What we are told is what Panetta-Petraeus, and the weapons manufacturers instruct the media to say:

– U.S. combat forces are surging in the Middle East. Earlier this week the “American carrier Carl Vinson joined the carrier Stennis in the Arabian Sea, giving commanders major naval and air assets in case Iran carries out its recent threats to close the Strait of Hormuz.”

– Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis (chief of U.S. Central Command) warned that he needed additional forces to deal with Iran and other potential threats.

– 15,000 troops are stationed in Kuwait joining the others that are there. This includes two new units — Army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit. General Mattis said that we should not take this as a build-up to war.

With the recent news of another assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, carried out by Israeli forces (a.k.a. U.S. special forces), we are told that Israel is “pushing” the U.S. toward war. To lend credence to this, pundits last week on CNN stated that in terms of war-making, that Israel could not act alone — that it, in fact, needs the U.S. Air Force to carry out a war and attack on Iran. It is very clear to most Americans that Israel cannot carry out a war by itself — that the U.S. is involved in every decision that affects Israeli actions against Iran, and that the Pentagon began planning and training for it years ago.

The attacks on Iran and Syria are imminent even though Russia is asking the U.S. and Iran to abandon the militant rhetoric. China, upon Geitner’s recent request during his visit there this last week, has not “significantly” reduced its Iranian oil imports. Turkey has also requested the U.S. resume diplomatic efforts.¹ The U.S.’s commitment to destabilize every Muslim country in the Middle East is almost complete. Iran and Syria are among the last remnants of independent nation-states in that area of the world, with lackeys such as Saudi Arabia, and a handful of other client states prepared to do whatever the U.S. demands. It will be decades before any Muslim country will have the economic and military independence it would take to prevent the U.S. from intervening when and where it chooses.

What the U.S. media doesn’t discuss is why we seek to destabilize the entire Arab world. The reason is obvious: by destroying the infrastructure of countries that have valuable natural resources, the U.S. and Europe ensure the stability and price-fixing capacities of U.S. and European oil interests as well as artificial control over other natural resources worldwide. It is not necessary for us to steal Iraq’s or Iran’s oil. By destroying their ability to compete on the world market, our oil companies are free to set whatever prices they want, and can insist on a regulation-free environment within which to maneuver.

By manufacturing a non-existent threat, and engaging in another unwarranted, one-sided war, Obama can once again bow down to corporate America, pretend to be concerned for the welfare of the American people, and do nothing to control the war mongers.

The American people are so marginalized and disenfranchised that there is simply nothing that can be done to stop this madness. Just as we sat by and watched the destruction of Libya, the bailout of Wall Street, the theft of jobs, money and houses from right under our noses, the latest imperial assault is a done deal.

This will be a vicious war with the U.S. utilizing its “tactical” nuclear weapons (light weight nuclear devices and also drones) to destroy the Iranian nuclear plants underground.²

This represents yet another escalation of weaponry, just as did Mustard Gas in WWI; as bombing, conflagration and destruction of entire cities during WWII, culminating in nuclear war; as Agent Orange did in the American War against Vietnam; and torture and drones have in these wars in the Middle East.

We have become apt at war; we excel at it. If only we could be as apt at peace.

1. “US military operation against Iran would be a grave mistake,” RT, 1-14-12
2. Global Security describes “tactical” weapons:

   “The B61-11 can penetrate and detonate below the earth’s surface, creating a massive shock wave capable of destroying underground targets. In tests the bomb penetrates only 20 feet into dry earth, even when dropped from altitudes above 40,000 feet. But even this shallow penetration before detonation allows a much higher proportion of the explosion to be transferred into ground shock relative to a surface burst. It is not able to counter targets deeply buried under granite rock. Moreover, it has a high yield, in the hundreds of kilotons. If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout could drift over nearby countries such as Japan.” (“Info for the B61-11 Earth Penetrating Weapons”:

   http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61-11.htm)

   Chossudovsky, Michel, ” ‘Tactical Nuclear Weapons’ against Afghanistan?,” Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca,  12-5-11

   EXCERPT:
   The US Air Force is using GBU-28 “bunker buster bombs” capable of creating large scale underground explosions.  The official story is that these bombs are intended to target “cave and tunnel complexes” in mountainous areas in southern Afghanistan, used as a hideaway by Osama.

   Dubbed by the Pentagon as “the Big Ones”, the GBUs (“guided bomb unit”) are 5000lb laser guided bombs with improved BLU-113 warheads, capable of penetrating  several meters of reinforced concrete. The BLU-113 is the most powerful conventional “earth penetrating warhead.”

   While the Pentagon’s “Big Ones” are classified as “conventional weapons”, the official statements fail to mention that the same “bunker buster bombs” launched from a B-52, a B-2 stealth bomber or an F-16 aircraft can also be equipped with a nuclear device. The B61-11 is the ” nuclear version” of its  ”conventional” BLU-113 counterpart. The B61-11 was developed from the old “conventional” B61-7 “gravity bomb.”

   While in the case of these “bunker buster bombs”, the distinction between “nuclear” and ”conventional” warheads is not always brought out in official statements, the impacts of the ”nuclear version” on civilians are far more devastating, in view of the toxic radioactive fallout over a large area.

I had become gravely ill on July 26, 2006, a month and a half prior to the summit, and could barely sit up in bed. Many of the most distinguished leaders who participated in the event were kind enough to visit me. Chavez and Evo visited me several times. One afternoon four visitors came by whom I will always remember: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; an old friend, Abdelaziz Buteflika, the president of Algeria; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran; and the vice minister of Foreign Affairs and current Foreign Minister of China, Yang Jiechi, on behalf of the leader of the Communist Party and the president of China, Hu Jintao. It was really an important time for me; I was in the midst of intense physiotherapy on my right hand that I had seriously injured when I fell in Santa Clara.

With all four I spoke about some of the difficulties facing the world at the time; problems that have become progressively more complex.

During our meeting yesterday, I noted that the Iranian president was absolutely calm and tranquil, completely unconcerned about the Yankee threats and, fully confident in the capacity of his people to confront any aggression and in the effectiveness of their arms —which, in large part, they produce themselves— to inflict an unpayable price on its aggressors.

In reality, we hardly spoke about the topic of war. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was focused on the ideas he had presented at the Main Hall of the University of Havana during his conference on the struggle of humankind:

Moving towards reaching and achieving peace, security, respect and human dignity as a fundamental desire of all human beings throughout history.

I am convinced that Iran will not commit any rash actions that might contribute to setting off a war. If a war were to be unleashed, it would inevitably be completely as a result of the recklessness and congenital irresponsibility of the Yankee Empire.

I believe that the political situation surrounding Iran and the associated risks of a nuclear war that involves us all —regardless of whether one possess nuclear weapons— are extremely delicate because they threaten the very existence of our species. The Middle East has become the most troubled region on the planet, the same region that produces the energy resources vital for the world’s economy.

The destructive power and the mass sufferings caused by some of the weapons used in World War Two led to a strong movement to ban weapons such as asphyxiating gas and others. Nevertheless, conflicting interests and the huge profits made by arms manufacturers led to the production of crueler and more destructive weapons; modern technology has now added the means and material to build weapons that if used in a world war would lead to extinction.

I support the opinion, undoubtedly shared by all those with a basic sense of responsibility, that no country big or small has the right to possess nuclear weapons.

They never should have been used to attack two defenseless cities such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing and irradiating with horrible and long-lasting effects hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, in a country that had already been militarily defeated.

If fascism indeed forced the allied nations against Nazism to compete with this enemy of humanity in the production of such weapons, once the war ended and the United Nations was created, the first duty of this organization should have been to prohibit nuclear weapons without exception.

However, the United States, the strongest and richest power, forced the rest of the world to follow its lead. Today, they have hundreds of satellites that spy and monitor the entire world from outer space. Their naval, air and land forces are equipped with thousands of nuclear weapons; and they control the world’s finances and investments at their whim via the International Monetary Fund.

Analyzing the history of each Latin American nation, from Mexico to Patagonia, by way of Santo Domingo and Haiti, one can observe that each and every country, without exception, have suffered for 200 years, from the beginning of the 19th century up until today. And, in one way or another, they are increasingly suffering the worst crimes that power and force can commit against the rights of a people. Brilliant Latin American writers are emerging in an increasing number. One of them, Eduardo Galeano, author of the book Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent that describes the aforementioned, has just been invited to open the prestigious Casa de Las Americas Awards as a recognition to his outstanding body of work.

Events happen incredibly fast; but technologies report them to the public even faster. On any given day, like today, important news comes out a dizzying pace. A cable report dated from January 11 states:

The Danish presidency of the European Union confirmed on Wednesday that a new series of more severe European sanctions against Iran, because of its nuclear program, will be discussed on January 23. The new sanctions will not only target the oil industry but also the Central Bank.

During a meeting with international journalists, Danish Foreign Minister Villy Soevndal said that “We will increase sanctions against the oil industry in addition to sanctions against financial structures.” This clearly demonstrates that, in order to impede nuclear proliferation, Israel can go on accumulating hundreds of nuclear warheads while Iran is not allowed to produce 20% enriched uranium.

Another article, from a respected British news agency, states that “China gave no hint on Wednesday of giving ground to U.S. demands to curb Iran’s oil revenues, rejecting Washington’s sanctions on Tehran as overstepping …”

The sheer tranquility with which the United States and civilized Europe carry out this campaign with incredible and systematic acts of terrorism is enough to shock anybody. Just look at these lines reported by another important European news agency:

The murder on Wednesday of Iranian nuclear specialist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan [a scientist at the Natanz nuclear plant] was the fourth attack to kill a leading scientist in the country in almost exactly two years.

On January 12, 2010:

Massoud Ali Mohammadi, a particle physics professor at Tehran University is killed when a booby-trapped motorcycle explodes outside his home in the capital.

On November 29, 2010:

Two attacks target leading Iranian nuclear scientists on the same day. Majid Shahriari, a key member of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, is killed in Tehran by a limpet bomb attached to his car. His colleague Fereydoon Abbasi Davani is also targeted by a bomb attached to his car, but escapes.

The car was parked in front of the Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran where both men worked as professors.

On July 23, 2011:

Gunmen shoot dead Dariush Rezaei-Nejad, a senior scientist who is reportedly associated with the defense ministry, and wound his wife as they waited for their child outside a Tehran kindergarten.

On January 11, 2012 —the same day that Ahmadinejad travelled from Nicaragua to Cuba to give a conference at the University of Havana—, scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, “a deputy director at the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, is killed in a car bomb blast outside the [Allameh Tabatabai] University in east Tehran.” As in previous years “Iran once again accused the United States and Israel.”

The killings represent a systematic and selective slaughter of brilliant Iranian scientists. I have read articles by known Israeli sympathizers who write about crimes carried out by Israeli intelligence services in cooperation with the United States and NATO as if they were the most normal occurrence.

At the same time, Moscow news agencies report that “Russia warned that in Syria a similar scenario is developing as to that in Libya, and added that this time the attack will be launched from neighboring Turkey.

The secretary of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, said the West wants to ‘punish Damascus not as much for repressing the opposition, but because it is unwilling to sever ties with Tehran.

…NATO members and some Persian Gulf states, operating according to the Libya scenario, intend to move from indirect intervention in Syrian affairs to direct military intervention…This time the main strikes forces will not be provided by France, the U.K. or Italy, but possibly by neighboring Turkey.

Washington and Ankara are now assumed to be negotiating a “no-fly” zone over Syria, where Syrian armed insurgents can be trained and concentrated, added Patrushev.

News is not only coming out of Iran and the Middle East, but also from other parts of Central Asia near the Middle East. These reports show the great complexity of the problems that can arise from this dangerous region.

The United States has been led by its contradictory and absurd imperial policy to get involved in serious problems in countries such as Pakistan, whose borders with Afghanistan were drawn up by the colonialists without taking into account culture or ethnicities.

In Afghanistan, which defended its independence against English colonialism for centuries, drug production has multiplied in the wake of the Yankee invasion. Meanwhile, European soldiers, supported by drone airplanes and armed with sophisticated US weapons, carry out deplorable massacres that increase the people’s hatred and ward off any possibilities of peace. All this and other dirty actions are also reported by Western news agencies.

WASHINGTON, January 12, 2012 – US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called the actions of four U.S. marines who urinated on corpses in Afghanistan “utterly deplorable” The video of the act was circulated in the Internet.

I have seen the footage, and I find the behavior depicted in it utterly deplorable…

This conduct is entirely inappropriate for members of the United States military and does not reflect the standards of values our armed forces are sworn to uphold…

In reality, Panetta neither confirms nor denies the action, and anyone, including the Secretary of Defense himself, may harbor doubt.

But it is also extremely inhumane that men, women and children, or an Afghani combatant fighting against the foreign occupation, be murdered by bombs dropped by drone planes. Another very serious incident: dozens of Pakistani soldiers and officials who safeguarded the country’s borders have been killed by these bombs.

Afghani President Karzai stated that the outrage committed against the bodies was “simply inhumane.” He asked for the US government “to urgently investigate the video and apply the most severe punishment to anyone found guilty in this crime.”

Meanwhile Taliban spokespersons declared that “over the last ten years, hundreds of similar acts have been carried out that were not reported…”

One even feels sorry for those soldiers, thousands of kilometers away from their family, friends and country, sent to fight in countries that they might not have even heard of during their school days, where they are assigned the task of killing or dying to enrich transnational companies, arms manufacturers and unscrupulous politicians who each year squander funds needed to feed and educate the uncountable millions of hungry and illiterate people around the world.

Many of these soldiers, victims of the trauma suffered, end up taking their own lives.

Is it an exaggeration to say that world peace is hanging by a thread?

I wrote that last year in two exposés: “The Selling of the WWC”  and “The WWC Desecrates its Namesake’s Legacy.”  They revealed that the Washington, DC-based Wilson Center is violating its Congressional mandate and is up to its neck in tainted corporate cash.

A leading Congressman, a Wilson family descendant, citizens’ groups, and many others agreed. One prominent journalist called the WWC “a global joke.”

Several months ago, this Congressionally created, multi-million dollar think tank, funded partly by taxpayers, made another colossal blunder.  It hired former eight-term Congresswoman Jane Harman (D–CA) to be its president, replacing Lee Hamilton, also a former Congressman.

Harman, like Hamilton, is not only part of the good-old-boy (and girl) network of which the WWC is so fond.   Among her other baggage, charges of illegal conduct in a spy scandal involving AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) have shadowed Harman for years.

Let’s take a closer look at Harman and the Wilson Center to see why they’re the marriage from hell.

Harman’s spy scandal

Two top AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, were indicted on spy charges in 2005 for passing classified documents to Israel.

Citing confidential sources, Time magazine, in 2006, and Congressional Quarterly, two years ago, reported that the Feds had wiretapped Cong. Jane Harman and a “suspected Israeli agent” agreeing to this deal: Harman would persuade the Justice Department to reduce the charges against Rosen and Weissman; in exchange, AIPAC and its influential supporters would persuade then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to reappoint the unpopular Harman as top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Harman apparently promised the “Israeli agent” to “waddle into”  the AIPAC scandal “if you think it’ll make a difference.”  Harman ended the exchange with “this conversation doesn’t exist.”

The Justice Department and CIA wanted to prosecute Harman.  But Alberto Gonzales, President Bush’s Attorney General, reportedly refused because – ironically – he “needed Jane” to support the government’s ongoing warrantless wiretapping program.

Shockingly, charges against Rosen and Weissman were dropped  in 2009 because a judge put constraints on Federal prosecutors.  Larry Franklin, the Defense Department official who passed the classified documents to the two AIPAC officials, wasn’t so lucky.   He pled guilty three years earlier and went to prison.

Harman has long denied any wrongdoing.  She has never, however, given a full account of her conversations regarding Rosen and Weissman.  Full accounts, as we shall see, are not one of Harman’s virtues.

Harman’s genocide flip-flop

While co-sponsoring Congressional resolution HR 106 on the Armenian genocide  committed by Turkey, Cong. Harman went behind the backs of her constituents in October of 2007 by asking then-Foreign Relations Chair Tom Lantos (D-CA) to bury the resolution.  Only after her constituents discovered this through other sources did she admit to it.

But the explanations for her flip-flop made little sense. “This is the wrong time” for the resolution, wrote Harman.  But she couldn’t cite anything relevant in 2007 that had changed regarding Turkey, Armenia, or the Middle East since she signed onto the resolution a few years earlier.

Harman claimed that a genocide resolution would “embarrass or isolate the Turkish leadership.” This claim came suspiciously soon after she met with Turkey’s threatening Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan. Apparently, recognizing a genocide requires an OK from the perpetrating country’s leader.

But Harman reached truly ridiculous heights by claiming– again, this was in 2007 – that it was “obvious” that Turkey’s “leadership” was needed for “resolving the Israel-Palestine issue.”  Turkey had never, of course, played a significant role in mediating between Israelis and Palestinians. What really caused Harman’s genocide flip-flop?

Jewish groups and Turke

AIPAC was (and is) one of several major Jewish American organizations that have colluded with Turkey to, among other things, defeat Armenian genocide resolutions. Israel, Turkey, and Jewish groups formed their ménage-à-trois in the 1990’s.

Yola Johnston, Community Outreach Director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has admitted that AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith, her own organization, and “the Jewish lobby” have “quite actively supported Turkey in their efforts to prevent the so-called Armenian genocide resolution from passing.”

AIPAC, reported the Washington Times last year, had “lit up the phones” against the genocide resolution when “the Turks” asked a “senior researcher” at AIPAC to do so.  That “senior researcher” and “architect of the Jewish community’s support for Turkey” was none other than AIPAC’s notorious Keith Weissman.   So the Harman-AIPAC-Weissman threesome was at the center of not only a spy scandal but also a genocide cover-up.

And there’s more. Yet another scandal may have induced Harman’s genocide duplicity.

Anti-Defamation League scandal

Harman wrote her genocide flip-flop letter to Chairman Lantos just as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was taking a beating in the U.S. and internationally for denying the Armenian genocide and helping Turkey lobby against Armenian genocide recognition.  Human rights activists, principled Jews, and Armenian Americans had just months earlier launched a campaign (see NoPlaceForDenial.com) that was to result in more than a dozen Massachusetts cities’ evicting the ADL’s so-called “No Place for Hate” anti-bias program.

The Turkish government was furious that the embarrassing arrangement among it, Jewish groups, and Israel was being splashed across the headlines.

Prime Minister Erdogan made a frantic call to Israeli President Peres, while Turkey’s foreign minister reportedly warned the Israeli ambassador that “our bilateral relations will suffer.”

Did Harman, who was certainly aware of this uproar, panic at the prospect of a further deterioration in the already strained relations between Israel and Turkey?  Did she ask Lantos to kill the genocide resolution because Turkey would blame Israel, AIPAC, the ADL, and even Harman herself if the resolution succeeded?

Considering the timing, Harman’s relationship to Israel and the genocide-denying AIPAC, and the illogical explanations for her flip-flop, it seems probable.  Though the House Committee narrowly passed the resolution, Harman had to be pleased that it did not make it any further.  Her appeasement of Turkey, however, proved to be in vain:

• Erdogan was soon calling Shimon Peres a mass murderer  (January 2009) for Israel’s offensive against Gaza.

• Israel scolded and humiliated Turkey’s ambassador (January 2010) in response to Turkish criticism and an anti-Israeli TV show.

• Israeli commandos shot nine Turks to death on a ship that had tried to break the Gaza blockade (May 2010).

• Erdogan has expelled the Israeli ambassador, cut defense ties with Tel Aviv, and threatened military retaliation unless Israeli apologizes and pays compensation for the flotilla killings.

But when, like Harman, one has few firm principles and has fooled herself into believing that a country such as Turkey is a friend, she inevitably winds up with yogurt on her face.

No self-respecting institution would have considered hiring anyone with Harman’s background.   That may explain why the Wilson Center hired her.  It has little respect for its mission or the American people.

The Wilson Center flouts Congress

The Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 was crystal clear:  The WWC must commemorate Wilson’s “ideals and concerns” and memorialize “his accomplishments.” Yet it has ignored large swaths of the Wilson administration’s record on the Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia), Turkey, and the Middle East.

