesty King Abdullah,
The American Magazine
November, 1947

 

Summary
This fascinating essay, written by King Hussein’s grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe. Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe. King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.
 

I am especially delighted to address an American audience, for the tragic problem of Palestine will never be solved without American understanding, American sympathy, American support.

So many billions of words have been written about Palestine—perhaps more than on any other subject in history—that I hesitate to add to them. Yet I am compelled to do so, for I am reluctantly convinced that the world in general, and America in particular, knows almost nothing of the true case for the Arabs.   

We Arabs follow, perhaps far more than you think, the press of America. We are frankly disturbed to find that for every word printed on the Arab side, a thousand are printed on the Zionist side.   

There are many reasons for this. You have many millions of Jewish citizens interested in this question. They are highly vocal and wise in the ways of publicity. There are few Arab citizens in America, and we are as yet unskilled in the technique of modern propaganda.
The results have been alarming for us. In your press we see a horrible caricature and are told it is our true portrait. In all justice, we cannot let this pass by default.   

Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab. It is still preponderantly Arab today, in spite of enormous Jewish immigration. But if this immigration continues we shall soon be outnumbered—a minority in our home.
Palestine is a small and very poor country, about the size of your state of Vermont. Its Arab population is only about 1,200,000. Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more.
Our position is so simple and natural that we are amazed it should even be questioned. It is exactly the same position you in America take in regard to the unhappy European Jews. You are sorry for them, but you do not want them in your country.   

We do not want them in ours, either. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. We would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever.   

Think for a moment: In the last 25 years we have had one third of our entire population forced upon us. In America that would be the equivalent of 45,000,000 complete strangers admitted to your country, over your violent protest, since 1921. How would you have reacted to that?
Because of our perfectly natural dislike of being overwhelmed in our own homeland, we are called blind nationalists and heartless anti-Semites. This charge would be ludicrous were it not so dangerous.
No people on earth have been less “anti-Semitic” than the Arabs. The persecution of the Jews has been confined almost entirely to the Christian nations of the West. Jews, themselves, will admit that never since the Great Dispersion did Jews develop so freely and reach such importance as in Spain when it was an Arab possession. With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbours.
Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and other Arab centres have always contained large and prosperous Jewish colonies. Until the Zionist invasion of Palestine began, these Jews received the most generous treatment—far, far better than in Christian Europe. Now, unhappily, for the first time in history, these Jews are beginning to feel the effects of Arab resistance to the Zionist assault. Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us resent, as we do, the coming of these strangers.  

101-0141_imgI was puzzled for a long time about the odd belief which apparently persists in America that Palestine has somehow “always been a Jewish land.” Recently an American I talked to cleared up this mystery. He pointed out that the only things most Americans know about Palestine are what they read in the Bible. It was a Jewish land in those days, they reason, and they assume it has always remained so.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is absurd to reach so far back into the mists of history to argue about who should have Palestine today, and I apologise for it. Yet the Jews do this, and I must reply to their “historic claim.” I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!  

If you suggest that I am biased, I invite you to read any sound history of the period and verify the facts. Such fragmentary records as we have indicate that the Jews were wandering nomads from Iraq who moved to southern Turkey, came south to Palestine, stayed there a short time, and then passed to Egypt, where they remained about 400 years. About 1300 BC (according to your calendar) they left Egypt and gradually conquered most—but not all—of the inhabitants of Palestine.  

It is significant that the Philistines—not the Jews—gave their name to the country: “Palestine” is merely the Greek form of “Philistia.”
Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly—but not all—the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC. Only 250 years later the Kingdom of Judah had shrunk to a small province around Jerusalem, barely a quarter of modern Palestine.  

In 63 BC the Jews were conquered by Roman Pompey, and never again had even the vestige of independence. The Roman Emperor Hadrian finally wiped them out about 135 AD. He utterly destroyed Jerusalem, rebuilt under another name, and for hundreds of years no Jew was permitted to enter it. A handful of Jews remained in Palestine but the vast majority were killed or scattered to other countries, in the Diaspora, or the Great Dispersion. From that time Palestine ceased to be a Jewish country, in any conceivable sense.  

This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!
Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, “homeland” of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years.  

Many Mexicans might claim Spain, “homeland” of their forefathers. They might even claim Texas, which was Mexican until 100 years ago. And suppose the American Indians claimed the “homeland” of which they were the sole, native, and ancient occupants until only some 450 years ago!  

I am not being facetious. All these claims are just as valid—or just as fantastic—as the Jewish “historic connection” with Palestine. Most are more valid.
In any event, the great Moslem expansion about 650 AD finally settled things. It dominated Palestine completely. From that day on, Palestine was solidly Arabic in population, language, and religion. When British armies entered the country during the last war, they found 500,000 Arabs and only 65,000 Jews.  

