Referendum to test EU diplomacy in Moldova

15.09.2006 - 14:29 CET | By Andrew Rettman
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The breakaway republic of Transdniestria in Moldova will on Sunday (17 September) vote in a referendum on joining Russia, in a potentially damaging blow to EU diplomacy in the post-Soviet region.

"Do you support the course of independence for the Transdniestrian Moldavian Republic and the subsequent free joining of Transdniestria to the Russian Federation?" the form will ask the 700,000 ethnic-Moldovan people living on the east side of the Dniester river.

Dubbed illegitimate by the EU, Moldova and Ukraine, the referendum is expected to bring in a 90 percent "yes" - partly due to lack of free and fair voting conditions in Igor Smirnov's Transdniestria and partly due to the unappealing situation on the west side of the Dniester.

"GDP per capita [in Moldova] is on a par with Sudan's. The government, headed by Vladimir Voronin has shown little will to root out corruption," an August report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) said, citing Moldovan opposition MP Oleg Serebrian who called his home "a failed state."

Chisinau believes the Sunday vote will pass with little or no impact, due to the intensified involvement of the EU and US in local conflict resolution schemes - the EU currently has 50 border monitors stationed in Ukraine who are helping to put economic pressure on Mr Smirnov's smuggling empire.

"Now, the situation is more safe than if we compare with other periods of time, first of all due to the appearance of new EU projects," Moldova's ambassador to Brussels, Eugen Carpov told EUobserver this week. "The EU is becoming more and more involved in this process."

He added that the European Commission is set to give trade breaks to Moldovan wine and farm goods in the new year, in a bid to boost economic conditions and to give Transdniestrian firms an incentive to register in Chisinau, thus benefiting from tariff-free EU trade.

Rough neighbourhood
But an OSCE contact stationed in Chisinau warned that "the referendum certainly does nothing to advance the settlement process," adding that "tense situations" in Transdniestria have "the potential to escalate into locally-confined but violent incidents."

In July, a bomb blast in Tiraspol that killed eight people was initially blamed on Moldovan secret agents, but later linked to rival criminal gangs.

On top of the long-standing tension, Russian president Vladimir Putin's new policy of linking Transdniestria to Kosovo and Montenegro - which gained independence via a referendum in May - could give the Tiraspol vote more weight.

Russia has not ruled out sending election monitors for Sunday's event, while Russian parliament deputy head Sergei Baburin two weeks ago said "this year Transdniestria has a chance of gaining independence."

Raising the stakes
The likely accession of Romania into the EU in January will make Moldova a direct EU border state, raising the stakes in Europe's drive to build functional, modern democracies on the edge of the bloc.

The ICG report asks Brussels to extend the mandate of the EU border monitoring mission for several years, station its Moldova envoy - Adriaan Jacobovits de Szeged - in Chisinau permanently, boost aid and step up information campaigns for Transdniestrian students.

"This [greater engagement in Moldova] is also in the interest of Europe," Chisinau's Mr Carpov stated. "Romania joining the EU will for sure change the attitude of the EU concerning the situation in its neighbourhood."

The Blair/Bush "Political"and negligible Threat becomes an annoyance to all travellers and another phase in Western Racialism

The 200 million passengers who pass through British airports each year will face high levels of security "permanently", senior government officials say. Passengers will be banned from taking liquids bought outside the security screening zone on an "enduring basis", security experts at the Department for Transport (DfT) said.

The officials indicated that any relaxation of the rules would depend on the development of technology able to detect all potentially explosive liquids, the perceived level of threat and the experience gained from operating the procedures.At present, the equipment was only partly successful. "It is a big step to go from a concept that works in the lab to one that works in a complex airport environment," the experts said.

The threat of liquid explosives would remain. It was not possible to "uninvent" a threat. Passengers were also warned that the rules restricting them to one laptop-size piece of hand luggage was likely to remain because it was far easier and more efficient to screen smaller bags.
The Independant newspaper excerpt

The timing is political

We should be sceptical about this alleged plot, and wary of politicians who seek to benefit

Craig Murray
Friday August 18, 2006
The Guardian

Nine days on, nobody has been charged with any crime. For there to be no clear evidence yet on something that was "imminent" and would bring "mass murder on an unbelievable scale" is, to say the least, peculiar. A 24th person, arrested amid much fanfare on Tuesday, was quietly released without charge the following day.

