Kashmir is fighting for Right to Self Determination

Egypt and Kashmir

To draw a comparison between the two would be a fallacy

Burhan Majid

After Tunisia, Egypt is the buzzword. Indeed Egyptian people deserve applause. They have shown the world that how dedication and collective endeavour can bring a revolution. Even as the Egypt’s future remains to be precarious, a thirty year old dictatorship had fallen, reports Burhan Majid.

Though this major political development has its impact on the world politics, unfortunately, a section of people has surfaced, both within and outside, which drew parallels between Egypt and Kashmir, a Himalayan valley. Infact their argument is that Kashmiris should learn from the Egyptians.

To me it is a flawed argument, sufficient enough to add insult to the injury. The courage shown by Egyptian is worth inspiring, however, in no possible way can we draw a similarity between the recent protests in Egypt which toppled a regime and the struggle Kashmir is involved. If we do so, we delude our people.

At the first instance, Kashmir is fighting for Right to Self Determination; the Egyptian people want the change of regime that has been governing them for past thirty years. There is a world of difference between the two. In Egypt protests are related to governance and economy. In Kashmir the case is entirely different. Kashmir is a geopolitical issue. The world saw a sea of people at Tahrir Square (Egypt) for consecutive eighteen days. Can we think of same gathering for the same duration at Red Square (Lal Chowk) in Kashmir where at times people are not allowed to assemble for a peaceful demonstration? Where, last year alone, 112 youth fell to bullets while protesting against the atrocities committed by Indian forces and local police; where children as young as eight are killed mercilessly.

Another significant difference is that the protests in Egypt were given a widespread coverage by international media. Major media houses of the world ran the news about Egypt minute after minute. Live updates, videos photographs, debates, analysis and opinions were broadcasted. On the other hand, Kashmir is seldom talked or debated in the international media circles.

Though Indian media reported the events in Kashmir however the intention was only to malign the cause of Kashmiris and to label the genuine protestors as terrorists, paid agents and what have you. It was after so many killings that Kashmir was discussed and debated in Indian media circles.

The protests in Egypt were gaining momentum, the coverage by the media across the length and breadth of the world also intensified.  The BBC, CNN, New York Times, Guardian and many other international media outlet continuously reported about the situation unfolding in Egypt. Who voiced the voice of Kashmiris at the time of unrest?

Leave alone the question of international media as the agitation gained ground in Kashmir, the local electronic media was gagged and it continue to be till date.

Moreover, according to the media reports, Egyptian Army exercised maximum restraint while dealing with the protestors. Look at the way police and security agencies used power to crush the people and protestors.

Egyptians acknowledged that social networking websites played an important role in accomplishing the goal of ousting Hosni Mubarak. Though social media wasn’t the cause of revolution in Egypt, it hastened its pace and transferred the voice from one to millions.

In Kashmir, the youth tried to use the facebook in the similar fashion; tried to highlight the atrocities committed upon hapless people; but, they were arrested and few were charged under criminal offences.  SMS were banned. The service is yet to be restored for prepaid customers after ‘normalcy’ returned. The bottom-line is that the two are different and to draw comparison is fallacious.

Author is a researcher in Laws at University of Kashmir, and can be reached at burhan.mjd@gmail.com

U.S. does not support freedom in Egypt

By Christoph R. Horstel

With courage, enthusiasm and readiness to endure police brutalities and other hardships, the Egyptian people have managed to oust their hitherto nearly unchallenged president Hosni Mubarak and his son Gamal as designated political heir plus assurances for substantial changes in the constitution, a referendum and more attention to the needs of the poor. So far, so good, reports Tehran Times

But are we sure, how much freedom and social justice this new constitution will grant the people? How do we know, that the next set of government measures will gradually overcome the widening gap between rich and poor, mass poverty and joblessness in Egypt?

To check the chances of the people’s will to prevail, we look at history: Since the last 15 years serious transition or succession problems in the Arab world were discussed in western countries. Does anyone truly believe the U.S. never developed any change strategies and/or contingency plans to readiness status?

Then we consider social change in Egypt and elsewhere: A new class of mainly young and often secular-minded Arabs has developed among a larger change from a patriarchal society with hand made goods to an economy with wealthy capitalists, regional entrepreneurs and exporters of natural goods. And it were the wealthy, who used governmental power to further enrich themselves, thus pushing back the traditional set of landlords and bazaar traders.