If solid, uninterrupted Arab occupation for nearly 1,300 years does not make a country “Arab”, what does? The Jews say, and rightly, that Palestine is the home of their religion. It is likewise the birthplace of Christianity, but would any Christian nation claim it on that account? In passing, let me say that the Christian Arabs—and there are many hundreds of thousands of them in the Arab World—are in absolute agreement with all other Arabs in opposing the Zionist invasion of Palestine.  

May I also point out that Jerusalem is, after Mecca and Medina, the holiest place in Islam. In fact, in the early days of our religion, Moslems prayed toward Jerusalem instead of Mecca.

The Jewish “religious claim” to Palestine is as absurd as the “historic claim.” The Holy Places, sacred to three great religions, must be open to all, the monopoly of none. Let us not confuse religion and politics.
We are told that we are inhumane and heartless because do not accept with open arms the perhaps 200,000 Jews in Europe who suffered so frightfully under Nazi cruelty, and who even now—almost three years after war’s end—still languish in cold, depressing camps.
Let me underline several facts. The unimaginable persecution of the Jews was not done by the Arabs: it was done by a Christian nation in the West. The war which ruined Europe and made it almost impossible for these Jews to rehabilitate themselves was fought by the Christian nations of the West. The rich and empty portions of the earth belong, not to the Arabs, but to the Christian nations of the West.

 

And yet, to ease their consciences, these Christian nations of the West are asking Palestine—a poor and tiny Moslem country of the East—to accept the entire burden. “We have hurt these people terribly,” cries the West to the East. “Won’t you please take care of them for us?”
We find neither logic nor justice in this. Are we therefore “cruel and heartless nationalists”?
We are a generous people: we are proud that “Arab hospitality” is a phrase famous throughout the world. We are a humane people: no one was shocked more than we by the Hitlerite terror. No one pities the present plight of the desperate European Jews more than we.
But we say that Palestine has already sheltered 600,000 refugees. We believe that is enough to expect of us—even too much. We believe it is now the turn of the rest of the world to accept some of them.  

I will be entirely frank with you. There is one thing the Arab world simply cannot understand. Of all the nations of the earth, America is most insistent that something be done for these suffering Jews of Europe. This feeling does credit to the humanity for which America is famous, and to that glorious inscription on your Statue of Liberty.
And yet this same America—the richest, greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known—refuses to accept more than a token handful of these same Jews herself!
I hope you will not think I am being bitter about this. I have tried hard to understand that mysterious paradox, and I confess I cannot. Nor can any other Arab.
Perhaps you have been informed that “the Jews in Europe want to go to no other place except Palestine.”   

This myth is one of the greatest propaganda triumphs of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the organisation which promotes with fanatic zeal the emigration to Palestine. It is a subtle half-truth, thus doubly dangerous. The astounding truth is that nobody on earth really knows where these unfortunate Jews really want to go!   

You would think that in so grave a problem, the American, British, and other authorities responsible for the European Jews would have made a very careful survey, probably by vote, to find out where each Jew actually wants to go. Amazingly enough this has never been done! The Jewish Agency has prevented it.   

Some time ago the American Military Governor in Germany was asked at a press conference how he was so certain that all Jews there wanted to go to Palestine. His answer was simple: “My Jewish advisors tell me so.” He admitted no poll had ever been made. Preparations were indeed begun for one, but the Jewish Agency stepped in to stop it.   

The truth is that the Jews in German camps are now subjected to a Zionist pressure campaign which learned much from the Nazi terror. It is dangerous for a Jew to say that he would rather go to some other country, not Palestine. Such dissenters have been severely beaten, and worse.
Not long ago, in Palestine, nearly 1,000 Austrian Jews informed the international refugee organisation that they would like to go back to Austria, and plans were made to repatriate them.
The Jewish Agency heard of this, and exerted enough political pressure to stop it. It would be bad propaganda for Zionism if Jews began leaving Palestine. The nearly 1,000 Austrian are still there, against their will.   

The fact is that most of the European Jews are Western in culture and outlook, entirely urban in experience and habits. They cannot really have their hearts set on becoming pioneers in the barren, arid, cramped land which is Palestine.    

One thing, however, is undoubtedly true. As matters stand now, most refugee Jews in Europe would, indeed, vote for Palestine, simply because they know no other country will have them.
If you or I were given a choice between a near-prison camp for the rest of our lives—or Palestine—we would both choose Palestine, too.   