The WWC isn’t just thumbing its nose at Congress and taxpayers.  It has closed its eyes to a wealth of political knowledge about a region in which the U.S. has enormous interests.  The Caucasus, for example, is a major locus for producing and transporting oil and gas.  It’s also ground-zero in the new Cold War between the U.S. and Russia, particularly since the Russian-Georgian war of 2008.

Donald Wilson Bush, President of the Woodrow Wilson Legacy Foundation and a Wilson family descendant, has rightly accused the WWC of “violating [its] very own mission and purpose.”

Wilson’s Record

Wilson and the State Department’s record on the region from the WW 1 era is extensive.  Though the U.S. did not formally declare war against Turkey in WW1, Turkey was the main ally of Germany, America’s enemy.  Wilson condemned, in the strongest terms, Turkey’s genocide of Armenians and was a fervent advocate of Armenian independence.   By the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres – a product of the Paris Peace Conference in 1920 – the U.S. formally delineated the borders of that part of Armenia and Kurdistan that now lies within Turkey’s eastern regions.  Turkey later reneged on the Treaty.

Yet, despite the clear stipulation of Congress, Wilson’s record has been almost totally ignored by the WWC.  Indeed, three years ago, historian and legal scholar Ara Papian, a Canadian resident and former Armenian Ambassador to Canada, applied for a WWC Fellowship to do ground-breaking research on the U.S. archival record regarding Turkey and the Caucasus – a proposal the WWC should have jumped at.  Papian was rejected without explanation.  Ironically, several months ago Lee Hamilton told the American Historical Association that U.S. foreign policy officials need the views of “historians.”  Yet as WWC president, he all but ignored the history of Wilson’s Caucasus policies.

Tainted corporate cash

The WWC has been corrupted by its gluttony for corporate cash.  Case in point:  it acknowledged that money was the main reason it journeyed to Turkey in 2010 to honor a Turkish billionaire whose Dogus Holding conglomerate is a WWC donor, and to give a much-criticized award to Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

Cong. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, blasted Lee Hamilton for honoring Davutoglu.  Ackerman cited Turkey’s military occupation of Cyprus, closure of the border with Armenia, and denial of the Armenian genocide.  Honoring Davutoglu was “absolutely inconsistent with the mission of the WWC and the ideals that animated President Wilson’s administration and foreign policy.”

The Wilson Center, added Donald Wilson Bush, had engaged in “Turkish diplomatic appeasement.”  It had “sacrificed its legitimacy as a ‘neutral forum for open, serious, and informed dialogue.’”

“Why,” asked Claudia Rosett, “should Congress keep fueling this morally blank, misleading and venal exercise [the WWC] with millions of American tax dollars?”  Good question.

Part of why the WWC has all but ignored Wilson’s record on Turkey and the Caucasus is undoubtedly that many major donors (present and past members of its elite “Wilson Alliance“) have lobbied for, or been members of, trade organizations that have lobbied for Turkey and against the Armenian resolution.  These include Alcoa, BAE Systems, Bechtel, Boeing, Bombardier, Chevron, Coca Cola, Exxon-Mobil and Honeywell.

In fact, Harman’s predecessor, Lee Hamilton, engaged in a clear conflict of interest during his tenure by sitting on the board of BAE Systems, a defense giant which does lots of business with Turkey.  Last year a Federal judge slapped BAE’s parent corporation with a $400 million criminal fine for “deception, duplicity and knowing violations of law … on an enormous scale.”  Too bad the judge didn’t also look into the Wilson Center.

Hamilton also sat on the board of the Albright Stonebridge Group, a “global strategy firm” headed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Hamilton’s WWC bio, incredibly, was dead silent about his corporate affiliations. This same Lee Hamilton co-chaired the official National Commission on the 9/11 attacks, whose report has been widely criticized as incomplete and biased.    Hamilton and Harman, you see, can be counted on not to rock the corporate establishment’s boat.

The WWC is rife with other questionable characters, including those with deep ties to Turkey, such as former board member and present Wilson Council member Ignacio Sanchez, a lobbyist employed by DLA Piper, which is a registered foreign agent for Turkey.  And former Wilson Public Policy Scholar Marc Grossman, ex-US ambassador to Turkey and DLA Piper bigwig.  “Coincidentally,” Sanchez and Grossman were both on the WWC Search Committee that hired Harman.

Made for each other

If ever there was a marriage made in hell, therefore, Jane Harman and the Wilson Center are it:

• The WWC receives millions in “donations” from the military-industrial complex, which influences the Center’s agenda and policies.  Similarly, Harman – a former Defense Department lawyer – has received large campaign contributions from defense and aerospace firms’ Political Action Committees and employees, including those in El Segundo, a key military–industrial center located in her former Congressional district.

“Coincidentally,” major Wilson Center donors BAE Systems (Lee Hamilton’s comrade-in-arms), Boeing, and Chevron have offices in El Segundo.  Indeed, BAE, Boeing, and Chevron were her “constituents” (and American Turkish Council members) not only when she was in Congress. Those corporations – another “coincidence” – are her “constituents” again, at the WWC.  Might the WWC have hired Harman for her expertise in raking in military-industrial “donations”?

• The WWC has ingratiated itself with Turkey.  It has given awards to its Foreign Minister and a major Turkish corporate donor, and virtually ignored Wilson’s policies regarding Turkey and the Caucasus.   Harman, too, has ingratiated herself with Turkey.  She reversed her stance on the Congress’s Armenian genocide resolution (and gave absurd reasons for doing so).

• And just as the Wilson Center has gotten away (so far, anyway) with violating its Congressional mandate, Jane Harman has escaped prosecution (so far, anyway) for her dealings with a “foreign agent” in the AIPAC espionage scandal.

No, there’s no prospect that Harman will lead the WWC to adhere to the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968, fulfill its pledge to be a “neutral forum for open, serious, and informed dialogue,” and release the grip that mega-corporations have on it.

If Congress of its own volition will not bring the Wilson Center to its senses, then Congress must be pushed by the American people to do so.  Other possibilities are investigations and legal action by third parties.

Just don’t count on Jane Harman’s cooperation.

France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy gains headlines, and mostly for appropriate reasons. He is in the news almost every day – marriage to a celebrity model, leading the charge against dispatched Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, whom he befriended months earlier, scuffling with Germany’s Prime Minister Angela Merkel over how to save the Euro and French banks, camera shots with the new baby, and at an October 7, 2011 meeting in Armenia stating that “Turkey’s refusal to recognize the [Armenian] genocide would force France to make such denials a criminal offense.”

Peoples who suffered genocide have the right to solicit compensation for displaced survivors from the guilty government and to seek means to correct the wrong. Others have an obligation to help. Nevertheless, knowing that President Sarkozy’s statement would irritate Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and force him to reject the bill, there must be more to the French President’s actions and to the French National Assembly December 20, 2011 vote that proposed a year in jail and a fine of $58,000 to those publicly denying the alleged genocide.

Note: The expression ‘alleged genocide’ is used for impartiality. There is neither intention to deny genocide nor assent to a thesis that it did not occur.

What does the bill accomplish for France?

Is denial of an Armenian genocide a polarizing issue in France? Do citizens of La Patria openly debate Ottoman Empire responsibility for an alleged genocide that happened one hundred years ago? Does French jurisprudence need this bill to prevent a significant offense? The necessity to pass a law that makes it a crime to deny the alleged Armenian genocide is baffling. To whom is it directed and what is its purpose?

The bill will not help the victims; after all, they are gone. What happened in the Armenian part of Turkey almost a century ago is not a French issue, and therefore will neither resolve a present or future French problem nor change French life. It is doubtful that many citizens thought about the issue and argued a need for the bill.

The bill will create problems

Old wounds are opened, and with them renewed hatreds will occur. As the western world starts to overcome its prejudices and learns to appreciate the Turkish nation, Sarkozy shakes the world with accusations of criminal behavior by the almost ancient Ottoman government.

Just when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has embarked on reconciliation with Armenia and his own Armenian citizens, a challenge interrupts the peace-minded progress. After decades of hostility, Turkey and Armenia signed an agreement in October 2009 to establish diplomatic relations and open their borders. Unfortunately, neither government has ratified the agreement due to the lack of settlement of a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory that was formally inside Azerbaijan and, since a 1990s war, is occupied by ethnic Armenians.

The bill, written one hundred years after an event, makes it illegal for people to rebut accusations that their ancestors initiated genocide and considers them complicit in the atrocities if they defend their elders. The Turks are probably asking themselves: “If this bill is necessary, why aren’t there bills concerning complicity of many western powers in the mass killings of Indigenous populations in the Western Hemisphere, African populations throughout Africa, which includes slavery in the United States, Asians, most prominently in China, India, and the Philippines, and their own populations in Europe?”

Not stopping atrocities, and then criminalizing words that question the extent of the atrocities, smacks of duplicity; an attempt to hide failures by achieving political correctness. Isn’t there something wrong in a democratic nation when opinions can be made illegal and illegal deeds are not prevented?

Why aren’t remaining effects of previous genocides not directly countered?

Existing effects of previous genocides require more attention than bills that punish people for denying genocide. In North, Central and South America, Indigenous peoples who suffered genocide continue to struggle for cultural survival and to maintain their dignity. Inca and Mapuche from South America, Maya from Central America, and Indigenous peoples in North America remain disempowered in trying to regain the land and resources stolen from them and find themselves slowly decimated and slipping into obscurity. Grief still inhabits their faces and squalor is forced upon them.

Disadvantages arising from past actions have been, and always will, impede descendants of American slaves in their progress. While severe disadvantage is not easily overcome, advantage is capitalized and adds to advantage. African Americans deserve a compensation that enables them to overcome the disadvantages in order to achieve an equal status with White America.

Why are these victims of genocide not being properly helped? The answer is simple: the economic capital (a huge amount to right the wrongs done to the African Americans) will not return a positive political benefit. Note that these genocides are often denied with one statement – a natural course of history – and the detractors are not punished.

What motivated a bill that criminalizes denial of an alleged genocide?

Proving hidden motivations for passage of the bill cannot be easily justified or demonstrated. Frame the question in another context: Knowing that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan would disregard President Sarkozy’s statement and vehemently reject the bill, how will others benefit from a bill that criminalizes denial of an alleged Armenian genocide?

Prime Minister Erdogan has taken independent stances that lead many to regard him his courage. His stances and moral attitude have generated opposition and disturbed those who envy his popularity. The French bill shifts the moral compass from Erdogan to Sarkozy and reduces the impact from Erdogan’s independent positions.

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) has steered Turkey away from the severe nationalist polices of its militarist predecessors. The bill places Erdogan and his AKP Party in a difficult position. Accept the bill and lose favor with a great majority of the Turkish electorate. Reject the bill and give the appearance of following a renewed nationalist policy.

Those who view Turkey as too independent, too large, and too Muslim seek any excuse to keep Turkey out of the European Union. Add to the list Turkey’s unwillingness to recognize the Ottoman Empire’s culpability in the alleged Armenian genocide.

When friendly with Turkey, Israel rejected recognition of the alleged Armenian genocide. Now that the two nations are declared antagonists, is it possible that Israel, whose Knesset held a renewed discussion on recognizing the Armenian genocide, played a role in promoting the bill in order to embarrass Erdogan?

Armenia has an unresolved situation with Azerbaijan over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian lobby consistently works to keep the atrocity alive and direct sympathy to Armenia.

France has a law that calls genocide denial a criminal offense. People are questioning why the law is applied to the World War II holocaust and not to other genocides.

An Armenian lobby and contributors can play a significant role in the coming French presidential election.

The bill might backfire on President Sarkozy and damage French interests.

An injured Turkey, that has become dubious of a wounded European Union, might shift its allegiance and interchange from the western world to Russia, China and India. If that happens, NATO, who relies greatly on Turkey’s geo-strategic position, will find itself engaging a more difficult partner.

Preventing genocide and assisting its remaining victims has highest priority. However, perpetually aggravating hatred rather than pursuing reconciliation and using a genocide for enhancing a personal or national agenda create suspicion. Making criminals of those who recognize atrocities but deny that ancestors deserve to be included as purveyors of genocide is a controversial afterthought and an arm twister: “Say uncle or go to jail.”

Economic sanctions are deceitfully justified as punishing a ruthless political regime and protecting human rights of an oppressed people. Such people are the most devastated when their economy is hurt while the ruling regime may become more oppressive in its reaction in order to protect and to preserve itself. Case in point is the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died due to lack of medicine during the economic embargo after the Gulf War while the Iraqi regime had its own reserve of all kinds of medications stored for itself.

The sanctioning regime hopes that the sanctioned population would hurt so bad that, with some external encouragement and hope for economic relief; they would rise up and topple their own regime. The other scenario is that the military industry of the sanctioned regime becomes so weak and ineffective that the regime would not stand a chance in any military confrontation, similar to what happened in Iraq.

Such scenarios take place in a country that is faced with sanctions by the majority of the international community. On the other hand countries facing partial sanctions rise up to the challenge and become more self-sufficient and more independent. Cuba, with the longest economic embargo, North Korea and Iran are examples of such countries. Due to its large size and important natural resources, Iran had advanced its industry even to achieve nuclear technology.

Due to its leadership in resisting the Zionist expansionist plans in the Middle East, and for supporting the national resistance and liberation groups of Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas, and due to its alliance with Iran, Syria was subjected to many Western schemes of regime change. The whole Arab Spring movement has been primarily orchestrated and geared towards regime change in Syria, that is meant eventually to lead to a regime change in Iran; a frontier for Russia and China. Under the justification of protecting the lives of Syrian civilians rebelling against their government and protecting their humanitarian rights, Syria is subjected to economic sanctions imposed first by Western countries then by the Arab League.

Economic sanctions are not new to Syria, who was subjected to such sanctions since mid 1970’s imposed by the US. Since then Syria had risen to this challenge and had developed immunity against sanctions. What is new today is that the Arab League, with many of its member countries, joined by Turkey, had also imposed economic sanctions against Syria. The Arab League, with the leadership of Qatar, has been manipulated and used as a Trojan horse by an American-British-French triad to topple Syrian regime and to inflict the country with a civil war, similar to Libya, in the service of terrorist Israel and the expansionist Zionist plan in the Middle East.

The Syrian economy is not dependent nor tied to any Western economy, thus these sanctions have no real effect on Syria. Syria is mainly an agricultural country and thus is mostly self-sufficient except in the technological sector which is filled mainly by Asian countries such as China, India, Russia and Iran. Also Syria has good economic trade with some Latin American countries.

Many neighboring Arab countries such as the Gulf States, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon import and are dependent on Syrian agricultural products. Lebanon and Iraq rejected the Arab League sanction and continue trade with Syria. The mostly desert Jordan shares borders with Syria and is heavily dependent on Syrian food products and water resources. Many Jordanian students study in Syrian universities. Jordan will be greatly hurt by the sanctions. So the Jordanian king requested the Arab League to provide relief to Jordan and to be treated as an exception in the sanctions.

Expecting the sanctions, Syria had withdrawn its money from the rest of the Arab central banks, especially the Jordanian Central Bank, causing a shortage and crises in these banks. Gulf States, especially Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have to compensate for these shortages. Food prices in Syrian neighboring countries may double to cover the extra expenses of importing food from other resources. The tourism industry will also suffer greatly. Tourists, who used to travel to neighboring Syria, now have to pay extra for travelling to more distant countries.

Some energy companies, who are invested in Syria and now withdrawing, will also suffer greatly for abiding with the sanctions. French companies are the largest losers in these sanctions. French Total Oil Company, Lafarge Construction Company, and Airbus Company will lose millions of dollars worth of investment in Syria.

Royal Dutch Shell had also announced its withdrawal from Syria with a loss of 40% shares of oil production; a huge investment in the industry.

Canadian Suncor Energy, the second largest Canadian oil company, had announced cessation of its oil, gas and electricity production in Syria. Suncor had big investments that include 50-50 joint venture with the Syrian General Petroleum Corporation producing about 80 million cubic feet of natural gas per day, and roughly 1,000 barrels of oil per day. Suncor’s cessation will cost the company a lot of money and privileges.

Syria used to export about 150,000 barrels of oil per day to European countries, which comprised roughly 30% of Syria’s total revenue. The withdrawal of these energy companies and the ban on oil imports from Syria are planned to have a great impact on Syria’s ability to produce and export oil and gas, and thus devastate the country’s economy. Fortunately this is far away from reality and the real loss was to these energy companies and to European consumers, who have now to pay more money to compensate for these losses and to cover the cost of importing oil from more expensive sources.

The withdrawal of these European energy companies had created a golden opportunity for other eager energy companies to fill this vacancy. State-owned companies of countries, who rejected the sanctions, including the China National Petroleum Corporation and India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, have made significant investments in the Syrian energy industry offering Syria better deals than their European counterparts. Russia and Iran are expected soon to follow. Iran had already signed an all inclusive trade agreement with Syria on December 13th.

Turkey’s role in the Syrian crisis draws special attention. In the recent past Turkey has improved its trade dealing with Syria tremendously. Now-a-days Turkey had turned its face complete 180 degrees and started criticizing and even directly attacking the Syrian regime. It also seems that Turkey, a non-Arab country, had occupied the Syrian seat in the Arab League. Turkey had played a great role with Qatar in persuading the Arab League to declare sanctions against Syria. Turkey was the first to adopt the sanctions by freezing $110 million of Syrian money in its banks, by imposing high taxes on imported Syrian products, and by declaring a safe zone on its Syrian borders to protect what is called Free Syrian Army (FSA); a terrorist group who attack the Syrian army and terrorize Syrian civilians loyal to Bashar Al-Assad.

Turkey’s slap had returned to its face. Turkey has more than $250 million worth of investment in Syria that will be lost. Syria had countered with banning Turkish goods. Turkish sanction came as blessings in disguise to Syria, whose industry, comprising 27% of its economy, had suffered from the past Turkish-Syrian trade agreement because of cheap Turkish goods that were favored over the local Syrian goods. After the Turkish sanctions, the local Syrian industries have revived. Recep Tayyip Ordogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, is faced now with huge criticism from oppositional parties as well as his own accusing him of harboring terrorist group (FSA) in Turkey.

The economic sanctions have caused an important political awakening in Syria. The decisions of the Arab League in dealing with the Syrian crisis in particular and with the Arab Spring movement in general, particularly in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain, had shown the League without any further doubt as a political tool manipulated by the West to oppress Arabs, keep their land divided, and to open their natural resources for theft. It had never served any Arab national causes. As for the primary Arab cause: the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the League had given Israel 10 long years, so far, to respond to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative while not giving Syria more than just one week to deal with its rebels before imposing sanctions. For rebuffing their Peace Initiative major Arab leaders had welcomed Israel to open embassies in the capitals rather than fighting Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

While aggressively and hastily supporting the alleged popular Syrian revolution against the ruling regime the League refuse to accept support petition letters from leaders of genuine popular revolution against very oppressive regimes of Yemen and Bahrain.

When Syrian citizens rallied behind their leadership, the president of the supposed Syrian National Council, Burhan Ghalioun, hurried back to his Western handlers licking their hands begging for more support. He declared that once receiving Syrian leadership he would cut ties with Iran, end arms supplies to Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas, and would negotiate with Israel over Golan Heights.

Economic sanctions against Syria are blessings in disguise. Economically they challenged Syrians to become more independent and look for other avenues for trade. The sanctions, rather than splitting Syria from Iran, have really pushed Syria deeper into Iran’s arms. They have also awakened Syrian national pride and loyalty to their country and leadership. The realities of many Arab leaders and the Arab League have been clearly exposed as Western puppets.

After Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Istanbul mayor from 1994 to 1998, established the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the year 2001 and subsequently won a victory in the 2002 election, a new Turkey successfully emerged from a severe economic crisis and its runaway inflation. Since becoming Prime Minister in 2003, Erdogan has diverged from the post-Ottoman laicism (secular), authoritative, and nationalist philosophy of the Turkish Republic’s founder, Kemal Ataturk, and steered Turkey in a direction more consistent with western democratic philosophy.

