Alternatives International

Iran: A Lesson in Diplomacy

Bradley Castelli — 2013-12-01T20:54:00Z

It's being hailed as a historic agreement by some and a historic mistake by others. Whatever hindsight may reveal, for now, Iran and a handful of world powers have come to an agreement to limit the country's nuclear program for six months while negotiators work toward something more sustainable.

Those applauding the agreement are claiming that the international community is more secure now, but from which point of view? Iran is not giving up a nuclear arsenal; it is choosing to be more transparent with regard to its nuclear program. The progression toward security lies in the fact that through negotiation, the US must now abandon its discourse that asserts Iran's nuclear potential as a justification for invasion. The rapprochement between the US and Iran can serve to enhance regional stability in the Middle East, and can be used as a shining example of the power of diplomacy within an international context.

However, the agreement between Iran and the five permanent Security Council members (plus Germany) implies regional security more so than it actually guarantees it. Diplomatic ties between the US and Iran can be used to encourage a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria, but can also be a catalyst to Israel taking matters into its own hands, militarily. Fittingly, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is the one calling the agreement a historic mistake, though it remains uncertain who the wolf in sheep's clothing actually is.

From a realist perspective, it makes sense that Israel be up in arms over the agreement since it possesses an unverified nuclear stockpile. If world powers can achieve success with Iran through diplomacy, surely they can talk Israel into a certain level of transparency. Until then, Israel remains the greatest threat to regional security in the Middle East with its weapons of mass destruction. Finding resolution in what seemed like an intractable situation with Iran sets a standard for transparency in the international community, and it is going to be hard to justify continuing to turn a blind eye to Israel.

Again, the agreement with Iran reflects the fact that military force should be kept as a genuine last resort in international relations. It's only been a few months since the US and a handful of its allies were on the verge of plunging into yet another armed intervention in the Middle East after a chemical attack took place in Syria. Had Russia not intervened diplomatically, offering an alternative to intervention, any sort of subsequent diplomacy with Iran would be highly unlikely, and an unchecked nuclear program may have justified an attack on the part of Israel. Violence begets violence, after all.

Despite its dissatisfaction with the agreement involving Iran, Israel would find little international support if it now decides to take matters into its own hands. So while regional security still isn't guaranteed, a framework for a more sustainable security has been established. It seems as though certain states have benefitted from Iran and the US being cold adversaries, and rapprochement between them has ruffled some feathers around the world. This is partly the reason why the agreement can be considered historic and why US president Obama may have established a foundation on which to build a legacy.

The scope of the agreement with Iran remains to be seen, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. One thing that is certain is that a collective peace must be prioritized over individual alliances.

Netanyahu Against The Whole World

Michel (Mikado) Warschawski — 2013-12-01T20:52:00Z

Western governments are fed up with the Israeli angry reactions to the agreement between them and the Iranian government. “It is done, and there is no way back”: this is the message they are conveying to the Israeli government, adding that the best for Israel would have been to participate in the international efforts for a final agreement on the nuclear capacities of Iran. According to Haaretz (November 26), Benjamin Netanyahu tried for thirty minutes to convince Barack Obama that he has been fooled by the Iranians. The Iranians' sole objective, according to Netanyahu, was to gain time in order to develop their military nuclear capacities, in order to be able to destroy not only Israel but the Western civilization as a whole.

What is behind Israel's anti-Iranian obsession? What makes Netanyahu declare that the US intelligence agencies are not doing their job properly, and that the Israeli Mossad has better information concerning the real Iranian plans? What pushes him to create tensions with the only true strategic ally Israel still has?

The beginning of rapprochement between the West and Iran is not worrying only the Jewish state. Saudi Arabia, too, is extremely worried and, as a result, is strengthening its ties with Tel Aviv. The motivations, however, of Riad and Tel Aviv are not the same. While the Saudis are complaining about the fact that they may lose their place as America's number one ally in the Golf region and are concerned by the strengthening of the so-call Shia axis at the expense of the Sunni one, Israeli leaders are worried by the eventual disappearance of a global enemy in the region.