Media analysis has been full of information from police and security sources. By and large journalists are honourable in this kind of reporting. Their sources, unfortunately, are not - viz the non-existent ricin, the Forest Gate "chemical weapons vest", or Jean Charles de Menezes leaping the barriers. Unlike the herd of security experts, I have had the highest security clearance; I have done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis; and I have been inside the spin machine. And I am very sceptical about the story that has been spun.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not have passports. It could be pretty difficult to convince a jury that these individuals were about to go through with suicide bombings, whatever they bragged about on the net.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for more than a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information from people desperate to stop or avert torture. What you don't get is the truth.

We also have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing arrests the weekend before they were made. Why? Both in domestic trouble, they longed for a chance to change the story. The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a chance. Comparisons with 9/11 were all over front pages.

And we have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, the home secretary, warning us all in advance of the evil that threatens us and complaining that some people "don't get" why we have to abandon traditional liberties.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most do not fit the "loner" profile you would expect. As they were all under surveillance, and on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity: that is what we would have done with the IRA.

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. More than 1,000 British Muslims have been arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, but only 12% have been charged. That is harassment on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% were acquitted. Most of the few convictions - just over 2% of arrests - are nothing to do with terrorism, but some minor offence the police happened upon while trawling through the lives they have wrecked.

Plainly, Islamist terrorism does exist. But its growth is encouraged by our adherence to neocon foreign policy, by our support for appalling regimes abroad, and by our trampling on the rights of Muslims in the UK. Now David Cameron has joined Blair and Reid in the rush to benefit politically from the fear thus engendered. Be very wary of politicians who seek to benefit from terror.

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.

· Craig Murray, who was posted to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, is the author of Murder in Samarkand - A British Ambassador's Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror
www.craigmurray.co.uk

=================================================

A Right-Wing Sunni Backlash

Exposing the "Sufi Muslim Council"
By: Craig Murray on: 24.08.2006
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/99951

Picture: Haras Rafiq with a Labour councillor and a religious extremist Labour Minister

The 'Neoconservative' Sufi Muslim Council
August 24, 2006
The Washington neo-cons, President Karimov of Uzbekistanand Jack Straw appear to be linked to a newly prominent "Muslim interest group" that supports the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistanand Israeli action in the Lebanon...

From "Sufi Muslim Council Exposed":
http://sufimuslimcouncil.blogspot.com

Who and what is the "Sufi Muslim Council"? They seem to have emerged from nowhere – suddenly their spokesman is interviewed on Radio 4 and Newsnight and a Channel 4 documentary gives their views some weight. They have a new website and a new magazine. But hardly anyone knows who they are or what they stand for?

We wanted to know the answer to these questions so we set about doing some basic research. We have uncovered very worrying links between this new council and the neocons in Washington. There are also links to some of the most brutal regimes in the world e.g. the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan. We have also unearthed allegations of dodgy business dealings and vote rigging.

The Neocon Link

Just take a look at the SMC website www.sufimuslimcouncil.org and the influence of the neocons in Washington becomes very clear. The majority of the content is written by neocons that criticise Islamic groups – 'Wahhabis', the Muslim Brotherhood, MCB, MAB, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Tablighi Jamaat and Jamaati Islami are some of the examples that come in for criticism. There are articles entitled "The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe", "Hizb ut-Tahrir – Islam's Political Insurgency" and "Islamic Radicalism – Its Wahhabi roots and current representation".

We found that one of the prominent authors on the SMC website, who also writes for the SMC magazine "Spirit", is Zeyno Baran – a self confessed neocon who works for the ultra right wing Hudson Institute. She is close to the Uzbek regime and close to the oil and gas interests in Washington and Central Asia. She tirelessly does the bidding of the dictatorial regimes of Central Asia by playing down human rights abuses and encouraging western governments to enact draconian measures against Muslims. She has condemned Sheikh Qaradawi and the International Union of Muslim Scholars, amongst others. She says that Islam should play no role in politics and condemns even the mere mention of Islam in the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions.