What enables this nation to operate independently and grow in a dependent and declining western world? Can it sustain its growth? Can it reject Kemalism without military interference? These are only three of many questions concerning Turkey’s foreign, economic and social policies, all of which contain contradictions, doubts, and problems. Problems? Turkey excels in problems. There is the Kurdish problem, Cyprus problem, Islamic influence problem, writing a new Constitution problem, relations with adjacent nations problem, entry to the European Union problem and of course, problems with Israel and the United States

A trip through Turkey, sponsored by the Washington based Rumi Forum, an interfaith and peace organization, featured meetings with parliamentarians, journalists, academics and businessmen, and provided insight into Turkey’s (1) ability to confront its problems, (2) strength to continue an independent path, and (3) role as a model for the Arab nations that are struggling from a revolutionary spring into a bright and peaceful future. Istanbul revealed the ‘think tanks that define the present.” Ankara provided the parliamentarians that shape the future. In Sanliurfa and Gaziantep, one learns of an ancient past and gains insight into Turkey’s nationwide progress and the role of its Kurdish community.

A discussion of Turkey starts with its youth.

A modern country

New airports, new super highways, massive construction of modern buildings in expanding cities that now contain 75% of the population with a median age of 28.5 years, highlight the growing Turkey.

A western oriented nation reflects a Mediterranean appearance. Buildings, offices, restaurants, hotels and institutions use warm colors; brown, beige, orange, together with neutral white, black and lilac; colors associated with steadfastness, simplicity, friendliness, and dependability. The warm colors made large rooms look cozier, while the orange proved mentally stimulating as well as sociable.

A subjective appraisal notes a nation of hard working purposeful and dedicated people, well organized and progressive. Turkey reflects vision and mission. Youthful representatives satisfied the vision.

Faik Tunay, at 30 years, is the youngest parliamentarian for the The Republican People’s Party (CHP). The CHP is the oldest political party of Turkey and is currently the main opposition in the Grand National Assembly. Best described as a modern social-democratic party, it is faithful to the principles of Kemal Ataturk, the Party’s founder.

The deputy for Istanbul, member of the Foreign Affairs committee, speaks five languages, and has been invited by the Eisenhower Institute to visit America, In addition to being an elected member of the Grand National Assembly, he is involved in several family businesses and some of his own – construction, agriculture, advertising. His ambition – although born as a White Turk, a member of a privileged class, he wants to leave as a Black Turk, as a member of the masses.

The youngest member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly is only 27 years old, one of three members under 32 years of age. Bilal Macit represents an Istanbul district for the AKP, but insists he represents the state and not the civil authority, does not represent youth nor will limit his activities to youth policies. He has traveled widely, matured in a global world and learned to think independently. Cognizant that his Party’s leader changed politics, Parliamentarian Macit won’t allow his independent attitude to harm the Party. Surprisingly, he offered the opinion that youth does not represent the Arab revolutionary movements, suggesting the movements are more complex and widely distributed. The youthful parliamentarian attributes some of his success to his previous association with the Young Civilians, a movement he helped to found.

Young Civilians

Fatih Demirci, who graduated with a manufacturing system engineering degree and is now an Istanbul entrepreneur, is another 27 year-old founder of the Young Civilians and still an active member. At a dinner meeting, he explained the operations of the organization whose name indicates its thrust — contrasts to Kemal Ataturk’s Young Turks who led the 1908 revolution and the Young Officers who won Turkey’s independence.

Organization? The Young Civilians have no formal organization. Corresponding by Facebook, Twitter and other social networks, they gather compatriots at demonstrations. Their symbol is the sneaker, a sharp difference from the military boot that shaped the nation. Similar to America’s flower children of the 1960′s with a dash of France’s 1968 rebel Cohen-Bendit’s “Ask for the impossible,” the Young Civilians “demand the possible but perfect.”

They grimace at any military or nationalist demonstrations, such as the May 19 Youth and Sports Day national holiday. On that day, in 2003, the group organized its first gathering at Parliament to protest the style of the festivities and become known. They became well known, even internationally, with coverage by the New York Times. Reducing military appearance in social and political life, gaining equal rights for all forty-two ethnicities, and no-holds barred allowance for religious and national expressions dominate their thinking. Removing visa requirements and opening the border between Armenia and Turkey would please them.

Will the Young Civilians (who are growing older) be only a humorous irritant to Turkey’s elite or will it become a serious movement that contributes to all Turks embracing one another with equal expression, regardless of religion or ethnicity? Does the answer lie with the flowering of the flower children of the American 60′s, who became more conservative as they moved on in years?

The Young Civilians might already be superfluous. The Kemalism they want defeated and the military coup they fear are quickly being subdued with no appearance of immediate revival.

Kemalism

After Kemal Ataturk died in 1938, almost any government that threatened the principal tenets, the six arrows of Kemalism, triggered a military coup.

Republicanism–a broadly based republican system.
Nationalism–a distinctly Turkish identity
Populism–a more classless society
Revolutionism–wholesale, rather than gradual, change
Laicism-cancellation of the power of religion in the state, and
Statism–state-led development of the economy and society

were inviolate until the AKP gained power.

Prime Minister Erdogan’s instant and bold challenge in 2003 to the tenets of Kemalism did not provoke a military coup. Nevertheless, the military and allied Kemalists have been accused of preparing a conspiratorial response in 2007 that was uncovered in 2009.

Why did Erdogan proceed so boldly and why was it difficult for the military to instantly respond to the AKP’s removal of several of the six arrows of Kemalism from its quiver? AKP parliamentarian Bilal Macit explained; “Before 2002, the military exercised control of most facets of society except for the economic system. Their political and social control promoted economic stagnation and decline.” Erdogan’s deft handling of the economy apparently impressed much of the military to favor his administration.

Markar Esayan, editor of the independent Taraf newspaper, suggested that the Prime Minister correctly gauged a change in society and recognized he had wide support. The year 2002 is now a milestone in Turkish history – the year the military was no longer the principal authority.

Mesut Ulker, a former army colonel, presently a strategist for a think tank and a well-known television personality, added a simple comment: ‘The army has rapidly changed.”

Professor Dr. Yasin Aktay, Director of the Institute of Strategic Thinking, summarized the situation in a strategic context: “The shift of the population to urban areas created an expanding middle class with new social demands. The population requested an allocation of resources, a new identity and a new constitution. The ideological state (Kemalism) with its stress on Turkic identity and secularism created problems.”

Yusuf Acar, Zaman newspaper journalist and world news editor for magazine Aksiyon, echoed the decline of Kemalism and military domination. “Power has shifted to president office #1, Parliament as #2, and then the military. Nevertheless, the state still comes before the citizen.”

A journalist for Zaman, which has become one of Turkey’s principal newspapers, with a circulation of about one million, might be prejudiced in its observations. Yusuf Acar admits Zaman is often accused of being a government supporter and receiving assistance. However, except for sharing a state run television station and agency with the government, he denies the state has any involvement with the newspaper.

Ozcan Yeniceri, previously a university professor, and presently a parliamentarian for MHP (The Nationalist Movement Party) speaks passionately and in great length on all topics. By gaining 53 seats in the 2011 general elections, his Party remained the third largest parliamentary group. Previously characterized as an ultra-nationalist party, which has recommended martial law in Kurdish territory, the MHP has tempered its extremist views.

In Ozcan Yeniceri’s opinion, nationalism has ontological meaning, a striving for security, and struggle for independence. It unites the country against invading forces. He considers his Party is less nationalistic than that of President Obama and would not resort to the killing of leaders that Obama has done. (Evidently referring to the assassination of Osama bin Laden and NATO attempts on Moammar Gadaffi’s life.) “Liberal criticisms about the establishment of the Republic are wrong in the claim that Ataturk did not introduce democracy. Ataturk was a pragmatic and not actually a Kemalist. He understood the times and adapted. Turkey’s divisions have been between left and right with left defined as communist and right defined as capitalist. Now there is a rapid change in democracy in all areas with an increase in human rights.”

Kemal Ataturk’s framed portraits still adorn the walls of public sector rooms and halls. Gigantic banners and posters of his image are noticeable. Prime Minister Erdogan has wisely retained the reverence to Turkey’s George Washington but abruptly replaced Ataturk’s nationalist and statist policies with an agenda more compatible with the global system and more in harmony with democratic dictates.

Nevertheless, the AKP, despite its widespread support, still has severe antagonists. The charge of an ongoing coup against the government has resulted in mass arrests of well known public figures, has divided the National Assembly and disturbed leaders from several sectors of society. In mid-November 2011, after several judicial reviews and hearings, a 264-page indictment accuses 143 suspects, 66 of them in pre-trial detention, with an attempt to overthrow the government.

The indictments have provoked a question: Is Erdogan using tactics similar to those of the military forces, exaggerating threats to squash opposition? Will the trial of civilians and officers associated with Operation Sledgehammer destabilize the stable nation?

Operation Sledgehammer

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan insists that nobody has been jailed in Turkey because of their profession as a journalist; only due to their membership in an illegal organization. Others are skeptical.

Markar Esayan and his independent Taraf newspaper received credit and fame for exposing the proposed 2007 coup, which had as objectives: undermine the stability of the AKP and create chaos. Esayan would not expose those who presented his newspaper with the documents, but insisted they were authentic and with signatures of known generals. He said plans had been made to bomb two major mosques in Istanbul, assault a military museum by people disguised as fundamentalists, and increase tension with Greece by instigating dogfights between the fighter planes of the two countries over the Aegean Sea. The allegations included shooting down a Turkish plane and blaming it on Greece. Subsequently, he said, prosecutors found supporting documents at military headquarters.

Faik Tunay senses that the revelations spurred citizens to support Erdogan and harmed opposition Parties. Although he believes the alleged coup plotters should be punished, he senses some plotters, especially journalists, have been accused only because of personal association with alleged plotters — guilt by association.

Zaman’s Yusuf Acar said that the “society did not accept reports of military intervention,” but after “armaments in a military home were found to match some terrorist activities, belief became widespread. Changes became apparent when the Prime Minister chaired the Military Council and the General Chief of Staff no longer stood at his side.”

Professor Dr. Yasin Altai claimed that the military often created problems to justify its existence. He has been spied upon and a file prepared on him. Now the civil can try the military.

All top generals, one of whom died, resigned. Some interpreted the resignations as an attempt to create anarchy, others as a protest to the arrests.

What seems to many as an obvious and serious plot against the government, which must be dealt with in a legal manner, is viewed by others as a bumbling proposal by a few who drew others in with arguments and not with definite alliances. All words and no action. So where is the plot?

The decline of Kemal Ataturk’s political course and weakening of the military dictates a new direction. Can that direction continue without a new constitution? What constitution? The subject is being vigorously debated.

The Constitution

A commission, composed of representatives from the three major Parties and a pro-Kurdish group, has been appointed to prepare a Draft Constitution. One limiting factor: each article must be approved unanimously, an impossible task. Without a new constitution, Kemalism cannot be entirely decomposed. Without a new Constitution, it is doubtful Turkey can gain admittance to the European Union.

The Young Civilians want a total change and absolutely new constitution. Bilal Macit noted that it is difficult to change the first three articles of the constitution; secular, socialist, modern. Article 4 of the present Constitution declares the immovability of the founding principles of the Republic defined in the first three Articles and bans any proposals for their modification. Regardless, Macit claims that no division exists between secularists and Islamists. Both want a pluralist society.

If the Constitution is modified, will it contain some references to Sharia Law? The Kemalists and western world have one question in common: To what extent is the AKP an Islamic Party?

The Islamic Party

A consensus rejects the AKP as an Islamist party. Nothing in its agendas, in its cabinet, and in its operations suggests a relation with an Islamic movement.

Nasuhi Güngör, columnist for the Star newspaper, said that the AKP “no longer represents Islamic identity,” and he should know. He admits that the Star, which has a moderate circulation of 130K daily, is owned by businessmen aligned with the government and, although critical at times, still close to the AKP. “Many AKP members practice Islam and believe that forward movement requires affiliation with Islam. However, they don’t go beyond believing that the Islamic religion can play a satisfactory role in society and wanting its adherents to be able to practice the religion in accord with their own rules.” One clue, Güngör noted, is that the AKP has not brought the wearing of the scarf issue to the table, perceiving it as human rights rather than religious issue. If the AKP raised the issue then it would be marked as an Islamic Party.

Although Turkey might not be considered an Islamic run nation, will its identification with the Islamic religion serve as a model for the newly liberated Arab nations?

Turkey as role model

The world expects the Turks to guide the Arab revolutions in the same direction as Erdagon’s movement. Consensus does not adhere to that theme and has Turkey envisioning itself only as another European a nation. Rather than being a role model, Turkey wants absolute friendship with Arab neighbors, a lack of which distracted the Ottoman Empire and impeded progress of the Kemalist programs.

Star Daily journalist Güngör, who is the newspaper’s expert on the Middle East, believes the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has close similarities to the incipient AKP, but has never governed and is 30 years behind the AKP operations. He declared that if any of the Islamic parties gain control in the Arab nations, and they have already in Tunisia and Morocco (whose Islamic Party is also named Justice and Development), that country will make a big mistake.

His views on Hamas and Hezbollah are sanguine. Both, he claims, are maneuvered by Iran and are too militaristic. Nevertheless, he recommends that Turkey continue its relationship with Hamas.

Zero problems with neighbors

As others have said: “Turkey’s pursuit of zero problems with neighbors has morphed into zero neighbors without problems.”

All commentators agreed that Turkey has failed in this pursuit. Turkey has problems with neighbors and this is partly due to its own initiatives and independent policies. PM Erdogan’s commendable moral imperative, which identifies friendship with moral agendas rather than with what one nation can do for the other, creates misperceptions and misconceptions.

Misperception of the moral imperative solicits charges of arbitrary judgment of others and intention to establish a neo-Ottoman agenda. Erdogan has a misconception that these policies can succeed in a world of mistrust and self-interest.

Trespassing on Iraq sovereignty by engaging in military attacks on Kurds in Northern Iraq, requesting the resignation of Syria’s President Bashar Assad, demanding Israel apologize for the killing of Turkish citizens during an attempt to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza, installing NATO missile radar detection equipment to deter Iran, and refusing to pay compensation to Bulgaria for Ottoman eviction of Bulgarians in eastern Thrace, are only a few examples of Turkey’s conflicts with neighbors.

MHP Parliamentarian Özcan Yeniceri described the policy. “Turkey previously consulted the Pentagon for regulating its relations with Iran, Russia and others. After the fall of the Soviet Union, everything changed, and this allowed Turkey to reach potential. Still, its relations with the U.S. hindered relations with neighboring nations.”

And a host of other problems: resolution of the Kurdish question, entry into the European Union, and engagement with Israel and its principal supporter.

The Kurdish

Strategists outside of Turkey consider the Kurdish insurgency as Turkey’s number one problem. Despite continuous attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), punishing government counterattacks, and arrests of suspected PKK associates, correspondents considered the Kurdish question to be a declining problem. They noted that the Kurdish population is no longer demanding separation, feel more Turkic and sense the government is addressing their grievances. Turkey’s minority of 20 million does not maintain a unique Kurdish language and many dialects are prevalent. As for the Kurds being an organized ethnicity with direct relations in several nations, the Turkish Kurds don’t directly relate to the Kurdish populations in the other nations of Syria, Iraq and Iran. Kurdish irredentism is irrelevant to Turkey’s Kurds.

No longer considered to be a military problem, the Kurdish situation is defined as a civil and human rights problem. Former army colonel Mesut Ulker expressed the opinion succinctly: “It is a civic problem that will be resolved in 2-3 years.”

MHP Parliamentarian Ozcan Yeniceri presented a more rigorous analysis: “One third of the population has Kurdish relatives, intermarriage between ethnicities is high, and Kurds are well integrated. The Kurdish independence problem appeared after the fall of the Soviet Union, when new states formed. Nationalist Kurds asked: ‘Why not a Kurd state?’

“The PKK thought that after reforms, the government would become weak, eventually collapse and the country would divide into several divisions. Demands for democracy and freedom are not essential for the Kurds. They are only a Trojan horse. Nevertheless, the government should acknowledge rightful claims, and the conditions of the Kurds are showing improvement. Demand for a separate Kurdish language to be used in all facets of everyday public life comes from the PKK movement. In response the government has granted a Kurdish language television station, which broadcasts cultural programs.” Dunya TV has a satellite channel, and a footprint that reaches to Kurdish speaking peoples in all adjacent countries.

Ozcan Yemceri believes in equal rights for all ethnicities and private courses for Kurds, in their own language, which the government now allows. He closed with a wry remark: “America might face similar problems with its own minorities,” evidently referring to the multicultural and multilingual aspirations of Hispanic groups.

Apparently, the Turks believe that as their democracy develops it will encompass all minorities and diminish ethnic demands for separation. Developments in the Balkans, Iraq and Spain have not substantiated that belief.

European Union

As a member of the European Customs Union, Turkey has common tariffs in trade with EU nations. Petitioning the European Union for complete admission has faltered. Now, observers note that due to the contrast between Turkey’s growth and strength and a weakening Europe, it might no longer be favorable to Turkey to become a EU member.

Parliamentarian Bilal Macit agreed: “It is not important.”

Dr. Burak Erdenir, Deputy Undersecretary at Ministry for EU affairs, disagreed.
Three reasons for his intransigence:

(1) As a member of the Customs Union, Turkey is part of the decision taking but not part of the decision making.
(2) The European Union has been incorrect in its behavior towards Turkey and that behavior must be corrected.
(3) The EU process is supported by all political Parties

Dr. Erdenir spoke frankly. “EU refusal to grant admission to Turkey is entirely due to prejudice. To achieve candidate status, 35 articles must be approved. Seventeen are constantly blocked. Although Bulgaria and Romania have been given admission, Turkey is refused. The EU believes Turkey is too big, too poor, and too Muslim. The Austrians in particular have a mindset that that equates today’s Turkey with that of the Ottoman Empire 18th century attack on Vienna.

“However, things have changed. Turkey has the sixth largest economy in Europe, 159 universities, and the most stable economy. The EU has lost credibility and behaves dishonestly.”

Israel and America

Commentators condemned Israel for its policies towards the Palestinians and criticized the United States for its support of Israel and for its other Middle East policies. From observations, Israel has little support in Turkey, regardless of Party affiliation.

CHP Parliamentarian Faik Tunay included discussions of U.S. foreign policy as one factor in his Party’s quarrelsome manner. Despite Erdogan’s angry attitude towards Israel, which he supports, he claims the U.S. supports the AKP. His validation – Due to the AKP government, demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq were limited.

MHP Parliamentarian Özcan Yeniceri established Israel and its support by the United States as the prime foreign policy issues. “The American image is deteriorating internationally and includes instability within NATO, in which the US has played a key role. The direction of its fight with Radical Islam and Al Qaeda will soon include all Islam. The U.S. shouldn’t be a military empire, but should base policies on values. U.S. mentors have become the Evangelists and Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations.

The U.S. interfered in Iraq and now tries to restrict Iran in its developments. Unlike Iran, the U.S. has the nuclear weapon and has used it, signs of hypocrisy and loss of credibility. The same can apply to Israel. If the U.S. changed its policy in regard to Israel, the region will change drastically. The effort would be a game changer.”

Two industrialists, who manufacture food containers for export to European nations, posed a simple question: ‘Why can’t Israel be satisfied with its nation to the Green Line? Why is it constantly expanding?”

Economy

Officials from TUSKON, the Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists Worldwide, which has offices in major cities worldwide, highlighted Turkey’s economic progress. Since the AKP achieved governance, GDP and exports have tripled, while the inflation rate has fallen from 30 percent to 7.5 percent. Unemployment, which had been 14 percent in 2010, has dropped to 9.5 percent. A GDP of 735 billion dollars places Turkey 17th in the world and 7th in Europe, excluding the Russian federation. An export driven economy has increased exports to 135 billion dollars.

All the statistics are moving in proper directions, and although the inflation rate, interest rate (6%) and unemployment are high by western standards, they are acceptable by Turkish standards. Actually, the real interest rate (interest rate minus inflation) is negative, a deflationary anomaly that was not explained, and could hinder investment. Another major concern is the monotonically increasing negative trade balance, which was 42 billion dollars (2010).

If a fall in the European economy intensifies the negative trade balance, negative real interest rate, and relatively high unemployment rate, Turkey’s growth could come to a screeching halt. The vigorous economy has fragile elements.

Conclusion

Few, if any world leaders, have received as much admiration from the domestic and international public as has Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. His open manner, sincerity and moral challenges contrast with the covert, duplicitous and self subscribing attitudes of most world leaders. If his policies are out of step with most nations, they might prove that in the present global environment an independent course is a route to success.