Israeli militarism has always justified its wars and heavy armaments by the existence of a global enemy of Western civilization/the free world/democratic countries, and its role as an active defender of the West against whoever was threatening it, whether it is communism, Arab nationalism or Islam. Since the fall of the Shah – a historical ally of Israel – Iran has become the global enemy and “Teheran Delenda Est,” the war slogan of Israeli neo-conservative governments. Losing this global enemy may puts into question the role of Israel in the area and the reason for the massive military as well as diplomatic support delivered by Washington.

“If needed, we will attack the Iranians alone” said Netanyahu. As many Israeli commentators wrote in the past weeks, such arrogant statements are empty words and pathetic threats. However, the harsh words used against the White House by Netanyahu and his team express the great worry of the Israeli leadership from the strategic changes in the Middle East. They may well provoke a military adventure, in Lebanon or Syria, in order to try to stop what seems to be a new spring in the Middle East.

Source: http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/politics/opinions/7494-netanyahu-against-the-whole-world

Iran's Nuclear Program Has Already Achieved Its Goal

Zvi Bar'el — 2013-12-01T20:50:00Z

Here's a new and tempting investment opportunity: The exchange rate of the Iranian rial jumped 2 percent in one day and it is expected that the currency, which lost over half of its value during the period of Western economic sanctions against Iran, will skyrocket in coming months by tens of percent. Money changers in the Gulf states are reporting a frenzy of purchases of rials.

While in Israel they are busy conducting a exacting analysis of the details of the agreement with Iran, arguing over the amount of uranium Iran can or cannot enrich and the exact number of dollars that will flow into its treasury, in Tehran they are examining the agreement in broader terms. It is not the numbers that are important but the new reality that is rapidly being created – and that no one expected.

The most important achievement for Iran is that it succeeded in leveraging its nuclear program into a powerful diplomatic tool. Six powerful countries, and in their footsteps most of the nations of the world, now recognize Iran as a nation with rights; the American president talks to the Iranian president eye to eye; the Iranian regime has won legitimacy as a rational and wise government; and the military option against it is evaporating.

The country has truly followed a long and astonishing path from Britain's takeover of its oil early in the last century, to its conquest by Britain and the Soviet Union during the Second World War, to the removal in 1953 of Mohammad Mosaddegh in a coup orchestrated by the British and American intelligence services, to the complete dependence of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on the West.

Iran, which its colonial and neocolonial history, is now facing an international coalition that is sobering up. From a fixated Western view of the religious regime as completely irrational, operating according to orders from God and captive to utterances of a sole leader, the world powers are now willing to agree there is a partner for a deal. The West's illusion that the economic sanctions would spark a civil revolt which would bring down the regime responsible for those sanctions was replaced by a simple, targeted goal – to stop the regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons. This shift in strategy, which U.S. President Bill Clinton tried to adopt and which Barack Obama implemented, has turned into the new American ideology: The character of a regime is up to its citizens, while the export of democracy is like the export of the Islamic revolution – it cannot accomplished by coercion.

Iran is not a dream country, not for its citizens and not for its neighbors. Human rights reports, from the U.S. State Department and from international human rights organizations, are packed with hair-raising descriptions and stories of intellectuals, actors, writers, students and poor people who testify how far Iran is from the Western liberal ideal. But not one of those stories brought on sanctions or threats of war. The new strategic vision of the White House is fewer wars, less military involvement – and also less preaching of democracy.

As far as the nations of the West are concerned, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can practice witchcraft or torture thousands of citizens in the name of religion, so long as he separates religion and state when he comes to implement the agreement. This may be the greatest success Iran achieved: The Islamic revolution was recognized as being irreversible, certainly by outside forces. This is the horror now gripping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: When the regime in Iran turns into a legitimate government, when the threatening veil that makes Iran a nightmare is removed, how is it going to be possible to spread fear? How can we convince people it is an insane regime? Who will believe us anymore that the Shi'ites are the true Satan?

Netanyahu is right. Iran is now creating for itself a new status that will redefine relations in the region. The Iranian nuclear program has already done its job.