At least three more key issues should be observed: It was the Serbian movement “Otpor” (once supported by the then U.S. ambassador Richard Miles), and nowadays renamed to “Centre for Non-Violent Action” (CNA) (at least indirectly financed through the “Open Society” network of the U.S. billionaire George Soros), which trained activists of several countries including Egypt and Tunisia. Does that mean the Egyptian revolution is in the hands of the U.S.? Not at all. These activists have a common trademark of working mainly via internet.

“Facebook revolution” is the new buzzword in western capitals – that says more than the eager commentators may have intended. Since all those wonderful internet platforms are subject to U.S. law obliging them to full disclosure of all information on all clients any time to U.S. intelligence, it is very clear, that little happens in Egypt that is not on the intelligence agenda.

No matter how often observers write that the U.S. were taken by surprise, stumbling behind events etc. – that is what those intelligence circles want us to believe. We still hear official blabber on intelligence failures on 9/11 and before the Iraq invasion. Had the U.S. with and through their leading Egyptian collaborators wished to stop the uprising early on, that had never put serious problems in the past and would not have this time. Rather the U.S. had helped prepare the events and let them happen:

The U.S. proxies, namely ex-IAEA boss ElBaradei, were ready, the military was faithful and ready, intelligence well informed. For a political steam pot like Egypt just a tiny, well-calculated reduction in pressure on the lid means heavy spill-overs. Imprisonments, torture and killings even continue to this day. For years the U.S. had used some of their support funds for Egypt to finance all those opposition groups susceptible to U.S. influence, translate: “democratic groups” or “development of civil society”. In vain did Egypt protest against this blatant interference in its interior affairs, as we know through embassy cables in WikiLeaks. And there are enough pictures and records of meetings hosted by Hillary Clinton for Egyptian friends of “Freedom House”.

Does this take any credibility off the Egyptian revolution? Not at all. But the U.S. is trying all the time to influence the results and hijack the benefits. Only awareness and efficient counter activities can stop this.

But this background induces us to look at second key issue: the present leadership personnel, since it will be those leaders to organize the start of Egypt’s future – and maybe more, if they do not abandon power as promised. The CIA lists Omar Suleiman as the most powerful Middle Eastern intelligence chief, the people dub him “Mubarak II”. Suleiman enjoys best contacts to the U.S. intelligence leadership. He has made Egypt a preferred CIA rendition hub and has personally overseen torture.

Therefore it is little wonder, that the demonstrators asked for his removal and were pacified only somewhat by introduction of the Supreme Military Council (SMC) as the real though unconstitutional leadership, comprising among others the defense minister Tantawi and army chief Enan. But what does this mean? In order to fully and truly do the will of the Egyptian people, the army and its intelligence shooting-star Suleiman would have to ultimately give up its obedience to the U.S. That is highly improbable: Location and time are not ready yet for Egypt’s Erdogan.

Until the end of February, the SMC will publish a proposal for changes to the constitution, a nationwide referendum is to be held within two months. That means, as the third key issue: turmoil in Egypt, is far from over. Three simple truths call for attention: The only single intact coherent power base in Egypt is the army. Like in the German army, many higher officers are more or less closely linked to the U.S. by multiple bonds - including years of consecutive training steps, many of them held in the U.S. The whole political fabric in Egypt: social groups, parties, internet-based groupings – are no viable power base, since they lack structure and experience. The one exception is the Muslim Brotherhood. And these valuable people are just by name a political monolith. But that is already enough for the U.S. to riddle them with government spies and make sure their influence will be limited at least for now – and mainly limited to those parts and personalities, which are “constructive” or, more accurately put: “open to influence”.

Another thought for accurate political calculation: Exchange old puppets by fresh puppets is old style. Modern U.S. policy accepts even full chaos as a viable “system” – in case a stable obedience can neither be reached quickly nor guaranteed for the next 20 years: Afghanistan and Pakistan are sad examples.

And, last not least, Obama’s speech on the Middle East held Tuesday made it clear: In their struggle against Iran the U.S. want to be sure to enlist any of the new and unstable leaderships. That is also one of the non-public but rock-hard pre-conditions to U.S. support.

For any opposition movement in the region a tough question appears: How to make sure, that no foreign power can hijack or misuse the accomplishments of political activities? Check the priorities: If the government is not pro-U.S., a one-year time delay in mass demonstrations may help to avoid being identified as part of the present U.S. regional plotting. And publicly as well as credibly disassociating the movement from U.S. government policies may prove helpful in many ways.

*The author is a government and business consultant in Germany, multiple book author and expert since 25 years on issues of Central Asia, the Middle East and security-related questions

Why America loves Israel and hates Iran

[Photo by www.sodahead.com/]
By A. Faizur Rahman 

By announcing fresh sanctions against Iran the UN Security Council has once again displayed a kind of motivated obstinacy which makes one suspect that it is not really serious about establishing peace in the region. But then the UN rarely exudes neutrality. It has always been subservient to American interests, particularly the pro-Israel US foreign policy that has kept West Asia on the boil ever since the creation of the Zionist state.