• Europe’s and America’s economies falter. Turkey continues with rapid growth.
• Nations split apart from nationalism. Turkey enhances national identities.
• Western nations sanction Iran. Turkey increases trade with the Islamic state.
• Military control increases in most nations. Military control is constrained in Turkey.
• China and other fast growing nations pursue statist polices. Turkey eschews statism.

As in most nations, continued governing by the AKP depends upon the continued success of its economic policies. With Europe being the primary source for Turkey’s exports, a forecasted faltering of the European Market could drastically affect Turkey. Or will it? Is it possible that Erdogan’s pragmatism will lead Turkey to realign allegiances and markets and shift them to Iran and Russia, trading finished products for energy supplies? Turkey seems to be in the driver’s seat.

But not entirely. The AKP needs prosperity to advance democracy, which will enhance civil and human rights and prevent the electorate from considering Kemalism as an antidote for Turkey’s problems.

Kemalism will soon be proved as either past history or a spoke in the cycles of history. As the wheel turns, will Kemal Ataturk’s visions and policies return and challenge another Turkish Republic? The verdict is still not rendered.

US Secretary of State Hillary “we came, we saw, he died” Clinton set the scene on Indonesian TV a few weeks ago, when she prophesied there would be “a civil war” in Syria, with a well financed and “well-armed opposition” crammed with army deserters.

Now it’s up to NATOGCC to make it happen. NATOGCC is of course the now fully accomplished symbiosis between selected North Atlantic Treaty Organization members such as Britain and France and selected petromonarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council, aka the Gulf Counter-revolution Club, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

So feel free to bask in the glow of yet another mercenary paradise.

The NATOGCC war

The Libyans formerly known as rebels, with explicit consent from Transitional National Council (TNC) chairman Mustafa Abdul NATO, aka Jalil, have already shipped to Syria — via Turkey — 600 highly motivated troops fresh from toppling the Gaddafi regime, to fight alongside the Free Syria Army (FSA). This followed a secret meeting in Istanbul between the TNC and the Syrian “rebels,” rebranded as Syrian National Council.

The trigger-happy Libyans have access to a wealth of weapons plundered from the Gaddafi’s regimes military depots or gently “donated” by NATO and Qatar. A delicious parallel may already be traced with the House of Saud in the 1980s — which gave the green light for hardcore Islamists to go fight in Afghanistan, instead of raising hell at home.

For the TNC, better keep those testosterone-heavy, unemployed warriors away in the Middle East rather than raising hell in Northern Africa. And for NATO member Turkey, in the absence of war (blame those pesky Russians and Chinese), the next best option is to rely on mercenaries to do the job.

The pressure is relentless. Diplomats in Brussels confirmed to Asia Times Online that NATOGCC operatives have set up a command center in Iskenderun, in Hatay province in Turkey. Crucial Aleppo, in northwest Syria, is very close to the Turkish-Syrian border. The cover story for this command center is to engineer “humanitarian corridors” to Syria.

Although these “humanitarians” come from NATO members US, Canada and France, and GCC members Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, their cover is that they’re only innocent “monitors,” and not part of NATO. Needless to say these humanitarians consist of ground, naval, air force and engineering specialists. Their mission: infiltrate northern Syria, especially Idlib, Rastan, Homs but most of all the big prize, Aleppo, the largest city in Syria, with at least 2.5 million people, the majority of which are Sunni and Kurdish.

Even before this news from Brussels, the French satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaine, as well as the Turkish daily Milliyet, had already revealed that commandos from French intelligence and the British MI6 are training the FSA in urban guerrilla techniques, in Hatay in southern Turkey and in Tripoli, in northern Lebanon. Weapons — from shotguns to Israeli machine guns and RPGs — have been smuggled en masse.

It’s no secret in Syria that armed gangs — from Salafis to petty criminals — have been attacking regular soldiers, the police and even civilians since the early stages of the protest movement. Of roughly 3,500 people killed during the past seven months, a large number of civilians and more than 1,100 soldiers were killed by these gangs.

And then there are the deserters. So when the Assad regime insists the current Syrian tragedy is to a great extent incited by well-paid and well-armed elements — not to mention mercenaries — at the service of foreign powers, it is essentially correct.

In Homs, a local source tells Asia Times Online that as far as the FSA is concerned, “it’s clear that they are just a nice media cover for criminals. They had a video of themselves in Baba Amr in which they appeared like complete idiots (here it is, with captions conveniently!). But whoever these kids or guys are, they have lots of support amongst the Sunni population. Also, they are connected within the community, whether rich or poor. A Christian woman who teaches at a private school just outside Homs which has largely Sunni students had her car stopped and stolen by some gang. When she came to Homs she made some phone calls and her car was returned. So whoever stole her car outside city limits had connections to middle to high class people in the city and they were able to return the car. This tells me of the infiltration of the dogma of the revolution in Homs. The ‘concept’ of FSA is probably supported enough, and just the people of poor areas like Baba Amr, Bayada and Khalidiyya can self-sustain the FSA.”

Round up the usual votes

Just as in Libya, the Arab League also duly fulfilled its doormat function for NATOGCC, voting for harsh sanctions that include a freeze of Syrian government assets, no more trade deals with the central bank and no more Arab investment. In short: economic war. The Lebanese paper L’Orient Le Jour politely called it “a political euphemism.” Of the 22 League members, 19 voted — Syria was already suspended. Iraq — where the government is majority Shi’ite — and Lebanon — where Hezbollah is part of the government — were the only ones that “dissociated” themselves from the vote.

Meanwhile, the nasty opportunist game of musical chairs – the Syrian version – is also in effect. The Syrian National Council and its Islamist cohorts totally rejected any dialogue with the Bashar al-Assad regime. The secretary-general of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Riad Chakfi, pulled a “Libyan rebel” and implored the Turkish army to invade northern Syria and establish a buffer zone. Dodgy exiles such as former vice-president Abdelhalim Khaddam — exiled in Paris — and another vice-president, Rifaat al-Assad — exiled in Spain — are under the illusion that the Muslim Brotherhood (which will be the top power in a “new” Syria) would allow them to sit on the throne.

This is downright silly because the name of the game in a “new” Syria will be the House of Saud. The House of Saud is the crucial link between the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (which is getting closer and closer to taking power); the AKP party in Turkey (which is essentially a Muslim Brotherhood lite); and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. The Saudis are crucial investors in Turkey. They are positioning themselves as major investors in Egypt. And they’re dying to become a major investor in “new” Syria.

Then there’s the key question of Turkey’s game. In the Syrian dossier, Turkey is not a mediator anymore; it has become a brash advocate of regime change. Forget about the Tehran-Damascus-Ankara entente, which was a reality not along ago, in 2010. Forget about soft power and the much-advertised foreign policy of “zero problems with our neighbors,” coined by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

Davutoglu himself announced Turkey’s own sanctions on Syria — a replay of the Arab League’s, with freezing of the government’s financial assets and no transactions with the central bank. Davutoglu insists a military buffer zone inside Syria, along the border with Turkey, is “not on the agenda” — but that’s exactly what those shady NATOGCC “humanitarian monitors” are up to. Since mid-November Turkish media has been ablaze detailing plans for a no-fly zone in northern Syria and the aforementioned buffer zone stretching as far as Aleppo.

The motive? Ask “prophet” Hillary Clinton: to foment civil war.

Showdown, Club Med style

In its mad rush to sell the Turkish political model to the majority-Sunni parts of the Arab world (yet the GCC is not buying), Turkey may be severely miscalculating its crucial relations with both Russia and Iran. Around 70% of Turkey’s energy is imported from Russia and Iran. Not to mention that both Russia and Iran are fuming with Turkey bowing to NATO pressure to host a radar station as part of missile defense.

Russia has very clear ideas about the Syrian scenario. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been more than explicit for weeks now: “We absolutely do not accept a scenario of military intervention in Syria.”

Last week’s meeting of the deputy foreign ministers of the emergent BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), in Moscow, was unmistakable.

The BRICS essentially drew the red lines. No excuse whatsoever for a foreign intervention in Syria, as in “any external interference in Syria’s affairs, not in accordance with the UN Charter, should be excluded.” No “bomb bomb Iran”; instead, dialogue and negotiations. And no additional sanctions, deemed “counterproductive>” The BRICS clearly see how the Libya scenario is slowly morphing into the modified NATOGCC war.

To add extra sauce, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov — equipped with nuclear missiles — has already left Murmansk towards the Eastern Mediterranean, alongside the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko and the frigate Ladny. They will arrive at the Tartus naval base, in Syria, in mid-January, and will be met by other ships from the Russian fleet in the Black Sea.

Tartus, hosting around 600 military and technicians from the Russian Defense Ministry, is a center of maintenance and refueling for the Russian Black Sea fleet. It will be a thrill to watch whether the Russians will invite members of the George H W Bush Carrier Strike Group — now also in the Eastern Mediterranean — for a volleyball match.

It’s fair to argue that masses of Syrians want something other than the Assad regime — but certainly not some variant of humanitarian bombing, not to mention civil war. They saw NATO’s legacy in Libya — virtually the whole infrastructure of the country destroyed, cities bombed to dust, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, al-Qaeda-linked fanatics wielding power in Tripoli, widespread ethnic hatred. They don’t want a brand new massacre. But NATOGCC does.

If a man seeks to understand Rome’s casuss reason for each foreign conquest, he needs only look into the Treasury.

— Tacitus, AD 56 – AD 117

As the US and UK lead towards more illegal overthrows, invasions and destruction in Iran and Syria, a political pattern of manipulation and disinformation has become an art form.

Libya, under Colonel Gaddafi, with highest (UN) Human Development Index in Africa, and living standard which drew immigrants from across the region, has been air brushed out and replaced with a “mad dog” – and a liberating lynching. Oil, spoils and reconstruction contracts, though, are being divvied out apace.

Iraq, formerly described in UN Reports as approaching “First World” standards, also much in ruins, shattered infrastructure trumpeted as due to “thirty years of neglect.” No mention of over fifteen years of decimating embargo and bombings, culminating in “Shock and Awe.” Pretty glaring omissions.

Now President Assad of Syria is being subject to the same build up – or taking down – with calls for a Libya-style “no fly zone.” Being an independent-minded Arab leader certainly comes with a health warning.

On 20th November, Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak commented:  “And it’s clear to me that what happened a few weeks ago to Qaddafi… and what happened ultimately to Saddam Hussein, now might await him.”

Another day, another “despot”, more chilling alarm calls. Ehud Barak is surely in line for the Nobel Peace Prize.

But a decade or so is a long time in politics, especially with Western allies emboldened by a lynching or two.

Consider this from political analyst Sami Moubayid, author of Steel and Silk, Men and Women who have Shaped Syria and other scholarly literary over-views of the country’s  modern history.

In December 2000, six months into Bashar Al-Assad’s tenure, he wrote of a “cultural revolution” the new President was implementing, entitling the piece “A Modern-Day Attaturk.”

“Overnight the thousands of pictures of Hafez Al-Assad … disappeared”, following a statement committing to a “realistic” policy that did not immortalize and over-exaggerate leaders. “A relief … from the ever increasing photo-mania” of Syria (and the region’s) political culture.

Decades old bureaucratic laws were scrapped, a 25% wage increase was instituted  – not universally welcomed, as rumors had been circulating that it would be far higher, but quite a start. Compulsory military service was “somewhat” reformed – a service instituted to counter the perceived “ever present” Israeli military threat.

Freedom of speech was “marginally” restored and the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, jailed since 1982, perceived a threat to the regime’s existence, were released. A conciliatory hand extended. An Ex-chief of staff to his father, Hikmat Shihabi, with close links to Washington, who had fled the country after allegations of corruption, was welcomed back and received as a guest in the Presidential palace. Another returnee was an “outspoken” newspaper Editor, Aref Dalila, formerly critical of the regime – who resumed his criticisms.

Before becoming President, Bashar had opened the country up to internet and mobile ‘phone use.

When his father had traveled : “… roads were sealed (and) his entourage comprised ten cars, a mine detector and an ambulance.” Bashar began driving himself, with two car security, eating in public restaurants and attending prayers in various mosques.

He was, concluded Moubayed: “ … revolutionizing Syrian society at a slow and delicate pace”, warning of the ”the challenge of living up to his people’s very high expectations.”

Given the subsequent turmoil in the region and Syria’s hosting of nearly two million post-invasion Iraqi refugees, he has walked a challenging political and financial tight rope.

Media, politicians and rights groups citing human rights abuses as excuse for regime change, seemingly forget Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, and uncounted renditions to unknown detention dungeons across the world; torture, water boarding, and simply disappearing.

In an imperfect world, threatened Syria is fighting an enemy within, but the US, UK and allies most recent marauding, is uncounted horrifying deaths, acres of communities turned to rubble, culminating in the second lynching of a sovereign leader.

The remodeling of the Middle East, however, has been long on the cards .”9/11”, it is increasingly clear, provided the perfect excuse.

Maidhc Ó Cathail, in a recent article, recalled a 2003 comment written by Patrick Buchanan:

In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad.

The road to Baghdad, of course, had been planned since 1998, when the Iraq Liberation Act declared:

… that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

(Authorizing) the President … to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training …

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President’s criteria.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy….

By July 2002 when a bunch of US funded Iraqi opposition were welcomed by the British government and hosted in Kensington Town Hall, in a pattern now depressingly familiar in countries doomed to “democratization”, US officials “have reported that SAS troops and MI6 agents are already in Iraq working with opposition groups in the northern Kurdish areas of the country.”

In 1946 a US State Department Report had described Iraq as “… a stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history”.

Compared to that, Syria does not have vast natural resources (comparatively limited petroleum, with phosphates, chrome and manganese ores, asphalt, iron ore, rock salt, marble, gypsum, hydropower). However, it is geographically “The doorway to Asia and the Middle East.”

Iraq had its “liberation Act”, in  May 2004, the United States imposed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, imposing, in all too familiar words: “ …a series of sanctions against Syria for its support of terrorism … weapons of mass destruction programs and the destabilizing role it is playing in Iraq.” Jaw dropping stuff from a country which illegally attacked Iraq, having worked tirelessly on its destabilization for years. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2006, the US Department of the Treasury imposed “special measures” against the Commercial Bank of Syria. As ever, Judge, jury and executioner.

In 2007, Israel bombed an undeclared “nuclear facility” – except it wasn’t. Another weapons of mass destruction myth. It was a textile factory. A German journalist tracked down machine suppliers, but the designing engineer.

A re-run of the Iraq baby milk factory, declared a chemical weapons factory and flattened – transpiring to be a British engineered baby milk factory. The Al-Shifa pharmacetical factory in Khartoum, Sudan, suffered a similar fate under US bombs in August 1998, also accused of making chemical weapons.

It manufactured mainly veterinary medicines and malarial drugs, antibiotics, at prices which undercut the Western multinationals.  The suppliers for construction had included the US, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany.

Beware of Western governments making assertions.

Meanwhile, British Foreign Minister and Conservative Friend of Israel, William Hague, met “Syrian opposition representatives” (insurgents?) on Monday declaring: “…we will do what we can to support democracy in Syria in the future.”  He appointed former Ambassador to Lebanon and Yemen, Frances Guy, to lead London’s co-ordination with them.

Iraq and Libya revisited.

In the myriad political games, arm twisting, manipulation and propaganda, it should be remembered that President Assad is Regional Secretary of the Arab Ba’ath Party. With Saddam Hussein gone and the concept of a Pan-Arab state now outlawed in Iraq, Syria is the remaining symbol of America’s nemesis, but a concept close to many Arab hearts.

The fathers of the vision of Pan-Arab national ideals combined with socialism, of course, were Damascus  born Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar, who formed the Ba’ath Party in the early 1940s.

The commitment included freeing the Arab world of Western colonialism.

Arguably, the overthrow of the last bastion of this ideal on the road through Damascus would be a powerful Crusaders “victory.”

Echoing Foreign Minister Hague, President Genghis Obama has vowed that the US will: “continue to work with our friends and allies to pressure the Al Assad regime and support the Syrian people as they pursue the dignity and transition to democracy they deserve.” He omitted the “delivered by tens of thousands of air strikes.”

Assad’s hand of conciliation to the Muslim Brotherhood has been badly bitten as they push for a “no fly zone”, implemented by NATO Member, neighbouring Turkey.

Further, Tony Cartalucci argues that:

The ‘’Free Syria Army’ is literally an army of militant extremists, many drawn not from Syria’s military ranks, but from the Muslim Brotherhood, carrying heavy weapons back and forth over the Turkish and Lebanese borders, funded, supported, and armed by the United States, Israel, and Turkey.

Pepe Escobar  concurs, citing:

A report by a Qatar-based researcher for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) even comes close to admitting that the self-described ‘Free Syria Army’ is basically a bunch of hardcore Islamists, plus a few genuine army defectors, but mostly radicalized Muslim Brotherhood bought, paid for and weaponized by the US, Israel, the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.

He adds:

As Tehran sees it, what’s really going on regarding Syria is a ‘humanitarian’ cover for a complex anti-Shi’ite and anti-Iran operation.

The road map is already clear … And psy-ops abound …

In context, one Washington allegation last week accused Syria of aggression towards Lebanon by mining their common border.  Lebanese de-mining teams combed the border and found none. (Jordan Times, 18th November 2011.)

This week both Iran and Lebanon have claimed to have arrested alleged CIA spy rings. The Lebanese Cabinet is to summon the US Ambassador, Maura Connelly to question her on the issue. They have also submitted a complaint to the UN on alleged Israeli covert activities.

Baghdad, so extensively destroyed in 2003, was the “Paris of the 9th Century.” Damascus ,“City of Jasmin”, is widely thought to be the oldest continually inhabited city on earth. The Old City is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The superb Umayyad Mosque,built in the 7th century, is a monument to inspirational wonders of that millennium.

Inside a shrine to John the Baptist, believed by Christian scholars to have baptized Jesus, is perhaps a reminder across the millenia of the secular nature of Syrian society – as broadly, Iraq and Libya before Western intervention.

Saint Paul was sent to what is now Syria to destroy the Christians, believers are taught. His conversion on the road to Damascus changed all that. It can only be fervently hoped that today’s marauders also have a Damascene conversion for the sake of Syria’s population of today and most ancient of nations.

The relation of information technology (IT), and more specifically the internet, to politics is a central issue facing contemporary social movements.  Like many previous scientific advances the IT innovations have a dual purpose:  on the one hand, it has accelerated the global flow of capital, especially financial capital and facilitated imperialist ‘globalization’.  On the other hand, the internet has served to provide alternative critical sources of analysis as well as easy communication to mobilize popular movements.

The IT industry has created a new class of billionaires, from Silicon Valley in California to Bangalore, India.  They have played a central role in the expansion of economic colonialism via their monopoly control in diverse spheres of information flows and entertainment.

To paraphrase Marx “the internet has become the opium of the people”.  Young and old, employed and unemployed alike, spend hours passively gazing at spectacles, pornography, video games, online consumerism and even “news” in isolation from other citizens, fellow workers and employees.

In many cases the “overflow” of “news” on the internet has saturated the internet, absorbing time and energy and diverting the ‘watchers’ from reflection and action.  Just as too little and biased news by the mass media distorts popular consciousness, too many internet messages can immobilize citizen action.

The internet, deliberately or not, has “privatized” political life.  Many otherwise potential activists have come to believe that circulating manifestos to other individuals is a political act, forgetting that only public action, including confrontations with their adversaries in public spaces in city centers and in the countryside, is the basis of political transformations.

IT and Financial Capital

Let us remember that the original impetus for the growth of “IT” came from the demands of big financial institutions, investment banks and speculative traders who sought to move billions of dollars and euros with the touch of a finger from one country to another, from one enterprise to another, from one commodity to another.

Internet technology was the motor force for the growth of globalization at the service of financial capital.  In some ways IT played a major role in precipitating the two global financial crises of the past decade (2001-2002, 2008–2009).  The  bubble in IT stocks of 2001 was a result of the speculative promotion of overvalued “software firms” de-linked from the ‘real economy’.  The global financial crash of 2008-2009 and its continuation today, was induced by the computerized packaging of financial swindles and underfunded real estate mortgages.  The ‘virtues’ of the internet, its rapid relay of information in the context of speculator capitalism turned out to be a major contributing factor to the worse capitalist crises since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The Democratization of the Internet

The internet became accessible to the masses as a market for commercial enterprise and then spread to other social and political uses. Most importantly it became a means of informing the larger public of the exploitation and pillage of countries and people by multi-national banks.  The internet exposed the lies which accompany US and EU imperialist wars in the Middle East and Sothern Asia.