But open up any other alternative to them—give them any other choice, and see what happens!
No poll, however, will be worth anything unless the nations of the earth are willing to open their doors—just a little—to the Jews. In other words, if in such a poll a Jew says he wants to go to Sweden, Sweden must be willing to accept him. If he votes for America, you must let him come in.   

Any other kind of poll would be a farce. For the desperate Jew, this is no idle testing of opinion: this is a grave matter of life or death. Unless he is absolutely sure that his vote means something, he will always vote for Palestine, so as not to risk his bird in the hand for one in the bush.
In any event, Palestine can accept no more. The 65,000 Jews in Palestine in 1918 have jumped to 600,000 today. We Arabs have increased, too, but not by immigration. The Jews were then a mere 11 per cent of our population. Today they are one third of it.
The rate of increase has been terrifying. In a few more years—unless stopped now—it will overwhelm us, and we shall be an important minority in our own home.
Surely the rest of the wide world is rich enough and generous enough to find a place for 200,000 Jews—about one third the number that tiny, poor Palestine has already sheltered. For the rest of the world, it is hardly a drop in the bucket. For us it means national suicide.  

We are sometimes told that since the Jews came to Palestine, the Arab standard of living has improved. This is a most complicated question. But let us even assume, for the argument, that it is true. We would rather be a bit poorer, and masters of our own home. Is this unnatural?
The sorry story of the so-called “Balfour Declaration,” which started Zionist immigration into Palestine, is too complicated to repeat here in detail. It is grounded in broken promises to the Arabs—promises made in cold print which admit no denying.   

We utterly deny its validity. We utterly deny the right of Great Britain to give away Arab land for a “national home” for an entirely foreign people. Even the League of Nations sanction does not alter this. At the time, not a single Arab state was a member of the League. We were not allowed to say a word in our own defense.
I must point out, again in friendly frankness, that America was nearly as responsible as Britain for this Balfour Declaration. President Wilson approved it before it was issued, and the American Congress adopted it word for word in a joint resolution on 30th June, 1922.   

In the 1920s, Arabs were annoyed and insulted by Zionist immigration, but not alarmed by it. It was steady, but fairly small, as even the Zionist founders thought it would remain. Indeed for some years, more Jews left Palestine than entered it—in 1927 almost twice as many.
But two new factors, entirely unforeseen by Britain or the League or America or the most fervent Zionist, arose in the early thirties to raise the immigration to undreamed heights. One was the World Depression; the second the rise of Hitler.   

In 1932, the year before Hitler came to power, only 9,500 Jews came to Palestine. We did not welcome them, but we were not afraid that, at that rate, our solid Arab majority would ever be in danger. But the next year—the year of Hitler—it jumped to 30,000! In 1934 it was 42,000! In 1935 it reached 61,000!  It was no longer the orderly arrival of idealist Zionists. Rather, all Europe was pouring its frightened Jews upon us. Then, at last, we, too, became frightened. We knew that unless this enormous influx stopped, we were, as Arabs, doomed in our Palestine homeland. And we have not changed our minds.   

I have the impression that many Americans believe the trouble in Palestine is very remote from them, that America had little to do with it, and that your only interest now is that of a humane bystander. I believe that you do not realise how directly you are, as a nation, responsible in general for the whole Zionist move and specifically for the present terrorism. I call this to your attention because I am certain that if you realise your responsibility you will act fairly to admit it and assume it.   

Quite aside from official American support for the “National Home” of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist settlements in Palestine would have been almost impossible, on anything like the current scale, without American money. This was contributed by American Jewry in an idealistic effort to help their fellows.   

The motive was worthy: the result were disastrous. The contributions were by private individuals, but they were almost entirely Americans, and, as a nation, only America can answer for it.
The present catastrophe may be laid almost entirely at your door. Your government, almost alone in the world, is insisting on the immediate admission of 100,000 more Jews into Palestine—to be followed by countless additional ones. This will have the most frightful consequences in bloody chaos beyond anything ever hinted at in Palestine before.   

It is your press and political leadership, almost alone in the world, who press this demand. It is almost entirely American money which hires or buys the “refugee ships” that steam illegally toward Palestine: American money which pays their crews. The illegal immigration from Europe is arranged by the Jewish Agency, supported almost entirely by American funds. It is American dollars which support the terrorists, which buy the bullets and pistols that kill British soldiers—your allies—and Arab citizens—your friends. 
We in the Arab world were stunned to hear that you permit open advertisements in newspapers asking for money to finance these terrorists, to arm them openly and deliberately for murder. We could not believe this could really happen in the modern world. Now we must believe it: we have seen the advertisements with our own eyes. I point out these things because nothing less than complete frankness will be of use. The crisis is too stark for mere polite vagueness which means nothing. I have the most complete confidence in the fair-mindedness and generosity of the American public. We Arabs ask no favours. We ask only that you know the full truth, not half of it. We ask only that when you judge the Palestine question, you put yourselves in our place.   