Source: http://normanfinkelstein.com/2013/worth-reading-on-iran/

Moving Forward From the Climate Negotiation Madness in Warsaw

Pablo Solon — 2013-12-01T20:48:00Z

Since the beginning there was almost no expectations on the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP19) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Warsaw, Poland; held November 11 to 23. Based on previous COPS, from Copenhagen until now, the signs had not been encouraging. Instead of moving forward, the talks have been moving backwards, even dismantling whatever weak climate regime that existed. Moving from “commitments” to only “pledges” for emissions reductions, and softening and shrinking even more the Kyoto Protocol, in COP19 historical emitters like Japan have announced that instead of reducing by 25 percent their emissions they will increase them by three percent by the year 2020 based on their levels of CO2 emissions in 1990. The list of rich countries that have moved out of the Second Commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol now includes Canada, Australia, Russia, and Japan.

The gap between what science and nature are telling us—through repeated and increasingly stronger storms, droughts, out-of-season weather phenomenon—and the ambition, commitments, and implementation under the UNFCCC is widening. The latest, and so far the strongest typhoon that visited the Philippines, is one more messenger. As argued by Philippine Climate Chief Negotiator Lucillle Sering, “it may be the Philippines this year, but it could be your country next.”

Weeks before the talks started, civil society groups already called COP19 the “Corporate COP.” The host country did not even find it peculiar at the least or distasteful, at worst, to hold the International Conference on Coal in a nearby conference venue around the same period as the climate talks. Coal is one of the primary causes of greenhouse gasses that cause climate change and no matter how much spin is done to present the possibility of producing “clean coal,” coal is coal—it will not be clean.

This was supposed to be a “Finance COP” but there were no real commitments to guarantee the US$100 billion as promised by developed countries. They even reiterated that that amount should include contributions from the speculative carbon markets and the private sector. In relation to Loss and Damage that is supposed to be a mechanism to compensate developing countries affected by climate change, the final outcome is weak.

Where do we need to be?

The goal should be to have annual global emissions of 38 Gt of CO2e by 2020 to be on a pathway towards limiting the increase in temperature by 1.5ºC. With the UNFCCC negotiations, there will be emissions of 57 GT of CO2e by 2020, only 1 Gt of CO2e less than business as usual. The new agreement that is supposed to be enforced in 2020 will be very weak if it is based on voluntary pledges as the US wants. Then it will be too late when we are already on a pathway to 4ºC or higher. Scientist are saying that the peaking year of global emissions should be in 2014, but until now no one knows how and when that will happen.

We are living in climate emergency, and therefore all countries should have binding commitments applying the principle of CBDR (Common But Differentiated Responsibility). The US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Russia, and other historical emitters should do emission reductions of 50 percent until 2020 and emerging countries like China, Brazil, India, and South Africa should also establish their peaking years to reach the target of 38 Gt of CO2e by 2020. Developing countries should follow a different path of “development” than historical emitters, redistributing in an equitable way the consumption of energy and avoid overconsumption and waste. The right to development cannot be used to pollute and enrich elites while the rest is submerged in poverty and dust.

Peoples' power

COP19 was such a big farce that civil society groups walked out of the negotiations. There was nothing that could be done substantially inside the climate talks and it would be unsustainable to keep legitimizing the road to global burning for corporate interests.

This walkout should now serve as a wakeup call. National and global climate policies will change only when strong social movements embrace the fight for justice—across countries, across continents, and along economic, political, and environmental dimensions. The fight must be about concrete goals such as shutting down coal mines, stopping pipeline construction, halting fracking projects, imposing carbon taxes, banning GMOs, stopping free trade agreements, preserving indigenous lands, putting an end to land grabs, sinking carbon markets, and occupying financial speculative markets.

To address climate change, we need to link all kinds of initiatives: legal reforms and civil disobedience, hunger strikes and national consultations, massive protests and creative individual actions, consumers' actions and boycotts, occupation of banks and road blockages, political pressure, and replication of good practices. We cannot lose energy in sectarian debates. The goal is to always try to go further from the original target, promoting broader and stronger forms of organization and mobilizations of workers, peasants, indigenous, women, youth, faith communities, migrants, intellectuals, artists, human right activists.

The madness in climate talks and the corporate interests behind them can only be stopped through peoples' power.