From our enquiries it seems that for some time now, Baran has been trying to establish a neocon-friendly Muslim organisation in the UK. She has talked of the need to, "provide money and help create the political space for moderate Muslims to organize, publish, broadcast, and translate their work." We also uncovered evidence that she has also held meetings with government officials in the UK, urging them to ban the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir and cease working with Muslim organisations that mix Islam with politics.

What do real Sufis and local Muslim leaders say about the Sufi Muslim council?

In a recent survey of Sufi Muslim Scholars and Imams in the UK none had heard about the SMC or its founders until its launch. Most found it very disturbing that there was no real evidence of real tassawuf in their organisation.

The hard right neocon think tank the Nixon Center published a document by Zeyno Baran which encouraged using Sufism as a means to attack Islam.

http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/Sufism.pdf

Similarly the RAND corporation in their paper Civil Democratic Islam talk of using one group of Muslims against another - Shia vs. Sunni; Sufi vs. Non Sufi. Divide and Rule.

The Kabbani/Jack Straw link

The SMC is closely linked to Shaykh Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA). The SMC website and magazine are full of Kabbani's writings and Haras Rafiq has admitted that Kabbani is the spiritual leader of the SMC.

On the 29th of April 2005, the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA), Shaykh Hisham Kabbani, met with the then UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in Blackburn (right). The meeting was also attended by Haras Rafiq and Hedieh Mirahmadi, an apologist for the Uzbek regime and the founder of the neocon "Committee on the Present Danger". She is also a foreign policy analyst at the right-wing neocon think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

While Britain continued to arm Israel and occupy Iraq, Kabbani, thanked Straw for the role the UK played in the Middle East and said, “We are glad to see changes taking place in the political mechanisms in the Middle East. We hope to see an end to tyranny and we are happy to observe a strong upsurge in freedom of speech, freedom of belief and political openness in the region.”

Most Muslim organisations in the USA, of all schools of thought, have strongly criticised ISCA for its close relationship with the US government and its strange theological positions, including outlandish claims that the late Princess Diana, Prince Charles and Hillary Clinton have all embraced Islam at the hands of the leaders of the ISCA.

Igor Rotar, the Forum 18 News Service Correspondent in Central Asia, has noted that, "The Uzbek government supports close ties with the Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA), which embraces Naqshbandi followers in the USA, and plays up its supposed popularity in the Islamic world. Although the number of ISCA members is relatively small, Uzbek propaganda represents ISCA as being one of the most influential Muslim organisations in the United States."

On January 7 1999, Kabbani infuriated the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the US when he gave a clandestine testimony to the State Department in which he claimed 80% of mosques and Muslims in the US were "extremists", Muslims pose a threat to the USA and the US government needs to act quickly and Israeli occupation is legitimate and should be accepted. Only those with State Department security clearance were allowed to attend the event. Following this meeting, all the major US Muslim organisations including CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, AMC, MPAC, AMA, ING, and IAP, issued a statement condemning the ISCA. In a later statement, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, of the Zaytuna Institute, joined the above groups in their condemnation.

Soon after the American invasion of Afghanistan, Kabbani had Iftar with George W Bush and US Secretary of State Colin Powell. There are also photos of meetings with Dick Cheney and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan (below). The photo of George Bush with Sheikh Kabbani (above) has mysteriously disappeared from the ISCA website, but a trawl through internet archives unearthed it.

Zeyno Baran has enjoyed a very close relationship with the ISCA. In particular she has had a close relationship with Hedieh Mirahmadi, Executive Director of ISCA, a "former top aide" to Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani and a former senior adviser to the US embassy in Kabul. In writing the Nixon Center monograph "Hizb ut-Tahrir: Islam's political insurgency", Baran acknowledges the "tremendous intellectual and personal support" given to her by Mirahmadi.