The internet has become contested terrain, a new form of class struggle, engaging  national liberation and pro-democracy movements.  The major movements and leaders from the armed fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan to the pro-democracy activists in Egypt, to the student movements in Chile and including the poor peoples’ housing movement in Turkey, rely on the internet to inform the world of their struggles, programs, state repression and popular victories.  The internet links peoples’ struggles across national boundaries – it is a key weapon in creating a new internationalism to counter capitalist globalization and imperial wars.

To paraphrase Lenin, we could argue that 21st century socialism can be summed up by the equation:  “soviets plus internet = participatory socialism”.

The Internet and Class Politics

We should remember that computerized information techniques are not ‘neutral’ – their political impact depends on their users and overseers who determine who and what class interests they will serve.  More generally the internet must be contextualized in terms of its insertion in public space.

The internet has served to mobilize thousands of workers in China and peasants in India against corporate exploiters and real estate developers.  But computerized aerial warfare has become the NATO weapon of choice to bomb and destroy independent Libya. The US drones which send missiles that kill civilians in Pakistan and Yemen are directed by computer ‘intelligence’.  The location of Colombian guerrillas and the deadly aerial bombings are computerized.  In other words, IT technology has dual uses:  for popular liberation or imperial counter revolution.

Neo-liberalism and Public Space

The discussion of “public space” has frequently assumed that “public” means greater state intervention on behalf of the welfare of the majority; greater regulation of capitalismand increased protection of the environment.  In other words, benign “public” actors are counter-posed to exploitative private market forces.

In the context of the rise of neo-liberal ideology and policies, many progressive writers argue about the “decline of the public sphere”. This argument overlooks the fact that the “public sphere” has increased its role in society, economy and politics on behalf of capital, especially financial capital, and foreign investors.  The “public sphere”, specifically the state, is much more intrusive in civil society as a repressive force, particularly as neo-liberal policies increase inequalities.  Because of the intensification and deepening of the financial crises, the public sphere (the state) has undertaken a massive role in bailing out bankrupt banks.

Because of large scale fiscal deficits provoked by capitalist class tax evasion, colonial war spending and public subsidies to big business, the public sphere (state) imposes class based “austerity” program-cutting social expenditures and prejudicing public employees, pensioners, and private wage and salaried employees.

The public sphere diminished its role in the productive sector of the economy.  However, the military sector has grown with expansion of colonial and imperial wars.

The basic issue underlying any discussion of the public sphere and the social opposition is not its decline or growth but rather the class interests which define the role of the public sphere.  Under neo-liberalism, the public sphere is directed by the use of public treasury to finance bank bailouts, militarism and expanded police state intervention.  A public sphere directed by the “social opposition” (workers, farmers, professionals, employees) would enlarge the scope of public sphere activity with regard to health, education, pensions, environment and employment.

The concept of the “public sphere” has two opposing faces (Janus-like): one facing capital and the military; the other labor/social opposition.  The role of the internet is also subject to this duality: on the one hand the internet facilitates large scale movements of capital and rapid imperial military interventions; on the other hand it provides rapid flow of information to mobilize the social opposition.  The basic question is what kind of information is transmitted to what political actors and for what social interest?

The Internet and the Social Opposition:  The Threat of State Repression

For the social opposition the internet is first and foremost a vital source of alternative critical information to educate and mobilize the “public” – especially among progressive opinion — leaders, professionals, trade unionists and peasant leaders, militants and activists.  The internet is the alternative to the capitalist mass media and its propaganda, a source of news and information that relays manifestos and informs activists of sites for public action.  Because of the internet’s progressive role as an instrument of the social opposition it is subject to surveillance by the repressive police-state apparatus.  For example, in the USA over 800,000 functionaries are employed by the “Homeland Security” police agency to spy on billions of emails, faxes, telephone calls of millions of US citizens.  How effective the policing of tons of information each day is another question.  But the fact is that the internet is not a “free and secure source of information, debate and discussion”.  In fact, as the internet becomes more effective in mobilizing the social movements in opposition to the imperial and colonial state, the greater is the likelihood of police-state intervention under the pretext “combating terrorism”.

The Internet and Contemporary Struggle:  Is it Revolutionary?

It is important to recognize the importance of the internet in detonating certain social movements as well as relativizing its overall significance.

The internet has played a vital role in publicizing and mobilizing “spontaneous protests” like the ‘indignados’ (the indignant protestors) mostly unaffiliated unemployed youth in Spain and the protestors involved in the US “Occupy Wall Street”.  In other instances, for example, the mass general strikes in Italy, Portugal, Greece and elsewhere the organized trade union confederations played a central role and the internet had a secondary impact.

In highly repressive countries like Egypt, Tunisia and China, the internet played a major role in publicizing public action and organizing mass protests.  However, the internet has not led to any successful revolutions – it can inform, provide a forum for debate, and  mobilize, but it cannot provide leadership and organization to sustain political action let alone a strategy for taking state power.  The illusion that some internet gurus foster, that ‘computerized’ action replaces the need for a disciplined, political party, has been demonstrated to be false:  the internet can facilitate movement but only an organized social opposition can provide the tactical and strategic direction which can sustain the movement against state repression and toward successful struggles.

In other words, the internet is not an “end in itself” – the self-congratulatory posture of internet ideologues in heralding a new “revolutionary” information age overlooks the fact that the NATO powers, Israel and their allies and clients now use the internet to plantviruses to disrupt economies, sabotage defense programs and promote ethno-religious uprisings.  Israel sent damaging viruses to hinder Iran’s peaceful nuclear program; the US, France and Turkey incited client social opposition in Libya and Syria.  In a word, the internet has become the new terrain of class and anti-imperialist struggle.  The internet is a means not an end in itself.  The internet is part of a public sphere whose purpose and results are determined by the larger class structure in which it is embedded.

Concluding Remarks:  “Desktop Militants” and Public Intellectuals

The social opposition is defined by public action:  the presence of collectivities in political meetings, individuals speaking at public meetings, activists marching in public squares, militant trade unionists confronting employers, poor people demanding sites for housing and public services from public authorities…

To address an active assembled public meeting, to formulate ideas, programs and propose programs and strategies through political action defines the role of the public intellectual. To sit at a desk in an office, in splendid isolation, sending out five manifestos per minute defines a “desktop militant”.  It is a form of pseudo-militancy that isolates the word from the deed.  Desktop “militancy” is an act of verbal inaction, of inconsequential “activism”, a make-believe revolution of the mind.

The exchange of internet communications becomes a political act when it engages in public social movements that challenge power.  By necessity that involves risks for the public intellectual:  of police assaults in public spaces and economic reprisals in the private sphere.  The desktop “activists” risk nothing and accomplish little.  The public intellectual links the private discontents of individuals to the social activism of the collectivity.  The academic critic comes to a site of action, speaks and returns to their academic office.  The public intellectual speaks and sustains a long-term political educational commitment with the social opposition in the public sphere via the internet and in face to face daily encounters.

This time there were 27 activists, including Americans, Canadians, Irish, Polish, Greek, Palestinian and — for the first time an Egyptian, Al-Masri Al-Youm English Managing Editor Lina Attalah. For 27 years, Israel has been violating the 1979 Peace Treaty with Egypt, which guaranteed “full autonomy” for the Palestinians within five years. So it was appropriate for an Egyptian to become the 27th member of the team of activists trying to break the Gaza siege.

Tahrir passenger Kit Kittredge said, “In our sails is the wind of worldwide public opinion which has turned against the illegal blockade.” Retired US army colonel Ann Wright said, “We carry inspiration from the Arab Spring and the worldwide Occupy movements. Where governments fail, civil society must act. We will not stand by and watch $30 billion of our tax money committed to buying Israel weaponry used to carry out this illegal occupation of Palestine.”

Attalah described how, as Israel warships approached, activists and journalists started throwing equipment into the sea, “fearing that the information stored on them could be used to implicate other activists who were not on board”. When the Israel military asked their destination, organiser Ehab Lotayef replied first, “The conscience of humanity”, and as the Israelis sprayed the peaceful protesters with salt water, “The betterment of mankind”. Attalah counted 15 ships, with “dozens of Israeli soldiers pointed their machines guns at us”.

Their communications system was jammed and they entered the Israel no-mans land. But not without an Israeli practical joke. The Israelis “offered to send one person to inspect for weapons, and if he found nothing, they would let us pass”.

But the ships were suddenly ordered to proceed to Ashdod in Israel, and when the order was ignored, the Israelis boarded the ships, brandishing guns, ready to shoot anyone resisting, and using tear gas and tasers. The Tahrir and the Saoirse were forced to crash into each other, crippling both ships, and their engine rooms flooded, exposing them to the danger of sinking.

What equipment had not been thrown overboard was stolen by the pirates. Israeli Mad Kayal said, “As a Palestinian, I was not surprised at how the IDF treated us; however, for the Canadians and other Westerners onboard, it was a complete shock.” President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek, who in the past called Israel “an indispensable partner for the EU”, refused to criticise his “partner” for the arrest and imprisonment of Irish Euro MP Paul Murphy for three days.

In contrast, Attalah was treated with kid gloves, and — without any exchange of Israeli spies — was taken by an Egyptian embassy official to the border at Taba. She was upbeat in her report, relating how they got much closer this time — 50 km as opposed to 100 km in the past, and how Jewish activists, preparing for the expected Israeli attack, helped translate slogans “This is piracy” and “This is kidnapping” into Hebrew to greet the Israelis.

Shamefully, US State Department official Victoria Nuland warned activists, they “could face civil and criminal penalties in their efforts to deliver resources to the Gaza Strip,” and the US consul in Israel advised them to sign an Israeli deportation agreement. The activists refused, as the statement said they entered Israel illegally and would not attempt another effort to break the Gaza blockade, thereby giving de facto credibility to the seige.

Absurdly, US House Resolution 3131 introduced last month would require the State Department to investigate “the sources of any logistical, technical, or financial support for the Gaza flotilla ships” and produce “a report on whether any support organisation that participated in the planning or execution of the recent Gaza flotilla attempt should be designated as a foreign terrorist organisation”.

The story did not end with the deportation of the plucky activists. Israel cyberwarfare expertise is well known, but so is that of computer hackers Anonymous. They decided to avenge the Freedom Wavers, warning the Israeli military hours before they seized the ships: “If you continue blocking humanitarian vessels to Gaza, then you will leave us no choice but to strike back. Again and again, until you stop.”

A few days later, over a dozen Israeli government websites crashed, including Shin Bet, Mossad, the IDF, the Health, Justice, Housing, Science and Sports Ministries, the President’s Residence, the Immigration Authority, the Israel Land Administration and the Atomic Energy Commission. As Jewish philosopher Hillel the Elder said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Freedom Waves will continue to lap against Israeli gunships in their attempt to reach the shores of Gaza. There are tentative plans for a “Sailing for Freedom” yacht race next summer from Marseille France, a kind of Tour de Méditerranée, going to Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and on to Palestine. Turkey has committed itself to protect future naval convoys breaking the siege.

Land convoys are also being organised. The British group Long Live Palestine has called on people around the world to take part in a convoy of medical aid to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza, starting 27 December. Organisers are planning for Viva Palestina 6 – Return Convoy to be the biggest convoy of aid yet, and hope to involve Egyptians again and enter via the Rafah crossing.

In the overland five trips I have made to Gaza since March, 2009, I have seen the disastrous effect of the brutal Israeli land and sea blockade has had on the Palestinian people.  I have seen the terrible level of destruction that the 2008-2009 Israeli attack wrecked on Gaza, in which 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the 22 day attack, 5,000 were wounded and 50,000 were made homeless.  I was on the Gaza Freedom March in 2009 and I was a passenger on the US Boat to Gaza, the “Audacity of Hope” that was forbidden from sailing June, 2011 by the Greek government on behalf of the Israeli government.

As one of two American citizens on the Gaza “Freedom Waves,” I represented hundreds of thousands of Americans who are challenging Israeli and US policies concerning Palestine.  We are using a variety of methods to let Israeli government officials know that international citizen activists are not going to stop challenging their policies.  Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions programs, international citizens who attempt to protect Palestinians as they farm, fish and go to school, students confronting Israeli officials as they speak around the world and flotillas and waves of boats are part of the international effort. I am very proud to be a part of this movement.

Passenger on the “Tahrir”

Passengers on the Canadian Boat to Gaza, the “Tahrir,” left Turkey in good spirits Wednesday, November 2, 2011 despite having its passenger list whittled down by the Turkish Port Authorities who allowed only 12 out of 35 passengers who had travelled to Turkey to get on the boat.  The Turks cited regulations that decreed that only 12 persons could be on a boat rated as a “pleasure craft” to depart Turkey for international waters, no matter that the vessel was rated for 50+ passengers. My fellow Americans Medea Benjamin, Robert Neiman, Paki Wieland, Tighe Barry and David Schermerhorn became our ground crew in Turkey when the passenger reduction was forced on us.  On the day we left the Turkish port of Fetiyah, they rented a third boat to attempt to transfer in international waters the 23 passengers who had not been allowed onto the boats in port.

Working with our sister ship, the “Saoirse”, from Ireland, we hit the high seas full throttle headed to Gaza continuing the previous flotillas efforts to end Israel’s illegal, immoral  naval blockade of Gaza, which, in combination with Israel’s land blockade, has made the 1.6 million people of Gaza, prisoners in a tiny land that is roughly 25 miles long and five miles wide.

Our team, on the Tahrir, consisted of five journalists, including Democracy Now’s Jihan Hafiz, six international delegates and the captain.  We bonded quickly and settled in to our various chores.  Captain George delegated crew duties, journalists set up their satellites and computer stations, cooks and medics tended to physical needs and everyone vied for computer time to reach out to the world.

Canadian Boat to Gaza organizers did an excellent job stocking the boat with food, water and medical supplies plus $30,000 of medical aid to be delivered in Gaza.   The next two days were filled with blogging, filming, battling seasickness, sleeping, eating, non-violent training and preparation for probable Israeli confrontation and imprisonment.

Arriving in Danger Zone in the Daylight

Getting into international waters without the Turkish Coast Guard turning us back was our first success.  In hopes of not being boarded by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during darkness, we slowed our speed so it would be daylight Friday morning, November 4, 2011, when we approached 100 nautical miles off Gaza’s shore and probable contact with the IDF.

Each hour brought us 10 miles closer to Gaza.  We were thankful to make it past the 70 mile mark where the Mavi Marmara was so brutally attacked in June, 2010.

Three Giant Warships Looming on the Horizon

A momentary excitement permeated the ship as the captain announced we were 50 miles offshore– until we saw the 3 giant warships looming on the horizon.

We got on the satellite phones and computers to get out our last messages.  I was on the phone with CNN and I remember them saying, “call me when something happens” and I said, “This is probably the last you’re going to hear from me as our communications will be cut….” and then they were.

17 Israeli Warships Surround and Force collision between Freedom Waves boats–Water Cannons blew out windows and almost sunk the Irish boat Saoirse

We were told by the Israeli Navy to change our course.  Organizers of both boats restated that we were sailing to “the goodness of humanity.”

Within a half an hour we were surrounded by 17 boats; gunboats, water cannon boats, zodiacs.

The IDF radioed that they wanted to inspect our boats, meanwhile two zodiacs were harassing the Saoirse by driving in circles around them, finally forcing the Irish boat to crash into the Tahrir causing damage to the Saoirse.

The Saoirse pulled away and was chased by the IDF commandos who proceeded to blow out their windows and fill the ship with water from the water cannons.  If the Saoirse’s auxiliary power had not kicked in, the boat would have sunk.

Meanwhile, the IDF blasted the Tahrir with water cannons.  Over bullhorns, IDF soldiers told us to go to the bow of the boat where they were hitting our boat with the most force with the water cannons. We tried to protect ourselves by staying behind the wheel house.

One passenger and a cameraman attempted to remain on the bow of the Tahrir but moved away as the commandoes jumped the rail.  Commandos snatched the camera and 25 masked commandos shoved their way on board screaming, “Shut Up! Sit Down,! Move! Get Up!,  Shut Up!, Move!”  over and over for the next half hour.

One Passenger Tasered by IDF

Two passengers stayed at the wheelhouse and one was tasered by the IDF commandos.  They were shoved out the wheelhouse and dragged to the benches where they were forced at gunpoint to sit.  Commandos continued to yell, “Sit! Shut up! Don’t move!”  Our male passengers were searched first with commandos pointing guns and tasers at them.  Everyone had to keep their empty hands visible at all times.

Computers, Cameras, Satellite Phones Taken

I asked if  we could go down below as it was getting dark and cold and they corralled us into the tiny galley room and “guarded” us  while other soldiers  searched our backpacks and suitcases and threw our computers, cameras,  and bags on the floor.  Computers, cameras and other electronics confiscated on the boat were never returned to us.

IDF Commandos Brainwashed into Committing Horrific, Illegal Actions

I felt sad and angry looking into the young masked eyes of the IDF soldiers who had been so successfully brainwashed into doing horrific, illegal acts for the Israeli government.  They pirated our ship, kidnapped us and tasered us and now many of them were asleep on the benches, every bit as tired as we were.

Strip Searched at Port of Ashdod

About three hours later we arrived at the Israeli port of Ashdod, where Israeli officials strip searched, demeaned and dehumanized us. However, nothing they did to us is comparable to what the Palestinians endure.

The officials in the Israeli Immigration and Deportation office processed us.  They told us that if we signed a document that stated we had entered Israel illegally, we would be deported the next day.  This was one of the many lies we were told by Israeli authorities. Another untruth that they told us was that after 72 hours we would be deported automatically.

Three Days in Israeli Prison

After processing at the port, we were separated again and taken in small groups to the Givon prison where once again we were strip searched.  Our packs pawed through by at least ten people and we were then handed a list of our possessions that they were going to keep.

Women’s Wing of the Prison

Five women including myself spent the next three days in our own wing of the prison.  We were locked in our cells, locked in the women’s section of the prison and then locked behind two more locked gates.  Still, the guards repeatedly counted us and checked to make sure we weren’t plotting an escape, as if we could dig our way out through the floors. Maybe they thought “the criminals” could break out with the flimsy toothbrushes we were given!  Again, only a small taste of what Gazans have felt for years.

No American Embassy Presence or Phone Call for Two Days

I didn’t get my phone call out, nor did we see any one from the American Embassy for two days, whereas a representative of the Irish Embassy to Israel met the Irish boat when they arrived at the Port of Ashdod.

When the American Embassy officials finally arrived at the prison, they recommended I sign the form saying I had entered Israel illegally.  I refused.

The Embassy officials did contact my family and continued to keep in touch with them during my stay in the Israeli prison.  However, the official later told me there wasn’t much the US Embassy could do since we were in Israel and Israel was calling the shots, despite the US giving $3 billion in military aid annually to Israel!

Inside the Prison

We were locked in our cells for hours on end and ended up having a sit down strike in the corridor demanding that we be allowed out of the cells more than once a day.  We were tormented all one night by an irate guard beating on our door and awakened many times a night so they could “count us.”  We were berated and treated like criminals the entire time.

Paying for My Own Deportation

Finally Monday night, November 7th, after almost 72 hours, the Israelis said I could “leave” if I paid for my own deportation air ticket.  I agreed so that I could get back to the U.S. and tell the story of the “Freedom Waves.”  I was taken to the notorious Ben Gurion Airport Detention Center with a fellow passenger, who flew out that night. I was locked up in the airport facility for another 14 hours until my flight left on Tuesday, November 8.

Israeli Defiance of International Law and Basic Human Decency

There is no surprise in Israel’s act of piracy in attacking two civilian boats in international waters trying to sail to Gaza, imprisoning the passengers, and stealing the cargo and personal possessions. This is yet another example of Israeli defiance of International Law and basic human decency.