On the face of it, it may appear strange that the US-controlled Security Council should let go of the historic opportunity offered by the Turkish-Brazilian initiative to amicably resolve the Iran imbroglio. But West Asia watchers know that US response to Iran’s nuclear program cannot be seen in isolation because it is dictated by the US-Israeli relationship which again is not a mere political alliance but a symbiotic bond firmly secured by Judeo-Christian theology.

An analysis of the U.S. political scene would reveal that it is the Evangelical Right, also known as the Christian Zionists, led by extremist televangelists such as John Hagee, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who, along with the Jewish lobby, call the shots, in so far as the U.S. Middle East policy is concerned. It must, however, be said that mainstream Christianity (including the Catholic Church) does not identify itself with the fanatical beliefs of Evangelical Right such as those discussed below.

In a recent article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz titled Why Christian Zionists really support Israel Hagee wrote; “Our support for Israel starts with God’s promises in the Hebrew Bible, but it does not end there. Christian Zionists recognize that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Jewish people. As I have stressed to my Christian audiences for years: If you take away the Jewish contribution to Christianity, there would be no Christianity.” (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/why-christian-zionists-really-suppor...).

By “God’s promises” Hagee is actually referring to the deliberate misrepresentations of certain biblical verses. One such verse promises Prophet Abraham and his descendants the land “from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18). In another one God offers to give Abraham and his “seed” after him the entire land of Canaan (Palestine) “for an everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8). It may be noted here that according to the Old Testament the Arabs and the Jews are the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael and Isaac respectively which, hypothetically speaking, makes them the joint owners of the “promised land.”

But for obvious reasons the Zionists and their Christian supporters do not recognise Ishmael as the legitimate son of Abraham as he was born to a “slave woman” named Hagar, the handmaiden of Sarah, the first wife of Abraham and the mother of Isaac (Genesis 16:1-6). This divide was further aggravated by St.Paul who advised the Christians saying, “Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way [Ishmael] persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit [Isaac]. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’” (Galatians 4:28-31).

It is therefore the belief of the Christians Zionists that the occupation of all Arab lands by the Jews (in fulfillment of the prophesy in Genesis 15:18), after driving out the children of the “slave woman”, is a prelude to the Second Coming of Christ and Armageddon, the biblical concept of the last battle between the Good and the Evil before the day of Judgment (Ezekiel 38-39). It is in this context that the US attitude to Iran must be seen and understood, and once again John Hagee personifies this extremist mindset. In his provocative book Jerusalem Countdown Hagee advocates a war on Iran saying; “The rise of terrorism in our world and the emerging crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Iran are part of a much bigger picture – that of God’s plan for the future of Israel and the entire world. We are going to discover we are facing a countdown in the Middle East – the Jerusalem Countdown, a battle such as the world has never seen or will ever see again.”

But what many Israelis are unaware of is that the Zionist Christians are not exactly honest in their support for their country. They have their own hidden religious agenda according to which, Jesus in his second mission will convert all the Jews to Christianity, and therefore, to hasten this process all must be done to help the Jews take over the Arab lands between Nile and Euphrates. This belief is based on a statement in Mathew 23:39 in which Jesus is quoted as saying, “For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” As Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience at that time the Zionist Christians interpret this statement as having one meaning: for Jesus to make a second appearance all Jews must be converted to Christianity.

No wonder Hagee was forced to clarify in his aforementioned article that, “I am not at all surprised that many in the Jewish community are skeptical of Christian support for Israel. Some worry that our efforts are motivated by a desire to convert Jews. Others posit that our Zionism is tied to an effort to speed the second coming of Jesus. Both of these allegations are flat wrong. All we ask of our Jewish friends is that they get to know us before they judge us harshly on the basis of myths such as these.”

It is a strange paradox that, on the one hand we have the Christian Zionists supporting Israel with financial, moral and military aid in the dogmatic hope of one day converting all the Jews to Christianity, and on the other, we see the cunning Zionists - who never accepted Jesus as their Messiah - successfully manipulating the Christian Right using their own Bible to further their diabolical expansionist agenda. The ultimate victims of this unholy scheming between two Machiavellian religious groups are the innocent Palestinians who have been rendered refugees in their own homeland.

(The author is the Secretary General of Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought Among Muslims. He may be reached at faizz@rocketmail.com).