Mirahmadi is an apologist for one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. About a government that bans all dissent, represses religion and boils dissidents alive, Ms. Mirahmadi had this to say:
"We were all grateful to experience for ourselves the spectacular growth of this new republic. We sincerely believe Uzbekistan will be a formidable contributor to Islamic tradition and culture for centuries to come. Their great history and scholarship will preserve the traditional Islamic teachings of our ancestors and deserves the support and acknowledgement of the American Muslim community."
These were her words of praise for a viciously repressive government, uttered at the conclusion of her trip to Uzbekistan, where Mirahmadi was feted by the ruthless Uzbek dictator.

Who is behind the SMC?

There is very little publicly available information on the Islamic credentials of the Sufi Muslim Council. Unlike other Muslim groups from across the political spectrum, the leaders of the SMC are either underground or non-existent. Those who write for its magazine are unknown, other than those who work for neocon organisations in the US. Many of the articles in its magazine are just a "cut and paste" from ISCA publications. The most prominent person since its establishment is a guy called Haras Rafiq who originates from Rochdale in Lancashire.

Some may have noticed that the previously unheard of Rafiq has suddenly been giving interviews, claiming to speak for the "silent majority" of Muslims in Britain.

Haras Rafiq has said, "The prime minister and others have on many occasions rightly called for moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted. In response to this call, and following extensive consultations within the Muslim community, we have decided to establish the Sufi Muslim Council."

In most of his interviews, Haras Rafiq, talks a lot about representing 'apolitical' Sufis. However, from our investigations, the majority of Sufis in the UK had never heard of him. In an interview on Radio 4, when asked who supported the SMC, he did however say that they were supported by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

We did find evidence of Haras Rafiq's involvement in Bridges TV UK, a company incorporated on 24th August 2004. Reports suggest that it was envisaged that this would be a "Muslim version of Sky One". They have been involved in a trademark dispute with Bridges Network in the US. Contrary to an agreement with Bridges Network, Rafiq registered Bridges TV UK as a trademark in the UKin March 2005. The US district court in New York ruled against Rafiq in January 2006 and granted a temporary restraining order. Soon after that ruling, Bridges Network UK Limited changed its name at Companies House to Crescent Network UK Limited. Rafiq is also listed at Companies House as being the Director and Secretary of the little known Bury based Communications 4 Business Limited.

It is also noteworthy that the 'apolitical' Haras Rafiq also supported Labour Friends of Israel MP Lorna Fitzsimmons' re-election campaign in Rochdale in the 2005 general election.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/england/4452599.stm

Rafiq was also presented in Martin Bright's Channel 4 documentary "Who Speaks for British Muslims?" In that documentary, Bright and Rafiq, said that the majority of Muslims were Sufis and 'apolitical'. Not much evidence was brought to substantiate that contention, but it was clear that Bright wanted Western politicians to utilise 'apolitical' Sufis to soften condemnation of Western foreign policy.

The other person who appears in a photo with Haras Rafiq and the Labour Communities Secretary, Ruth Kelly, at the 'apolitical' SMC launch in Parliament is the staunch Blair supporter, Azhar Ali, a former Labour councillor in Lancashire. He stood for the Labour NEC elections in July 2006.

The Labour party website makes no mention of Ali's new found interest in Sufism, merely stating, "Azhar has been a community activist since 1984 when he became NUS President at his local college, and a Labour party activist since the early 1990s. Azhar's politics have been shaped by living in a mill town in Lancashire hit hard by Thatcherite policies which led to urban and social decay." http://www.labourhome.org/tag/Azhar%20Ali

Not surprisingly, no mention is made of allegations in the Guardian of vote rigging involving Ali: "The Guardian counted at least 96 declarations of identity which were witnessed by Mr Iqbal, and dozens which were witnessed by Azhar Ali, Labour's leader on the council. On behalf of both councillors, Mr Iqbal denied that this was improper practice."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,800525,00.html

Speaking in Parliament, Lord Greaves, said, "I have a file of more than 100 cases in which we believe that either declarations or signatures—by either the witness or the voter—were forged. I have photocopies of them here. I do not understand why the police have not been able to deal with the evidence that we have provided."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd
/vo040129/text/40129-36.htm

Conclusion

We set out to discover who and what the SMC was about. We have uncovered very worrying links between this new council and the neocons in Washington, links to some of the most brutal regimes in the world and allegations of dodgy business dealings and vote rigging.