In my interactions with the IDF commandos and the Israeli government officials at the Port of Ashdod, in the prison and at the airport, I was struck by the desensitized, robotic, inhumane behavior they displayed consistently—and, again, I only experienced a small taste of what Palestinians routinely face.

“Freedom Waves” to Freedom Riders

There’s another dangerous passage – this time over land – that’s about to set forth: On Tuesday, November 15th, Palestinian activists plan to board settler-only public buses in the West Bank and attempt to sit down and ride the bus, in the great tradition of the Freedom Riders that challenged segregation in the American South. These brave change-makers have called on the international community to stand in solidarity, and many actions are planned around the US where activists will protest Veolia, the French company that runs many of the settler buses and is the subject of an international boycott campaign.  If the Palestinian Freedom Riders are arrested and detained, it will be important for us to speak up and take action as well.

US Congress should be Investigated for giving $3 Billion in Military Aid Annually to Israel instead of Demanding that the State Department Investigate Citizen Activists

Because of this experience in trying to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza, I am more resolved than ever to work to stop the US government allocation of military aid to Israel and policies supporting the Israeli government’s apartheid treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Some Congresspersons are now going after US citizens on the Gaza flotillas!

Who is part of a terrorist organization: International activists saying Israeli and U.S policies toward the Palestinians are unjust and illegal, or the US Congress?

I think the US Congress should be held accountable for the illegal and unlawful uses of the weaponry that the U.S. has provided to Israel – including the F-16s, Apache helicopters, white phosphorous and dense inert metal explosive bombs that killed 1,400 Palestinians, wounded 5,000 and left 50,000 homeless during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09.

Instead, 13 Congresspersons want those of us who have challenged Israeli and US policies on Palestine investigated for terrorist links and have introduced House Resolution 3131 toward that end.

The legislation introduced in the United States Congress in October, 2011, by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Congressman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), would require the State Department to “submit a report on whether any support organization that participated in the planning or execution of the recent Gaza flotilla attempt should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization and any actions taken by the Department of State to express gratitude to the government of Greece for preventing the Gaza flotilla from setting sail in contravention of Israel’s legal blockade of Gaza, and for other purposes.”  Twelve other strong supporters of the Israel Occupation have signed onto the bill: Engel, Ros-Lehtinen, Sarbanes, Carter, Frelinghuysen, Young, Grimm, Diaz-Balart, Rothman, Roskam and Sires.  Coincidentally, these representatives, especially Ros-Lehtinen, receive big contributions of campaign funding from the right-wing Israel lobby.

Please call these Congresspersons at (202) 225-3121 and give them an earful.

The boats—one from Canada and one from Ireland—were carrying 27 passengers, including press and peace activists from Ireland, Canada, the United States, Australia and Palestine. They were unarmed, and the Israeli military knew that. They were simply peace activists wanting to connect with civilians in Gaza, and the Israeli military knew that. Yet naked aggression was used against them in international waters—something that is normally considered an act of piracy.

The passengers on the boats were sailing to Gaza to challenge the U.S.-supported Israeli blockade that is crippling the lives of 1.6 million Palestinian civilians in Gaza. They were sailing to stand up against unaccountable power—the power of the Israeli government—that has been violating the basic rights of the 5.5 million Palestinians that live inside Israel’s pre-1967 borders or in the Occupied Territories. They were sailing for us, a civil society, who believe in human rights and the rule of law.

The Arab Spring – which has now spread to cities across the United States in the form of the “occupy” movement, and has been echoed in protests against economic injustice in Europe and Israel as well – has fundamentally been a challenge to unaccountable power. Some countries experiencing this protest wave are dictatorships under military rule or ruled by monarchies; others are generally considered “democracies.” But in all instances the majority feel that they have been shut out of decision-making and have been harmed by policies benefiting a narrow elite with disproportionate power.

The blockade of Gaza’s civilians is an extreme example of unaccountable power. Palestinians in Gaza aren’t allowed to vote for Israeli or American politicians. But due to political decisions taken in Israel and the United States, Palestinians in Gaza are prevented from exporting their goods, traveling freely, farming their land, fishing their waters or importing construction materials to build their homes and factories.

We have been to Gaza before, where we have seen the devastation first hand.  We have also been to Israel and the West Bank, where we have seen how the Israeli government is detaining Palestinians at checkpoints, building walls that cut them off from their lands, demolishing their houses, arbitrarily imprisoning their relatives and imposing economic restrictions that prevent them from earning a living. We have seen how Palestinians, like people everywhere, are desperate to live normal and dignified lives.

A UN Report released in September found that “Israel’s oppressive policies [in Gaza] constitute a form of collective punishment of civilians”, that these policies violate both international humanitarian and human rights law, and that the illegal siege of Gaza should be lifted.  The International Committee of the Red Cross also called the blockade of Gaza a violation of international lawbecause it constitutes “collective punishment” of a civilian population for actions for which the civilians are not responsible.

The Red Cross is a neutral humanitarian organization. It doesn’t usually go around making pronouncements on matters of public policy. The fact that it has done so in this case should be a strong signal to the international community that the blockade of Gaza is extreme and must fall.

History has shown us again and again that when political leaders decide it’s in their interest, then peace, diplomacy, negotiations are possible. Recently, Israel and Hamas – with the help of the new Egyptian government – successfully negotiated a prisoner exchange that had eluded them for five years. In speeches, the Israeli government “opposes negotiations with Hamas,” and in speeches, Hamas “opposes negotiations with Israel.” But when they decided it was in their interest, they had no problem sitting down at the table and hammering out an agreement.

If Israel and Hamas can negotiate an agreement to release prisoners, then surely Israel and Hamas can negotiate an agreement to lift the blockade on Gaza’s civilians.

But the people of Gaza can’t wait for political leaders to decide it’s in their interest to negotiate, so it’s up to us—as civil society—to step up the pressure. That’s what these waves of boats are doing. That’s what the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is doing.

More than a year ago, President Obama called the blockade unsustainable. “It seems to us that there should be ways of focusing narrowly on arms shipments, rather than focusing in a blanket way on stopping everything and then, in a piecemeal way, allowing things into Gaza,” he said. That hasn’t happened. Why not? Why shouldn’t it happen now? What does blocking Palestinian exports from Gaza to Europe or keeping people from getting medical treatment abroad have to do with arms shipments?

The Israeli military stopped these two small ships carrying peace activists to Gaza, but they won’t stop the Palestinians who are demanding freedom, and they won’t stop the solidarity movement. We won’t stop challenging the blockade on Gaza’s civilians—by land and by sea– until the blockade falls. And we won’t stop challenging the denial of Palestinian democratic aspirations until those aspirations are realized.

Atlas, who grew up in Belgium, is of Egyptian, Moroccan and Palestinian ancestry and has Jewish roots. She was appointed a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Conference Against Racism in 2001, which was boycotted by the United States and Israel, for raising issues about US treatment of African Americans and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

The flip side of cultural boycotts of Israel is to prevent Israeli cultural figures from presenting a false image of Israel abroad. Idan Raichel, “Israel’s most popular dread-locked musician,” according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, prominent in Masa (Journey) Israel tours to recruit young Jews from American and Europe to Israel, is more than just a musician, seeing Israel’s cultural icons as “ambassadors of Israel in the world, cultural ambassadors, hasbara ambassadors, also in regards to the political conflict”.

Raichel’s hasbara message prompted American Jews to protest a recent Masa “journey” across the US, using the Internet to coordinate leafletting at the concert tour sites. His recent album “Open Door” prompted signs at the demos entitled “Does ‘Open Door’ include Palestinians?” and “Don’t entertain apartheid.” “Idan Raichel can’t support apartheid,” countered one concert-goer, “He sleeps with a black woman!” Raichel is part of the Brand Israel campaign, which aims to bring arts to the world in order to, in the words of an Israeli foreign ministry official, “show Israel’s prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war”.

A Finnish campaign is under way to cancel a new deal to purchase Israeli drones. Like Canada, the US, Turkey and Russia, Finland has been attracted by Israeli know-how in lethal weapons. The Finnish Defence Ministry recently signed an agreement on drone purchases, in defiance of EU regulations. This prompted Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja to break ranks with his colleagues and declare, in reference to Israel, that “No apartheid state is justified or sustainable.” Earlier while in opposition, Tuomioja himself signed a petition calling for an end to the arms trade with Israel. As foreign minister, Tuomioja could demand the suspension of EU-Israel Association Agreement, which gives Israel special trade access to EU markets, but on condition that Israel respects human rights.

The EU’s “common foreign policy” has been a bitter disappointment, especially with respect to Israel, as consensus prevents principled nations within the EU from acting, and attempts to enforce EU regulations are easily buried in bureaucratese. For instance, the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) provides research funds for universities and companies from Israel as a result of the Association Agreement. Despite Israel´s consistent violation of the Agreement’s human rights clause, Israeli companies such as Ahava, “academic” institutions such as Technion, and worse, Elbit Systems and Israeli Aerospace Industries receive European funding through FP7 on an equal footing with EU member states.

EU Scientific Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn insisted that there was no reason to exclude Israel’s Idan Raichel company from EU-related activities since she did not have “any information about any radar systems Motorola Israel might or might not have installed in the West Bank”. Geoghegan-Quinn is not reading her inbox, where she would have found reports to the European Commission by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel and “Stop the Wall” documenting Motorola’s work in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

An ambitious boycott-divestment effort by the newly launched KARAMA (Keep Alstom Rail And Metro Away) and the ongoing “Derail Veolia and Alstom” campaign, celebrated an important victory. Alstom lost the bid for the second phase of the Saudi Haramain Railway project linking Mecca with Medina, worth $10 billion, due to its involvement in Israel’s Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR) project. Alstom also suffered when the Dutch ASN Bank and the Swedish national pension fund AP7 excluded it from their investment portfolios. Veolia has lost more than $12 billion worth of contracts following boycott activism in Sweden, the UK, Ireland and elsewhere.

A national conference of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) took place from 14-16 October at New York’s Columbia University, bringing together 400 American student activists from a hundred campuses. SJP activists have made famous their mock checkpoints, walls, and die-ins on campus, to bring home the reality of Israeli persecution of Palestinians.

Delegates brainstormed about divestment campaigns and how to counter the power of AIPAC. Codepink’s Medea Benjamin, who gained world celebrity status for interrupting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in May, explained how to lodge a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics against the American Israel Education Foundation Congressional trips to Israel, which violate Congressional Ethics Rules.

Columbia University grad student Dina Omar said the conference helped create a “solid network and apparatus to help protect students from being systemically targeted by institutional power.” A week before the conference, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported on the “growing strength” of SJP. Ironically, it was a 2010 ADL statement calling SJP one of the top 10 “anti-Israel” groups in the US that pushed 67 chapters to unite. Max Ajl said: “The timing was key – everywhere there was the buzz that we are part of a broader mobilisation, the Occupy Wall Street movement. There is now both the opportunity and the incentive to link these struggles.”

Interestingly, there is division in the anti-BDS ranks over how hard to crack down on BDSers by claiming that Jewish students might be made “uncomfortable”. While the ADL lauded the US Department of Education’s 2010 decision to expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include “anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sentiment that crosses the line into anti-Semitism”, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) cautions Jewish groups against suppressing free speech by invoking civil rights laws. “Lawsuits and threats of legal action” should only be used “for cases which evidence a systematic climate of fear and intimidation coupled with a failure of the university administration to respond with reasonable corrective measures.”

Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian, argues that the ADL strategy is “inherently anti-Semitic because it assumes incorrectly and ahistorically that all criticism of Israel equals criticism of Jews”, and thus condemns all Jews for the racism practiced by Israel. “It seems that at least some in the pro-Israel community fear that this aggressive campaign of censorship and intimidation may do more to cast Israel’s defenders as thugs, than to improve Israel’s image on campuses.”

In interview with Time, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan questioned why sanctions are promoted by the US when dealing with Iran and Sudan, but are taboo with regards to Israel. Sanctions imposed by the United Nations on Israel would have resolved the issue of Mideast peace long ago, he said. “Until today, the UN Security Council has issued more than 89 resolutions on prospective sanctions related to Israel, but they’ve never been executed.” The reason the international community had stood by without sanctioning Israel was that the Quartet – which includes Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the UN – was not genuinely interested in resolving the Mideast conflict or “they would have imposed certain issues on Israel.”

Romana Clay: Welcome to Mind over Media, where the news is news. I’m Romana Clay. As should be obvious to anyone, the Internet has supplanted newspapers as the primary source of news for increasing numbers of people. Last year, a survey by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 41% of respondents chose the Internet as their primary news source, whereas a mere 10% chose a newspaper. The proportion was highest, as might be expected, among people aged 18 to 29. But is this decline in newspaper popularity due to technological innovation, or are newspaper owners and editors chiefly responsible for its demise, and is this demise permanent? Today, we begin a two-part investigation of the declining relevance of print journalism with Professor Joseph Howe, Director of the Centre for Media Integrity in Victoria, B.C. Welcome to the show.

Professor Joseph Howe: Thank you.

RC: Professor Howe, let’s get right to the point: is the Internet dooming print journalism to technological extinction?

JH: First of all, an established machine or technique does not simply die because a newer or better one comes along. The television did not spell the end of movie theatres, as many feared. The discovery of polyester, nylon and other synthetic fibers did not put established textile industries out of business. The automatic transmission did not make the standard transmission obsolete. Each maintained its economic niche or adapted to create a new one. In the face of technological innovation, history shows that co-existence, not extinction, is more likely. So there is no basis for blaming the Internet solely for the decline in daily or weekly newspaper readership.

RC: But newspapers are dying; even the New York Times admits that print’s days are numbered. Doesn’t the Pew poll show the newspaper going the way of the buggywhip?

JH: Not really. Yes, the newspaper has lost audience and revenue to the Internet, and it will never be as important or as influential as it was in the pre-computer age. On the other hand, newspapers have on-line editions, as well as on-line advertisers and subscribers, so it isn’t a total loss. Having said that, newspapers—in fact, all media—have to adapt to a world where they can no longer dictate truth and shape reality. But instead of adapt they fight.

RC: But newspapers have an Internet presence. Is this not a sign of adaptation?

JH: A minor one, largely forced on them by circumstance, but not a true adaptation. You see, the Internet is probably the greatest force for truth and democracy since the invention of movable type in the 16th century, and this terrifies the traditional media, especially newspapers.

RC: But why should they be terrified?

JH: Because they don’t serve the public good; they serve the corporations that own them, and through them the political interests and lobby groups that these corporations support. You will not find newspapers turning to the Internet to write balanced, rational reporting, for example, on the Middle East, the environment, labour issues, or national security because serving the public interest is bad for business. The tragedy of our time is that as the Internet helps people become better informed, newspapers become ever more shallow and manipulative as they prop up the official fictions that sustain their corporate owners.

RC: You said that newspapers are shallow and manipulative, but hasn’t that always been true to some degree?

JH: Yes, but the Internet has shown us just how shallow and how manipulative they are. Before the worldwideweb, we had no external reference point. Sure, there have always been counterculture or dissident publications, but none that could challenge the authority of the newspaper or reach a mass audience in real time.

RC: You’re not saying that the Internet is perfectly honest, are you?

JH: No, of course not. There’s a lot of garbage out there, but among the garbage is the balance and contrarian views that are conspicuously absent in newspapers. Without the Internet, the world would not have been able to expose the official fictions surrounding, for example, the September 11 attack, Operation ‘Cast Lead’, or the attack on the Mavi Marmara. The Internet is a threat to corporate power, and therefore newspapers, as corporate properties, cannot accept the need to adapt. Mendacity, not technology, lies behind the fall of newspapers. It all comes down to opportunity cost.

RC: What do you mean by ‘opportunity cost’?

JH: The cost of honesty versus obedience. Let’s say a newspaper runs a properly researched story or opinion piece on a matter of great public importance. If it runs up against corporate political interests, the writer could lose his job.

That’s what happened in March to Ottawa Sun columnist Michael Harris, who had his column taken away after he had the temerity and good sense to condemn Stephen Harper for being in contempt of Parliament. Publisher Rick Gibbons denied any cause and effect, of course, saying that Harris’s column was cancelled to make way for ‘new voices’, but that’s just the standard newsspeak to justify corporate censorship. The same thing happened to Globe and Mail columnist Rick Salutin five months earlier. The good news is that he was picked up by the Toronto Star.

On the other hand, if a paper runs mindless pap, it risks losing readership. One of the most bizarre cases of this occurred last October when The Vancouver Sun ran a fawning eight-part series on Justin Bieber just because he was in town for a concert. Even the managing editor couldn’t hide his embarrassment.

RC: If the Internet is providing the news and analysis that newspapers cannot or will not provide, what do newspapers have to offer their readers?

JH: Newspapers still do a decent job of reporting local news—crime, fire, city council, that sort of thing —and there will always be a readership for it. Beyond that, not much. To avoid angering their corporate owners, one tactic is to lard the paper with mountains of non-news—advertorials, soft features, sports and infotainment—so that readers won’t notice the absence of real news. The newspaper, and media in general, is really little more than a Weapon of Mass Distraction, and the exodus from print to web reflects the growing belief that a news diet should feed the mind, not starve it.

RC: Can you give us an example?

JH: One egregious example took place in Vancouver during the Stanley Cup Playoffs. The editors of the Picayune-Mirror repeatedly tanked the front page in favour of redundant, trite cheerleading pics of the Vancouver Canucks, who made it all to the way to the finals. If you look at the monitor, you’ll see a series of front pages of the Picayune-Mirror. Yes, the playoffs was an important local event, but that does not excuse throwing away the front page, especially when the paper’s back page is also the sports ‘front page’. Given the already bloated sports section and the reporting overkill in the news section, there was no justifiable reason to bastardize the paper. On most days it looked like a Canucks sandwich—all bread and very little meat.

RC: Why did the editors do it?

JH: I asked that exact question, and was simply told that the publisher gave the order to give the Canucks the same saturation coverage as the 2010 Olympics—sports reduced to news filler. Why this was necessary, I never found out, but you can tell from the headlines that accompanied these pics that news judgment played no part: ‘Rock this Town!’; ‘Drop the Puck!’; ‘Make Your Plans’. What made the editors think they were being paid to be cliché-addled hustlers?

RC: At this point, news-hungry readers had to be asking themselves: ‘What news is not reported?’ ‘What do I need to know that I’m not being told’?

JH: Exactly! Clearly the Picayune-Mirror doesn’t respect its readers, so it forces them to go elsewhere for news, and the Internet is the most likely place.

RC: Has the Picayune-Mirror or any other paper actually lost readership?

JH: I can’t say for certain because the newspaper climate in most cities is nearly monopolistic. Apart from the throw-away transit rags, the Picayune-Mirror is one of two dailies in Vancouver, but since both are owned by the same company, circulation figures and reader attitudes cannot be taken at face value. However, we can reasonably conclude that newspapers are doomed, but not just for technological reasons.

RC: Thank you, Professor Howe. (to camera) When we return, Picayune-Mirror editor Bruce James will join us via satellite. (Two-minute commercial break) We’re back, and joining us from Vancouver as promised is Bruce James editor of the Picayune-Mirror. (to the TV monitor) Mr. James, you’ve been following Professor Howe’s comments. How do you respond to his comments about the state of newspapers and yours in particular?

Bruce James: Well, obviously I take great exception to Professor Howe’s characterisation of my paper. I don’t think he understands it at all. The Picayune-Mirror isn’t a broadsheet like the Globe and Mail, so it doesn’t have to live up to his high-falutin’ standards. It’s a parochial tabloid. Our readers aren’t interested in international or national news—they want to read local stories, the ‘picayune’ details from their neighbourhood. They also want to see themselves, their interests, reflected in the paper. That’s why we put on the front page the kind of story we think readers would be talking about.

RC: But doesn’t Professor Howe have a point when he criticizes you and the other editors for filling the front page with redundant sports pics that have no news value?

BJ: Who says they have no news value? Sports is news, and the Canucks were the biggest news story at the time.

JH: No, Mr. James, they weren’t. A hockey series, no matter how important, is not ‘news’. That’s why there are separate news and sports sections. Besides, you had the whole back section to promote the Canucks; you didn’t need to tank the front.

BJ: I resent your use of the term ‘tank’!

RC: (cutting in) Mr. James, I think Professor Howe’s point is that the back page, which also had a full-sized hockey pic and a thick hockey section, seemed adequate to the task, and that giving away the front page seemed like overkill.