What would your answer be if some outside agency told you that you must accept in America many millions of utter strangers in your midst—enough to dominate your country—merely because they insisted on going to America, and because their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago?   

Our answer is the same. And what would be your action if, in spite of your refusal, this outside agency began forcing them on you? Ours will be the same.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Obama’s Student Days

January 23, 2009 at 9:38 am · Filed under Pakistan ·Tagged ,

obamaandroommate-480SUBLET AVAILABLE: Three-room railroad flat, third floor, West 109th Street. Near Columbia University. Ideal for roommates who do not need privacy, reliable heat or steady hot water. Kitchen modest, but take out available, including New York bagels for only a quarter.

Such were the accommodations that greeted President, Barack Obama, when he moved to New York in 1981 to pursue his undergraduate studies at Columbia, according to the recollections of Phil Boerner, his roommate for a semester.

 

Both men were transfer students from Occidental College in Los Angeles, and as transfers were locked out of university housing at the time. Obama, 20, a junior, had spent two years at Occidental, where he had lived in the same dorm as Mr. Boerner.

 

Obama, who ultimately made Chicago, and now Washington, his home, enjoyed his New York years, Mr. Boerner recalls. Museums. Jogging in the park. Breakfasts at Tom’s on Broadway, not yet the celebrated hangout of Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza.

“I miss New York and the people in it,” he would write Mr. Boerner a few years after they graduated. “The subways, the feel of Manhattan streets, the view downtown from the Brooklyn Bridge.”

 

The apartment they shared, however, took some getting used to, Mr. Boerner recalled: 3E at 142 West 109th Street, a five-story building between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues.

Obama has recalled spending his first night in New York in an alley near the apartment, after arriving too late to be let in. The apartment had no interior doors, just archways, and Mr. Boerner had to walk through Obama’s room to reach his own. Hot water was scarce, and the two young men often showered at the Columbia gym.

 

“It had a bathtub but no shower, just one of those plastic shower things that works ineffectively,’’ said Mr. Boerner, who also recounted his experience with Mr. Obama in an essay he wrote this month for Columbia College Today, an alumni publication.

 

Mr. Boerner, who lives in California and is a registered Democrat, said he had kept his recollections to himself during the campaign, but thought he would share them now as his friend makes history.

 

When they lived together, Mr. Boerner said he thought Obama wanted to be a writer, not a politician. Columbia recently tracked down, with the help of a graduate, one piece that Obama wrote in his senior year about two antiwar groups on campus for a now-defunct student periodical called “Sundial.’’

 

In it, he is already using phrases like “distorted national priorities” and “shifting America off the dead-end track,’’ which foreshadow messages of his later years.

“He’ll be a great president because of his intelligence and even more because of his good heart,’’ Mr. Boerner said.

 

New York was on the rebound when Obama arrived in New York. Ronald Reagan was president. Edward I. Koch was mayor and the city’s fiscal crisis had just started to abate.

Life for Columbia students could be hard, however. Mr. Boerner recalls Obama wrapping himself in a green sleeping bag to keep warm when they studied at home. They listened to reggae. Bob Marley. Peter Tosh. Talked philosophy. Theories of justice and John Rawls. Mr. Boerner recalled Obama joking that he would rather be spending his time pondering Lou Rawls, the singer. Some nights Obama would whip up some chicken curry, a dish he learned from a Pakistani friend. Other meals were at Tom’s.

 

“We would just go there for the breakfast special, two eggs over easy and toast,’’ said Mr. Boerner. “It was like $1.99, and we lived on a lot of bagels. They were, like, a quarter then, but they expanded in your stomach.’’

 

They also ventured out to Mr. Boerner’s family farm in the Catskills, where Mr. Obama helped with morning chores.

 

Though the two men stayed in touch, the housing arrangement ended that winter. Mr. Boerner thinks the leaseholder took the apartment back. Obama recalled in his memoir giving up the place “for lack of heat.’’

 

 

 

The 1982-83 student directory shows Obama living in his senior year at Apartment 6A of 339 East 94th Street. His letters to Mr. Boerner reflected the wistfulness of all expatriate New Yorkers.

 

“I am still amazed when I think of what we put up with there,” he wrote Mr. Boerner in October 1986. “Still, I think you’ll find you miss it once you’ve been gone awhile.”

 

Comments (1)

Older Posts »