The SMC state, "We appeal to UK based Muslim organisations to openly disclose their ties to foreign groups and movements."

After this investigation, will they now disclose the full extent of their links to the neocons in Washington and Blair's new Labour? Or do they think the Muslims will be fooled by a Parliament launch, a magazine and the odd press release?

We will continue to watch the SMC's every move and will continue to expose its links to the neocons in Washington.

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_neoconserva.html

On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon

By Noam Chomsky

There was some brief and dismissive mention of the kidnapping of the Muamar brothers, but no reaction, because such crimes are considered legitimate when carried out by “our side.” The idea that this crime would justify a murderous assault on Israel would have been regarded as a reversion to Nazism....

08/24/06 "ZNet" -- -- Al-Adab -- Though there are many interacting factors, the immediate issue that lies behind the latest US-Israeli invasion of Lebanon remains, I believe, what it was in the four preceding invasions: the Israel-Palestine conflict. In the most important case, the devastating US-backed 1982 Israeli invasion was openly described in Israel as a war for the West Bank, undertaken to put an end to annoying PLO calls for a diplomatic settlement (with the secondary goal of imposing a client regime in Lebanon). There are numerous other illustrations. Despite the many differences in circumstances, the July 2006 invasion falls generally into the same pattern. Among mainstream American critics of Bush administration policies, the favored version is that “We had always approached [conflict between Israel and its neighbors] in a balanced way, assuming that we could be the catalyst for an agreement,” but Bush II regrettably abandoned that neutral stance, causing great problems for the United States (Middle East specialist and former diplomat Edward Walker, a leading moderate). The actual record is quite different: For over 30 years, Washington has unilaterally barred a peaceful political settlement, with only slight and brief deviations.

The consistent rejectionism can be traced back to the February 1971 Egyptian offer of a full peace treaty with Israel, in the terms of official US policy, offering nothing for the Palestinians. Israel understood that this peace offer would put an end to any security threat, but the government decided to reject security in favor of expansion, then mostly into northeastern Sinai. Washington supported Israel’s stand, adhering to Kissinger’s principle of “stalemate”: force, not diplomacy. It was only 8 years later, after a terrible war and great suffering, that Washington agreed to Egypt’s demand for withdrawal from its territory.

Meanwhile the Palestinian issue had entered the international agenda, and a broad international consensus had crystallized in favor of a two-state settlement on the pre-June 1967 border, perhaps with minor and mutual adjustments. In December 1975, the UN Security Council agreed to consider a resolution proposed by the Arab “confrontation states” with these provisions, also incorporating the basic wording of UN 242. The US vetoed the resolution. Israel’s reaction was to bomb Lebanon, killing over 50 people in Nabatiye, calling the attack “preventive” – presumably to “prevent” the UN session, which Israel boycotted.

The only significant exception to consistent US-Israeli rejectionism was in January 2001, when Israeli and Palestinian negotiators came close to agreement in Taba. But the negotiations were called off by Israeli Prime Minister Barak four days early, ending that promising effort. Unofficial but high-level negotiations continued, leading to the Geneva Accord of December 2002, with similar proposals. It was welcomed by most of the world, but rejected by Israel and dismissed by Washington (and, reflexively, the US media and intellectual classes).

Meanwhile US-backed Israeli settlement and infrastructure programs have been “creating facts on the ground” in order to undermine potential realization of Palestinian national rights. Throughout the Oslo years, these programs continued steadily, with a sharp peak in 2000: Clinton’s final year, and Barak’s. The current euphemism for these programs is “disengagement” from Gaza and “convergence” in the West Bank – in Western rhetoric, Ehud Olmert’s courageous program of withdrawal from the occupied territories. The reality, as usual, is quite different.