BJ: Our readers are interested in the Canucks, and we give them what they want.

JH: Even if that means under-reporting real news? Last I checked, the Picayune-Mirror was a newspaper, not a sports paper.

BJ: I don’t need you to tell me how to do my job!

RC: (cutting in) Uh, gentlemen…

JH: Well, then, perhaps you’d tell us the news value of running a Canucks calendar or pictures of fans on the front page.

BJ: I don’t have to account to you!

JH: All I want is a straight answer to a simple question, but you seem incapable of giving one. You think you can exempt yourself from having to do honest journalism by using the excuse that the Picayune-Mirror is just ‘a tabloid’.

BJ: How you could equate the measure of me as a journalist based on whether or not I address the musings of someone so insignificant as yourself?

RC: (cutting in) Mr. James, that’s quite enough!

BJ: Then I suggest you tell your guest to show me some respect!

JH: (to James) You mean the same kind of respect you show your readers?!

RC: (cutting in) All right, that’ll do. Let’s take break and see if we can all calm down. (The camera pulls back and cuts to a commercial, and then the argument continues off-camera.)

BJ: (to Howe) I’m getting a little tired of this line of questioning.

JH: (to James) And I’m getting tired of your refusal to answer questions.

BJ: I am not interested in offering you my comments!

JH: Oh, that’s great! And you call yourself an editor?!

BJ: Now you…

RC: …Gentlemen! We’re on in 30 seconds and I would like to move the show to another topic. So let’s put our anger away, shall we? (short pause.) Okayyyy, we’re back, and I’d like to change focus a bit by going back to something you said earlier, Professor Howe. You said newspapers are forcing readers to go to the Internet by under-reporting real news. Can you elaborate?

JH: I hardly know where to begin. Well, take international news, which is just as important to local readers as local news is. In 2008-2009 Israel launched a genocidal attack on the Gaza Strip called Operation ‘Cast Lead’. It was a wholesale massacre of civilians based on trumped up charges that the Hamas government had launched rocket attacks. In fact, the attack was six months in the planning. It rightly disgusted the world, yet there was virtually no mention of the illegality of the attack or of Israel’s use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus, which are expressly forbidden by law. I asked Bruce James at the time if he would write an editorial denouncing the use of these banned weapons and he said he would if I produced proof. I did, but he reneged.

BJ: (cutting in) I never said anything even close to writing an editorial condemning Israeli action! Given we had not to date written an editorial supporting their action, something I supported, why would I commit to writing an editorial condemning their action. I was well aware Israel admitted to using them in Lebanon. I personally do not support the use of these weapons, but I also don’t support Hamas missiles attempting to destroy another country’s vital desalination plant.

JH: Your knee-jerk equation of Hamas rockets with Israel’s use of DU and white phosphorous is grossly immoral and dishonest. One Jew had died in all of 2008 before the assault. Does a ratio of more than 100:1 dead Arabs to Jews sound like justice to you? Does this not sound like genocide, especially when Israel was deliberately starving Gazans and denying them medical care?

BJ: You lose all credibility with me when you play the genocide card, and your vitriol and hate have rendered reasonable discussion impossible! Go fuck yourself. You, sir, are a frothing, horrid little man. (James takes off his clip-on mike and storms off the show. Clay and Howe look at each other in disbelief.)

RC: (visibly discomfited) That…did not go nearly as well as I had hoped.

JH: No, indeed, but at least he showed our viewers why the newspaper is dying.

RC: We’re out of time, which is probably just as well. (to the camera) On our next show, Professor Howe and I will look at how the media frames and decontextualizes the news.

(Camera pulls back. Credits roll. Fade out.)

Israel’s refusal to say “I apologise” has already proved to be very expensive, and will continue to reverberate, not just in the hollow halls of the ICC, but off the shores of Israel itself, as Turkish warships accompany flotillas breaking the siege, and when Turkey begins drilling for gas in waters that Greek Cyprus and Israel claim for themselves. It will echo when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who US International Trade Undersecretary Francisco Sanchez said was “like a rock star”, crosses the Rafah border to visit Gaza. No one can mistake Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias for Elton John.

There are many reasons for the deterioration of the once smooth relations between Israel and Turkey. Firstly both nations have moved away from their secular roots — Turkey with the return of Islam as a guiding principle in political life under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2002, Israel with the rise of Likud in 1977 ending the long reign of Labour. Turkey is naturally returning to its traditional role under the Ottoman Caliphate as regional Muslim hegemon, while the Zionised version of Judaism has ended any pretence of the Jewish state being interested in making peace with the indigenous Muslims.

Israel’s relations with both Cyprus and brotherly Greece — both longstanding foes of Turkey — have warmed up considerably since Israel killed nine Turks last year and Turkish-Israeli relations plunged. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman became the first such Israeli official to visit Cyprus last September. Their Foreign Affairs people have been meeting regularly since, as it becomes clear that Israel is using Cyprus as its proxy in gas and oil exploration in the eastern Mediterranean.

While no one was looking, Greek Cyprus began exploring for gas off the coast. The project by the Texas-based Noble Energy prompted Erdogan and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) President Dervis Eroglu to hurriedly sign an agreement last week on delineation of the continental shelf, while the leaders were attending the United Nations General Assembly meetings. Ankara announced Turkish Petroleum Corporation has commissioned a Norwegian oil and gas firm to set up its own oil and gas exploration rig nearby — accompanied by a warship. In Nicosia, Turkish Cypriot Prime Minister Irsen Kucuk vowed “to make every effort and show every kind of resistance to protect our rights and interests”.

With the announcement of the exploration project, Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz suggested the risks for Nobel are considerable. “I do not think they will undertake such a work in such a risky area, from a technical and a feasibility point of view.” Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said Turkey’s plans were “no bluff”. The US Israel Lobby’s Richard Stone called Turkey’s actions “a reason for war”.

The new friendship between Greece, Cyprus and Israel is a major headache for Turkey, but — apart from possibly leading to war — also has other drawbacks for the Greeks, their Cypriot cousins and the EU as a whole. The gas and oil drilling will put paid to the long-suffering attempt under UN auspices to reunite the island. Greek Cyprus has been divided since a Turkish intervention in 1974 triggered by a Greek-inspired coup. UN-sponsored peace talks between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots have stumbled since they were relaunched in 2008.

Davutoglu warned UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York last week that the Greek Cypriot drilling plan will doom the island to permanent division. “If they claim they have their own area where they can do whatever they want, then, by implication, they accept that Northern Cyprus has its own area as well. This is a shift to a two-state mentality.” In the latest move, the KKTC president proposed to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon this week that there be a mutual freeze in drilling or at least a joint committee to resolve the dispute. The Cypriot leaders will have a tripartite meeting with the Ban in New York at the end of October.

Hopes for Turkey’s accession to the EU are also dashed. Referring to Cyprus taking on the rotating presidency of the EU next summer, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay said, “If the negotiations [on Cyprus] do not end positively and the EU hands over the presidency to southern Cyprus, we will freeze our relations with the EU.”

Cyprus says its hydrocarbon search is to the benefit of all Cypriots, but it fails to mention in its press releases that it is working jointly with Israel on this project. In effect, Israel is getting Cyprus to do its dirty work for it, as an Israeli-sponsored rig would be a red flag to the Muslim bull. This recapitulates the cozying up of Israel to Greece in the past year, their new military cooperation, and Israel’s use of Greece this summer to prevent the Freedom Flotilla from setting out from Greek ports to break the Gaza siege. Cypriot President Christofias accused Turkey of being a regional “troublemaker”, failing to point to the Israeli bull in the regional china shop.

While Cyprus and big guns such as Sarkozy and Merkel openly reject Turkey’s admission into the EU, playing to their right wing anti-immigrant base, sensible voices can still be heard. Secretary General of the Council of Europe Throbjorn Jagland said that Turkey was important for Europe, and that Erdogan’s call in Cairo to create a secular constitution and order in Egypt and Middle East was “of utmost importance”. At a Liberal Democratic Party meeting in Birmingham UK, Turkey’s Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek said, “The EU needs Turkey if it wants to remain as an important actor. Turkey will help the Union become a global economic player.” Turkey’s economy grew 9 per cent in 2010 as Europe’s slid. Asked to describe the ruling AKP, Simsek said: “In issues such as family we are conservative. In economy and relations with the world we are liberal. And in social justice and poverty we are socialist.”

But already Turkish opinion is turning against kowtowing to Europe, just as kowtowing to the US and Israel is no longer acceptable. Erdogan’s spectacular reception on his visits to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya shows where Turkey is appreciated. It is the big winner in the Arab Spring, leaving the US, Israel and Europe to wonder where they fit in.

Hopes to turn a grateful Libya into a NATO base are vain, as Islamists immediately rose to prominence; much like the Communist resistance did in the aftermath to WWII, after bearing the brunt of the Nazi war machine. French President Nicolas Sarkozy should read his French history, including the humiliating consequences of France’s last dabbling in the region — its invasion of Egypt in 1956.

Can the West reshape Libya as it did post-WWII Europe to meet its goals of neocolonial hegemony? Not likely, as Turkey was pragmatic enough to get in on the ground and will be able to ensure that Libyans are not duped by their clever Western advisers. Ditto Tunisia and Egypt. The forceful and principled foreign policy moves of Davitoglu are leaving the West and Israel breathless in the new Bermuda Triangle.

Israeli whining about their trashed embassy in Cairo or their unceremonious expulsion from Ankara can impress no one. Just imagine the scenario if Cyprus is replaced by Egypt in the Bermuda Triangle, and a Turkish-Egyptian alliance decides to take on Israel. The current blockade of Gaza will look like child’s play. Egypt controls the Suez Canal, and Turkey — the eastern Mediterranean. One can only marvel that it has taken over 60 years for Israel’s powerful neighbours — with 20 times the population of Israel — to realise their collective power and ability to impose a just regional order without any kowtowing to Washington.

What is surprising is that the AKP faces no domestic opposition to its policy with either Israel, Cyprus or the EU. The Republican People’s Party is even competing with the AKP on who is more anti-Israel, protesting against plans to install a NATO early warning radar. The once-feared Islamists clearly represent the overwhelming Turkish sentiment, and geopolitical dictates are creating a fait accompli.

Willingness to stand up for the nation’s rights, and to stare down the Israeli enemy and the Islamophobic Euros is where it’s at, and there is little the increasingly powerless US can do about it. The US better wake up soon or, like the EU, it will lose its true ally in the Middle East, and will merely speed up the consolidation of a pax turkana, a latter-day caliphate once again led by Turkey.

Turkey’s sin was seeking an apology for the killing of its citizens – on their way to deliver essential, life-saving supplies to malnourished and besieged Palestinians in Gaza – at the hand of Israeli army commandos.

If the civilians had been Israelis, and the commandos part of a Turkish force, all hell would have broken loose. Israel and the US would have declared Turkey a pariah state. Turkey, however, merely demanded an apology, and it was affronted further for doing so.

Of course, this is not the first time that Israel deliberately provoked and tested Turkish patience. Israel has attempted to infiltrate Turkey’s own political spaces by supporting its regional opponents and arming various rebel groups with the aim of destabilizing Turkey.

Instead of acknowledging the country’s rising significance and accommodating to the rules of the ‘new Middle East’ political game, Israel resorted to intimidation and insults. It repeatedly placed Turkey – a thriving democracy and a proud regional power of 80 million – in a very sensitive standing.

However, the anti-Turkish attitude in Israel was not an outcome of the Mavi Marmara incident last year. “The height of humiliation” is how an Israeli newspaper described a scene in which Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon summoned Turkish ambassador, Ahmet Oguz, last January to humiliate him before Israeli media. Oguz was reprimanded over a fictional Turkish TV show that was critical of Israel. To ensure that the point has been successfully made, Ayalon “urged journalists to make clear that the ambassador was seated on a low sofa, while the Israeli officials were in much higher chairs,” according to the BBC (January 13, 2010). Ayalon noted that is “there is only one flag here” – the Israeli flag – and “we are not smiling”.

How did Turkey respond? A statement issued by the foreign ministry ‘invited’ their counterparts in “Israeli foreign ministry to respect the rules of diplomatic courtesy.” Hardly outrageous. The gist of the Turkish message that followed the murder of the Turkish humanitarian activists a few months later was not much different. It basically asked for an apology.

Turkey was shunned for the seemingly unreasonable demand. An unnamed senior Israeli official explained the Israeli logic to Ynet news on September 2, following Turkey’s decision to downgrade ties with Israel. “Turkey is an important country in the Middle East, but an apology is a very strategic precedent for Israel in this region,” he said. That is true, Israel’s diplomacy is predicated on unfair trade, violent storming of humanitarian boats, subservient activities, espionage and much more. Indeed, an apology for the murder of Turkish’s civilians would be a precedent.

Even after the recent publishing of Palmer Report – a contradictory and obvious attempt at exonerating the Israeli army while implicating Turkish humanitarian activists – Turkey acted responsibly. But it also acted with the poise and dignity that is expected of a democratic country expressing the wishes of the vast majority of its people. It downgraded military, trade and other ties with Israel. Why should Turkey share military intelligence with a country that murders Turks, humiliates its diplomats and refuses to apologize?

Still, from Israel’s point of view, Turkey has crossed all the limits of acceptable behavior. “Turkish warships will escort any Turkish aid vessels to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip,” said Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in an interview with Al Jazeera (as quoted in the Guardian, September 8). At the same time, Turkish diplomacy continued to offer a window of opportunity to detain further escalation. “Our embassy in Israel is open, and the Israeli embassy in Ankara is open. The relations would return to the old days if Israel apologizes and accepts to pay compensation,” said Huseyin Celik, Deputy Chairman of the ruling Justice and Development party (according to the Guardian, September 8.)

Since an apology is a ‘precedent’, Israel responded in the only way it knows how. An accusatory campaign was launched against Turkey with outlandish insinuations and direct threats.

“This is part of the Islamization spreading there, and we must recognize it,” said the senior official to Ynet. The leading Israeli news source also published a column by one Ron Ben-Yishai, calling the Turkish Prime Minister a “short-tempered thug.” In ‘Turkey no great power,’ Yishai accused the country of failing on most fronts. “Turkey under Erdogan’s leadership is neither a reliable ally nor a credible rival,” he charged.

These views are hardly marginal, and were matched by specific threats by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. “We’ll exact a price from Erdogan that will prove to him that messing with Israel doesn’t pay off,” Lieberman reportedly said. More specifically, he “urge(d) all Israeli military veterans to refrain from traveling to Turkey and facilitate cooperation with the Armenians — Turkey’s historic rivals.” He said he also plans to meet with the Turkish rebel group PKK to “cooperate with them and boost them in every possible area,” according to UPI, September 9.

Per this logic, demanding an apology for murder equals a thuggish act, while stirring regional instability and admitting to supporting armed militias is an acceptable diplomatic maneuver.

Turkey had no other option but to escalate before an obstinate ‘ally.’ And considering the latter’s existing isolation in the region – and the growing anti-Israeli sentiment in Egypt and elsewhere – it is likely that Israel, not Turkey, will lose out in this political tussle.

Even the US, Israel’s ‘unconditional’ ally, seems to recognize the dangerous game being played by Israel and its rightwing government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Recently revealed comments made by then US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicate that Americans are simply fed up with supporting Israel’s ‘dangerous’ policies, while ‘receive(ing) nothing in return’ (Bloomberg, September 5).

It is these very dangerous policies that guide Israel’s brewing conflict with Turkey amid complete lack of political wisdom in Tel Aviv. But if extreme militancy was not enough to intimidate or weaken the resolve of a tiny and besieged place like Gaza, why should it work against a great and rising power like Turkey?

Rational thinking in Netanyahu’s government might also be an acceptable precedent.

Silvia Cattori: How many Turks are here in Athens waiting to sail with the “Freedom flotilla”?

Huseyin Oruç: We are about twenty people from Turkey ready to participate in the “Freedom flotilla II” in different ships. There are only a few places in the boats. In each boat there is a Turkish participant. We have people in the Canadian boat, the Spanish boat, the French boat, the Greek boat, the International boat.

SC: So, the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) has not withdrawn from the “Freedom flotilla II” as reported by many commentators? Is that correct?

HO: We did not withdraw from the coalition. We are part of the coalition. We officially are continuing to support the “Freedom flotilla”. IHH is one of the members of the Steering Committee of the “Flotilla 2”. I am the deputy of IHH (Humanitarian Relief Foundation) and a coordinator of the “Freedom flotilla.” The only thing is that the Mavi Marmara ship could not join the vessels in this second mission of the “Freedom Flotilla” since repair and maintenance works on the ship have not been completed.

SC: I would like to make clear that the non-participation of the Mavi Marmara is it not a Turkish government decision?

HO: It is not a government decision. It is an IHH decision. It is a decision of the registration of the Mavi Marmara. We have announced 20 days ago to our partners that, technically, we had difficulties in participating with Mavi Marmara. That for technical reasons we could not participate in this “Flotilla”. We wanted to allow all other organizers to prepare themselves accordingly. We announced that we were not cancelling but rather postponing the participation of the Mavi Marmara. We will continue our mission. You have seen the high commitment of IHH people in the coalition and you will continue to see it.

As we have declared it hundreds of times, the Mavi Marmara is not merely a Turkish ship. It is an international ship. It does not depend only upon the Turkish initiative. It is the symbol of the Palestinians; one of the symbols of all oppressed people in the world.

The Mavi Marmara became a very important figure. We are not cancelling our participation with the Mavi Marmara. Whenever the Palestinians need it, the Mavi Marmara will go. We cannot give you a time but we say that we will sail. In any case it will not be a Turkish ship but an international ship. The Mavi Marmara became the conscience of the world. There will be many nationalities on the Mavi Marmara when we will decide to go. There will be about 500 people from all over the world. And it will continue. It is not the end of the “Flotilla”. Until this illegal siege is lifted, this “Flotilla” will continue; with new perspectives, with new surprises, not to repeat itself; and it will continue to change the history.

SC: Because the Mavi Marmara represents a great and beautiful symbol it was a shock for the people in Gaza to learn that your ship could not be part of the “Flotilla II”. Was it a realistic decision for the flotilla organizers to set sail without the Mavi Marmara?

HO: Of course the Mavi Marmara was one of the largest ships in the Flotilla that can carry about 500 passengers. The fact that it is not participating now in the “Flotilla” has a negative side and a positive side. We need to use whatever is happening to our advantage. The fact that we have deferred the participation of the Mavi Marmara puts us in a favourable position. We are maintaining the pressure on Israel. Anyway, we are still participating in the “Flotilla 2” and of course we are one of the supporters among the Committee members; we are one of the founders of this “Flotilla” organisation.

Remember what the Israelis have been saying throughout the last year. They have targeted Turkish people, they have targeted the Muslims, they have targeted IHH, and they have targeted the Turkish government who organized this Flotilla. But on the other side the Israelis have never done anything against our colleagues from the West. And now that the Turkish participation is less prominent, look what is happening.

Now that we are not participating with the Mavi Marmara, what is the reason to attack the boats? What is the reason to stop the boats? The main reasons are being removed from their agenda. Now the Israelis are showing their real face. They are not acting only against the Muslims, not only against the Turks; they are acting against everybody. And they want to control the West. They feel they oversee things at the highest level and that Westerners have their orders. It is the position now and European people need to understand that it is not related to religion. It is not related to beliefs, to nationality. It is completely related to the bad Zionist policy. And this policy is not only against the Muslims. They are not making any differentiation between religions. Whoever is against them, they are ready to kill them: Americans, Greeks, Germans and whatever they are.

SC: I entirely agree with your analysis. But the Turkish diplomacy regarding the Middle East seems to have changed. What is your interpretation about that?

HO: Let me say first that Turkey did not change. And let me say that the decision of IHH is totally independent. One month ago, just five days before deciding not to participate in the Flotilla with the Mavi Marmara, we, the Steering Committee met here in this hotel ; we sat together and, very frankly, we explained the situation. Everybody knows us; knows who IHH is, how serious we are; how we are working, what we have done in the “Freedom flotilla I”. All members of the Steering Committee know that, if IHH takes a decision, it is not in favour of someone else, it is in favour of the Palestinians. This mission is totally related to the oppressed Palestinian people. And whatever we are planning, we are doing it for the benefit of the Palestinians.