The Gaza “disengagement” was openly announced as a West Bank expansion plan. Having turned Gaza into a disaster area, sane Israeli hawks realized that there was no point leaving a few thousand settlers taking the best land and scarce resources, protected by a large part of the IDF. It made more sense to send them to the West Bank and Golan Heights, where new settlement programs were announced, while turning Gaza into “the world’s largest prison,” as Israeli human rights groups accurately call it. West Bank “Convergence” formalizes these programs of annexation, cantonization, and imprisonment. With decisive US support, Israel is annexing valuable lands and the most important resources of the West Bank (primarily water), while carrying out settlement and infrastructure projects that divide the shrinking Palestinian territories into unviable cantons, virtually separated from one another and from whatever pitiful corner of Jerusalem will be left to Palestinians. All are to be imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan Valley, and of course any other access to the outside world.

All of these programs are recognized to be illegal, in violation of numerous Security Council resolutions and the unanimous decision of the World Court any part of the "separation wall" that is built to “defend” the settlements is “ipso facto” illegal (U.S. Justice Buergenthal, in a separate declaration). Hence about 80-85% of the wall is illegal, as is the entire “convergence” program. But for a self-designated outlaw state and its clients, such facts are minor irrelevancies.

Currently, the US and Israel demand that Hamas accept the 2002 Arab League Beirut proposal for full normalization of relations with Israel after withdrawal in accord with the international consensus. The proposal has long been accepted by the PLO, and it has also been formally accepted by the “supreme leader” of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has made it clear that Hezbollah would not disrupt such an agreement if it is accepted by Palestinians. Hamas has repeatedly indicated its willingness to negotiate in these terms.

The facts are doctrinally unacceptable, hence mostly suppressed. What we see, instead, is the stern warning to Hamas by the editors of the New York Times that their formal agreement to the Beirut peace plan is “an admission ticket to the real world, a necessary rite of passage in the progression from a lawless opposition to a lawful government.” Like others, the NYT editors fail to mention that the US and Israel forcefully reject this proposal, and are alone in doing so among relevant actors. Furthermore, they reject it not merely in rhetoric, but far more importantly, in deeds. We see at once who constitutes the “lawless opposition” and who speaks for them. But that conclusion cannot be expressed, even entertained, in respectable circles.

The only meaningful support for Palestinians facing national destruction is from Hezbollah. For this reason alone it follows that Hezbollah must be severely weakened or destroyed, just as the PLO had to be evicted from Lebanon in 1982. But Hezbollah is too deeply embedded within Lebanese society to be eradicated, so Lebanon too must be largely destroyed. An expected benefit for the US and Israel was to enhance the credibility of threats against Iran by eliminating a Lebanese-based deterrent to a possible attack. But none of this turned out as planned. Much as in Iraq, and elsewhere, Bush administration planners have created catastrophes, even for the interests they represent. That is the primary reason for the unprecedented criticism of the administration among the foreign policy elite, even before the invasion of Iraq.

In the background lie more far-reaching and lasting concerns: to ensure what is called “stability” in the reigning ideology. “Stability,” in simple words, means obedience. “Stability” is undermined by states that do not strictly follow orders, secular nationalists, Islamists who are not under control (in contrast, the Saudi monarchy, the oldest and most valuable US ally, is fine), etc. Such “destabilizing” forces are particularly dangerous when their programs are attractive to others, in which case they are called “viruses” that must be destroyed. “Stability” is enhanced by loyal client states. Since 1967, it has been assumed that Israel can play this role, along with other “peripheral” states. Israel has become virtually an off-shore US military base and high-tech center, the natural consequence of its rejection of security in favor of expansion in 1971, and repeatedly since. These policies are subject to little internal debate, whoever holds state power. The policies extend world-wide, and in the Middle East, their significance is enhanced by one of the leading principles of foreign policy since World War II (and for Britain before that): to ensure control over Middle East energy resources, recognized for 60 years to be “a stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”