For all decisions taken by IHH, without any pressure from anyone, we have checked everything. And when you look at the problems of the “Freedom flotilla”, it is very important to know that it is not the problem of a single society, but it is because of the Israeli policies. What the Israelis have done in the last one year? They have been attacking the “Freedom flotilla; they target all civilians. On the one hand, you have a big government and one of the most effective diplomatic machines in the world using all their powers. On the other side, you have some civilians. This allows us to surprise them; the Israelis do not realize what they are doing. They are not targeting Turkey, they are not targeting America, they are not targeting Greece; but they have created big enemies for themselves with their own hands.

SC: The Israelis are trying to invent all sorts of scenarios to divide people as in the past; to make Christians more acceptable than Muslims. This is their policy. By the way, it sounds a bit strange that this time the “Freedom flotilla” sails under, respectively, the flag of France, the flag of the United States, the flag of Sweden, etc… Is this not a way to make it easier for the Israelis to divide you?

HO: No, it would not be easy because, in this mission, everybody understands what is going on. Not only the Israelis but the Flotilla people have learned diplomacy. Everybody is aware of what is going on. Our cause is the same. We do not keep something silent. We do not hide anything. And whenever we are talking about something in the Steering Committee, it is very open. Even if the Israelis try to use their intelligence, if they want to act wisely, they could easily manage this crisis; in a very easy way. But they cannot, because they do not believe in rights, they believe in power. They believe that, when they slam someone they will win, when they kill someone they will win. But this does not agree with reality or history. With power you cannot be successful. I do not believe that they can understand it, but they will see it.

The motivation of the participants is very high. And it is a very flexible coalition. We have opened the way for all initiatives, for all countries to do something by themselves. All initiatives work independently. We came together but it is not a centrally organized “Flotilla”. Each one organized its own internal campaign; and the Steering Committee brings everyone together in the actions.

SC: Thank you very much.

However, while still a member of NATO in good standing, Turkey is now becoming a player in its own right, increasingly critical of the US and Israel. This transformation has taken place under the rule of the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP), which came to power in 2002 and was soon forced to decide how it would deal with the US request to use Turkey as a base to invade neighbouring Iraq. The decision to refuse marked a new stage in Turkey’s foreign relations.

The US is not always pleased with Turkey’s positions on its many wars and would-be wars, but is forced to make the best of the situation. US Ambassador to Turkey, Francis Ricciardone, recently said the US and Turkey share “almost” the same views on military action in Libya, and that Turkey had a unique role in the region and a special expertise because of historical and cultural reasons.

While Turkey agreed to participate in the occupation of Afghanistan, it did so only in a non-combat role as trainer and a security force for the government in Kabul, “not with paternalism or the imperial arrogance of an occupying power,” according to Aydemir Erman, Turkey’s coordinator for Afghanistan from 1991-2003.

It maintains close relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, supporting its efforts to the development of nuclear power, and voted against US-inspired sanctions in the UN Security Council in 2010. And just two weeks ago, NATO’s Mediterranean and the Middle East Parliamentary Assembly listened to an address by Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Euro-American Affairs, Ali Ahani, the first time for the Islamic Republic, “almost” certainly due to Turkey’s lobbying.

Turkey initially condemned the invasion of Libya by its NATO allies, warning that a drawn-out conflict risked turning the country into a “second Iraq” or “another Afghanistan”. Though it finally joined its NATO allies, Turkey refuses to conduct bombing missions, interpreting UNSC Resolution 1973 strictly as ensuring a no-fly-zone, and only recognised the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) in early July, when Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited Benghazi’s “Tahrir Square”, named in honour of Egypt’s revolution. It continues to press for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement.

Davutoglu told the rebels Turkey and Libya have a “common history and a common future”. Erdogan has stated, “Turkey’s role will be to withdraw from Libya as soon as possible” and “restore the unity and integrity of the country based on the democratic demands of the people. This deployment should not be carried out for Libya’s oil.” Davutoglu hosted US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a meeting of the Libya Contact Group in Istanbul on 15 July.

Despite the flood of refugees into southern Turkey from Syria, Turkey similarly supports a negotiated resolution of the stand-off there, refusing to back Western sanctions. Before setting out on a tour of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia last week, Davutoglu told reporters at a summit, the Southeastern European Cooperation Process summit, “Syria’s future is common with that of Turkey’s. The important thing is that the Syrian people and the government get ready for the future with a new vision and to implement a new reforms process.”

Its relations with Israel have changed sharply. In 2004 Turkey publicly denounced the Israeli assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as a “terrorist act” and Israeli policy in the Gaza Strip as “state-sponsored terrorism”. In 2009, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously refused to share the platform with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum after the Israeli invasion of Gaza. In 2010 Turkey withdrew its ambassador following the Israeli massacre of nine Turkish peace activists trying to break the seige of Gaza in 2010.

But Turkey, as a candidate member of Europe and a full NATO member, must play a mature role as regional mediator. No one will benefit from a regional war against a ruthless, nuclear-armed Israel. Thus, Turkey tried to discourage Freedom Flotilla II, fearing yet another massacre this year, successfully pressuring the Turkish charity IHH to cancel its participation, and discouraging the flotilla from setting out from Turkish ports. This delighted Israel, and almost certainly was intended as a bargaining chip to try to coax an apology and compensation from Israel for murdering its citizens in last year’s flotilla.

At the same time, a UN investigation prepared a report (now shelved) intended to settle the Turkish-Israeli stand-off, which advises Israel to offer an apology and pay compensation to Turkey over the killings, a finding which Israeli officials rejected. Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman harrumphed, “An apology is not a compromise, it is a humiliation.” Israel fears an apology would set a dangerous precedent at a time when many Israeli officials have had to cancel trips abroad for fear of arrest for crimes against humanity.

US Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham told Erdogan last week that only Turkey can convince Hamas to join in peace talks with Israel. Graham told Hurriyet Erdoğan was “the most impressive spokesperson in the region”. Turkey is indeed working with Hamas on reuniting Palestinians. He is also reportedly trying to convince Hamas to agree to a German mediator’s proposal to release 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the release of Israeli prisoner Gilad Shallit. Last year, Israeli-Turkish businessman Eliko Donmez gave Erdogan a letter from the captive soldier’s father Noam. In line with Lieberman et al, Noam expressed only “regret” over the death of Turkish citizens in the raid.

If Turkey succeeds in extracting a genuine apology from the Avigdors and Noams, this would mark a first in the history of Israel, and would be an important signal that it can be influenced to join the world community as an “almost” responsible partner ― thanks to Turkey, rather than Big Brother.

But there are very few selfless altruists in foreign affairs, and Turkey’s foreign policies reflect those of a vigorous, capitalist economy. It has very clear economic interests in the Arab world and it is naive to expect otherwise. By recognising the NTC in Libya and providing it with financial support while calling for negotiations, it is positioning itself as the key power in a post-Gaddafi Libya. Ditto Syria.

Turkey’s plans to build dams and increase its use of the Euphrates and Tigris for irrigation with or without agreement of its downstream neighbours brings to mind Ethiopia’s plans for the Nile. Such matters involve self-interest and require hardnosed negotiations, and Turkey’s neighbours better get hopping. By building these dams, Turkey may well be setting the stage for future “oil-for-water” trade schemes with Iraq.

Turkey is a vigorous, independent power, which demands respect ― and deserves it. Erdogan is working to see a day “when people can pass from a free Palestine through Istanbul to London. Not building walls around Turkey, but opening up to share with our neighbours. In Cairo, we are the Middle East, in Europe we are Europeans. We must shape history with all the nations around us,” he told the Leaders of Change summit in March. Middle East developments today hold out the promise of showing the way towards a “global, political, economic and cultural new order”.

He proposes that the US take note. Following the international financial crisis of the past three years, “we need to develop an economic order based on justice, and a social order based on respect and dignity.” Pundits joke that the Israel-US relationship is a case of the “tail wagging the dog”. Unless Turkey’s NATO allies wake up and follow its lead, it could well abandon this 21st century white elephant. Whereas in 2004, 67 per cent in Turkey saw NATO membership as essential for national security, only 41 per cent did in 2011. And if Erdogan’s “new order” comes to fruition, with the region’s countries looking to Turkey for direction rather than the US (and Israel), it would be just as apt to conclude that Turkey is the new tail wagging the ungainly US-Israeli dog.

President Obama sent similar message telling an Italian newspaper: “The fact that it [Turkey] is a democracy and a country that is mostly Islamic makes it a critically important model for other Muslim countries of the region.”²

President Obama forgot to inform his audience that “Turkey is ’world leader’ in imprisoned journalists” according to an IPI report: “OSCE, that said 57 journalists are currently in prison in Turkey. As of December, Iran and China each had 34 journalists behind bars.”

One should ask Mr Obama why is it that Iran and China with far fewer journalists behind bars, 34 journalists each, are condemned on a daily basis for violations of ‘human rights,’ while Turkey with 57 journalists in prison receives high marks for her ‘democracy’ and is presented as a ‘model’ for the regional states by Barak Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Ramzy Baroud?

This double standard on human rights based on countries ‘usefulness’ to empire’s agenda has created criticism of the policy. IPI Press Freedom advisor Steven M. Ellis wrote in an article featured on the institute’s website:

While Iran and China topped lists in December by reportedly jailing some 34 journalists each, Turkey, a candidate for membership in the European Union, has nearly doubled that number five months later, raising questions about the country’s commitment to freedom of the press and the legitimacy of its democratic image.

Obama is also using Turkey as an ally to reach out to the rest of the Muslim world. Obama called on Turkey to work side by side with the United States to resolve conflicts across the Middle East and praised NATO’s role (Turkey being a member) in supporting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The president also supports Turkey’s bid to join the European Union, a position which has been criticized by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

This admiration for Turkey makes people curious to know what Turkey has done to receive such commendation from the US? There is a perception that, as a close ally to the US, Turkey’s ‘Islamic’ orientation can send a signal to the Muslim world that the US is not anti-Muslim.

Ramzy Baroud praises Turkey and tells his readers: “Turkey’s success cannot be reduced to one decade of economic growth and political stability,” but “it goes back to earlier generations, starting with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey.”

This starting point suggests that Baroud believes the demise of the Ottoman Empire, an imperialist project, was a positive step forward towards creation of modern Turkey and ‘civil society’ which Baroud supports.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is known as the founder of the new Turkish state, helped to power by the British Empire after WWI to bring Turkey under the Western hegemonic rule and to strengthen its western orientation. Modern Turkey was formed by the Treaty of Versailles, which humiliated the German nation and eventually gave rise to Hitler.

Baroud writes: “The very promising Turkish political experience, now branded the ‘Turkish model’, had its many challenges. It took a new generation of Turkish leaders to position their country as a politically stable regional power with a rising economy.”

We have to realize that Turkey has been a strategic ally of the US and Israel for a long time, but since AKP rose to power in 2002, the foreign policy of Turkey has been mainly designed to promote the interest of Turkish elite to help Turkish economy.
The demise of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 terror attack, on the one hand, opened new windows of opportunity for certain countries including Turkey. On the other hand, number of Muslim countries in Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa that support Palestinian rights and have no diplomatic relations with Israel are treated with sanctions, partition or military attacks on spurious charges. Countries like Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Somalia are just to mention a few.

Sudan has repeatedly informed the world community that the Zionist forces were behind its partition.³

Southern Sudan was officially split from Sudan on July 9, 2011. The Sudan People Liberation (SPLM) which fought for independence supports diplomatic relations with Israel.

We have a similar situation in Libya. Libya has no diplomatic relations with Israel, however, according to the latest news, Libyan rebel leaders has said they will recognize and maintain normal relations with Israel if they come to power.

Turkey, however, has had close economic and military ties with Israel for the past 62 years. Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel in March 1949. Michael Dickson provides information on the economic cooperation between the two countries:

Turkey is currently Israel’s biggest trade partner in the region and its second-biggest in the world, following the United States. In the first three months of 2011, Turkey exported products worth $579.3 million to Israel and imported goods worth $397.3 million.

While Turkey purchases high-tech defense-industry equipment from Israel, amongst the goods they export are military uniforms and footwear for the Israeli army.

Does Mr Baroud know that: the boots on the feet of the Israeli soldiers who tramp through occupied territory and kick down the doors of Palestinian family homes are labelled ‘Made in Turkey’ as Dickson writes?

On the other hand, Iran has continually supported Palestinian rights against Israel since the Iranian revolution in 1979, and refuses to recognize an apartheid state in the occupied Palestinian territory. This policy plus other accusations have led to the imposition of western sanctions on Iran and its diplomatic isolation. Iran is denied the foreign investment needed to improve its economy; Iran is denied access to technology. Iran is not allowed to buy civilian air planes and spare parts. Iranian rights to travel safely have been violated which is the main reason behind plane crushes killing many Iranians each year.

Lately, the unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran by the US-Israel asking other countries not to refuel Iran Air jets have created many problems for passengers who are mainly Iranians. To avoid such an insult, Iranian passengers are using Turkish Air lines instead of Iran Air to travel abroad which contributes to the Turkish economic growth and political stability that has caught people’s attention, including Mr Baroud’s.

None of these problems, however, are experienced by Turkey which maintains close ties with apartheid state of Israel. Turkey’s recognition of Israel in 1949 broke Israel’s total isolation in the Muslim world.

Other people have raised questions about Turkey’s new foreign policy, “zero problem,” and its motivations. Mehdi Darius Nazemroaya in NATO’s Secret Ground War in Libya paints Turkey as a Trojan horse helping the western powers’ agenda in the region. He writes:

Ankara has been portrayed as siding with the Libyan regime. In reality Ankara supports the Transitional Council and the NATO war against Libya. It has been claimed that Turkey has been advising Colonel Qaddafi and his regime, but this is misleading. Ankara has been playing the role of a negotiator and go-between, but it is not impartial.

The world has witnessed Turkey’s cooperation with Obama administration and NATO against Libya and now against Syria which is disturbing to many in the region. Many ‘progressives’ including Baroud hold the “brutality of Libyan leader Moammar Ghaddafi and his refusal to concede power” as being responsible for Libya’s destruction by the Western powers.

Baroud writes: “The brutality of Libyan leader Moammar Ghaddafi, and his refusal to concede power, is costing Libya much more than innocent lives. The country is now also facing a possible loss of future independence and sovereignty.”⁴

Turkey has also sided with Obama and NATO against Syria and held a meeting for Syrian opposition groups in Anatolia where Syrian Muslim Brotherhood attended. Furthermore, Turkey allowed thousands of Syrians to cross into Turkey, many of whom are Kurds, to create facts on the ground for further action if is needed.

I hope Erdogan’s empty slogan demanding Israel to remove the Gaza blockade is not the reason behind Baroud’s view of Turkey as a model. Erdogan’s actions and policy regarding Israel since the 2008 genocide in Gaza have shown that Mr Erdogan’s words were nothing but slogans designed to capture Arab’s minds and hearts to secure Turkey the power of the region status.

1. “Economy Alone Fails to Explain Turkey’s Success,” Dissident Voice, 6/24/2011.
2. Patrick Goodenough, “NATO Member Turkey Solidifies Its Ties with Iran and Syria,” CNSNews.com, 2/11/2011.
3. “Pro-Israel lobby behind Obama’s support for South Sudan’s independence – official,” Sudan Tribune.
4. Ramzy Baroud, “US Rethinks Strategy,” Uncommon Thought Journal, 28/4/2011.

Economic indicators are often seen as the obvious logic behind economic stability – lack thereof. However, they are not enough on their own to reach such sweeping conclusions.

In an article entitled, ‘Look toward Turkey’s economy to understand Erdogan’s re-election’, Ibrahim Ozturk opined: “From 2002 to 2007, Turkey experienced its longest period of uninterrupted economic growth, which averaged 6-7 percent year on year, while annual inflation plummeted. Moreover, the economy proved resilient following the global financial crisis, with growth recovering rapidly.” (Lebanon’s Daily Star, June 18).

According to Ozturk’s perceptive analysis, the AKP’s success in picking up the pieces of a shattered economy (as a result of the 2001 severe economic ‘crisis’), and the ever-popular Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “appear to have secured democratic political control of Turkey’s military and bureaucracy.” The powerful Turkish military had repeatedly interfered in the country’s politics, leading three military coups which all but destroyed Turkish democracy.

The very promising Turkish political experience, now branded the “Turkish model”, had its many challenges. It took a new generation of Turkish leaders to position their country as a politically stable regional power with a rising economy (the GDP registered an increase of 9 percent in 2010).

Did sound, self-assured policies engender a strong economy, or was economic growth responsible for the political stability (by keeping the military at bay, thus further solidifying Turkey’s democratic experience)?

Libya is an interesting example to consider while reflecting on this question. The North African country, which is currently undergoing an armed revolt and Western-led war, had been scoring high in terms of sheer numbers. Thanks to petroleum-generated revenues, and a small population, Libya has the highest per capita GDP in Africa. Its economic growth has been relatively stunning from 2000 onwards. In 2010, GDP grew by over 10 percent.

For many Libyans, however, social justice, distribution of wealth, political freedom and other issues proved of greater relevance than gratifying GDP charts.

In Egypt too, despite the greater poverty experienced by the much larger population (compared to Libya), the youth of the January 25 revolution came from varied economic backgrounds. For many of them, freedom seemed to top mere economic sustenance.

Turkey’s case is not dissimilar to these. In fact, a discussion of Turkey’s success cannot be reduced to one decade of economic growth and political stability. More, ‘modern Turkey’ cannot be reduced to the palpable successes of the AKP. It goes back to earlier generations, starting with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey. A larger-than-life figure in the eyes of several generations of Turks, Ataturk was able to win Turkey’s independence – no easy feat, considering the challenges of the time. However, neither he nor his style of politics resolved the question of Turkey’s cultural and political identity as a majority Muslim country that defined modernity based almost exclusively on Western values. This question actually lingered in the country for decades.

One could argue that situating Turkey in suitable socio-economic, cultural and political contexts was one of the greatest challenges facing modern Turkish politicians.

For decades, Turkey was torn between its historical ties to Muslim and Arab countries on the one hand, and the impulsive drive towards Westernization on the other. The latter seemed much more influential in forming the new Turkish identity in its individual, collective, and thus foreign policy manifestation and outlook.

Even during the push and pull, Turkey grew in import as a political and economic player. It also grew into a nation with a decisive sense of sovereignty, a growing sense of pride and a daring capacity for asserting itself as a regional power.

In the 1970s, when ‘political Islam’ was on the rise throughout the region, Turkey was experiencing its own rethink. Various politicians and groups began grappling with the idea of taking political Islam to a whole new level.

In fact, it was the late Dr Necmettin Erbakan, Prime Minister of Turkey between 1996 and 1997, who began challenging the conventional notion of Turkey as a second-class NATO member desperate to identify with everything Western.

In the late 1980s Erbakan’s Rafah Party (the Welfare Party) took Turkey by storm. The party was hardly apologetic about its Islamic roots and attitude. Its rise to power as a result of the 1995 general elections raised alarm, as the securely ‘pro-Western’ Turkey was deviating from the very rigid script that wrote off the country’s regional role as that of a “lackey of NATO”, (a phrase used by Salama A Salama in an Al-Ahram Weekly article last year).

The days of Erbakan might be long gone, but the man’s legacy never departed Turkish national consciousness. He began the process of repositioning Turkey – politically, as well as economically – with the creation of the Developing Eight (D-8), which united the most politically significant Arab and Muslim countries. When Erbakan was forced to step down in a ‘postmodernist’ military coup, it was understood as the end of short-lived political experiment.

But the 2002 election win of the (AKP) rekindled Erbakan’s efforts through a young and savvy new political leadership. This has just been awarded yet a third mandate to continue its program of economic growth, political and constitutional reforms.

Now Turkey seems to be offering more than stability at home. It is also serving as a regional model to its neighbors, an important contribution in the age of Arab revolutions and potential political transformations.

It is essential that the Turkish experience is not reduced to only charts and numbers delineating economic growth. Some very wealthy countries are politically restless. The success of the Turkish model supersedes the economy to sensible political governance, democracy, the revitalization of civil society and its many institutions.

Good economic indicators can be promising, but without responsible leadership to guide growth and distribute wealth, political stability is never guaranteed.