The standard Western version is that the July 2006 invasion was justified by legitimate outrage over capture of two Israeli soldiers at the border. The posture is cynical fraud. The US and Israel, and the West generally, have little objection to capture of soldiers, or even to the far more severe crime of kidnapping civilians (or of course to killing civilians). That had been Israeli practice in Lebanon for many years, and no one ever suggested that Israel should therefore be invaded and largely destroyed. Western cynicism was revealed with even more dramatic clarity as the current upsurge of violence erupted after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, on June 25. That too elicited huge outrage, and support for Israel's sharp escalation of its murderous assault on Gaza. The scale is reflected in casualties: in June, 36 Palestinian civilians were killed in Gaza; in July, the numbers more than quadrupled to over 170, dozens of them children. The posture of outrage was, again, cynical fraud, as demonstrated dramatically, and conclusively, by the reaction to Israel's kidnapping of two Gaza civilians, the Muamar brothers, one day before, on June 24. They disappeared into Israel's prison system, joining the hundreds of others imprisoned without charge -- hence kidnapped, as are many of those sentenced on dubious charges. There was some brief and dismissive mention of the kidnapping of the Muamar brothers, but no reaction, because such crimes are considered legitimate when carried out by “our side.” The idea that this crime would justify a murderous assault on Israel would have been regarded as a reversion to Nazism.

The distinction is clear, and familiar throughout history: to paraphrase Thucydides, the powerful are entitled to do as they wish, while the weak suffer as they must.

We should not overlook the progress that has been made in undermining the imperial mentality that is so deeply rooted in Western moral and intellectual culture as to be beyond awareness. Nor should we forget the scale of what remains to be achieved, tasks that must be undertaken in solidarity and cooperation by people in North and South who hope to see a more decent and civilized world.

.........................................................................................................................

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Public Statement

AI Index: MDE 25/007/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 222
25 August 2006
United Arab Emirates: Harassment of human rights activists must stopAmnesty International is alarmed at the recent measures of intimidation and harassment of human rights activists in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Over the last months the organization has received information about the arrest of a prominent lawyer and a court action against another in order to put an end to their human rights activism and the freedom to practice their work.

On 17 June 2006 an arrest warrant was issued against Mohamed al-Mansoori, a lawyer, human rights activist and President of the independent Jurists’ Association after he was accused of “insulting the Public Prosecutor”. Amnesty International believes that the authorities’ real motive was to silence Mohamed al-Mansoori after he gave several interviews to Arab satellite television channels in which he spoke critically of the human rights situation in the country.

On 23 August 2006 Mohamed ‘Abdullah al-Roken, a lawyer, human rights activist and former president of the UAE’s Jurists’ Association, was arrested at his office in Dubai reportedly by members of Amn al-Dawla (State Security). The reasons for his arrest as well as his fate and whereabouts are still unknown. In July 2006, Mohamed ‘Abdullah al-Roken had been arrested and held for one night after he gave an interview to an Arabic satellite television channel about the recent conflict in Lebanon. He was released without charge. Both Mohamed al-Mansoori and Mohamed ‘Abdullah al-Roken have for a number of years been barred from giving interviews or writing articles for the local media.

The Jurists’ Association was founded in 1981 and has 370 members including judges, lawyers and legal experts. It has also been involved in organizing seminars on various human rights issues. However, in September 2005 in the Emirate of Fujairah, the authorities banned a conference on civil rights, women’s rights and democracy that the association had sought to organize. No reasons were given for the ban.

Amnesty International is also concerned at reports that the authorities had been seeking to close the Villa no. 18, City of Hope Women’s shelter in Jumeirah in the Emirate of Dubai. In early August 2006, the founder of the shelter, Sharla Musabih, was said to have been facing politically motivated criminal charges. The shelter houses and supports women and children survivors of violence, including women domestic workers who have suffered abuse by their employers.

Amnesty International is calling on the UAE authorities to clarify the fate and whereabouts of Mohamed ‘Abdullah al-Roken and ensure that he is given access to a lawyer, family members and medical care as necessary. The organization urges for him to be released if he is not charged with a recognizable criminal offence. If he is being held solely for the expression of his beliefs or opinion Mohamed ‘Abdullah al-Roken would be considered a prisoner of conscience who should be released immediately. Further, Amnesty International is calling on the UAE authorities to take concrete steps to ensure full respect and protection of the right to freedom of expression and that human rights defenders are free from harassment in accordance with Article 12 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders*.

* Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 53/144 of 9 December 1998 Article 12

1. Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to participate in peaceful activities against violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

2. The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration.

3. In this connection, everyone is entitled, individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively under national law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals that affect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.