Surviving Climate Change: Towards a Climate Revolution

Michael Klare — 2013-12-01T20:46:00Z

A week after the most powerful “super typhoon” ever recorded pummeled the Philippines, killing thousands in a single province, and three weeks after the northern Chinese city of Harbin suffered a devastating “airpocalypse,” suffocating the city with coal-plant pollution, government leaders beware! Although individual events like these cannot be attributed with absolute certainty to increased fossil fuel use and climate change, they are the type of disasters that, scientists tell us, will become a pervasive part of life on a planet being transformed by the massive consumption of carbon-based fuels. If, as is now the case, governments across the planet back an extension of the carbon age and ever increasing reliance on “unconventional” fossil fuels like tar sands and shale gas, we should all expect trouble. In fact, we should expect mass upheavals leading to a green energy revolution.

None of us can predict the future, but when it comes to a mass rebellion against the perpetrators of global destruction, we can see a glimmer of the coming upheaval in events of the present moment. Take a look and you will see that the assorted environmental protests that have long bedeviled politicians are gaining in strength and support. With an awareness of climate change growing and as intensifying floods, fires, droughts, and storms become an inescapable feature of daily life across the planet, more people are joining environmental groups and engaging in increasingly bold protest actions. Sooner or later, government leaders are likely to face multiple eruptions of mass public anger and may, in the end, be forced to make radical adjustments in energy policy or risk being swept aside.

In fact, it is possible to imagine such a green energy revolution erupting in one part of the world and spreading like wildfire to others. Because climate change is going to inflict increasingly severe harm on human populations, the impulse to rebel is only likely to gain in strength across the planet. While circumstances may vary, the ultimate goal of these uprisings will be to terminate the reign of fossil fuels while emphasizing investment in and reliance upon renewable forms of energy. And a success in any one location is bound to invite imitation in others.

A wave of serial eruptions of this sort would not be without precedent. In the early years of twentieth-first century, for example, one government after another in disparate parts of the former Soviet Union was swept away in what were called the “color revolutions”—populist upheavals against old-style authoritarian regimes. These included the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia (2003), the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine (2004), and the “Pink” or “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan (2005). In 2011, a similar wave of protests erupted in North Africa, culminating in what we call the Arab Spring.

Like these earlier upheavals, a “green revolution” is unlikely to arise from a highly structured political campaign with clearly identified leaders. In all likelihood, it will erupt spontaneously, after a cascade of climate-change induced disasters provokes an outpouring of public fury. Once ignited, however, it will undoubtedly ratchet up the pressure for governments to seek broad-ranging, systemic transformations of their energy and climate policies. In this sense, any such upheaval—whatever form it takes—will prove “revolutionary” by seeking policy shifts of such magnitude as to challenge the survival of incumbent governments or force them to enact measures with transformative implications.

Foreshadowings of such a process can already be found around the globe. Take the mass environmental protests that erupted in Turkey this June. Though sparked by a far smaller concern than planetary devastation via climate change, for a time they actually posed a significant threat to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his governing party. Although his forces eventually succeeded in crushing the protests—leaving four dead, 8,000 injured, and 11 blinded by tear-gas canisters—his reputation as a moderate Islamist was badly damaged by the episode.

Like so many surprising upheavals on this planet, the Turkish uprising had the most modest of beginnings: on May 27th, a handful of environmental activists blocked bulldozers sent by the government to level Gezi Park, a tiny oasis of greenery in the heart of Istanbul, and prepare the way for the construction of an upscale mall. The government responded to this small-scale, non-violent action by sending in riot police and clearing the area, a move that enraged many Turks and prompted tens of thousands of them to occupy nearby Taksim Square. This move, in turn, led to an even more brutal police crackdown and then to huge demonstrations in Istanbul and around the country. In the end, mass protests erupted in 70 cities, the largest display of anti-government sentiment since Erdogan's Justice and Development Party came to power in 2002.

This was, in the most literal sense possible, a “green” revolution, ignited by the government's assault on the last piece of greenery in central Istanbul. But once the police intervened in full strength, it became a wide-ranging rebuke to Erdogan's authoritarian impulses and his drive to remake the city as a neo-Ottoman showplace—replete with fancy malls and high-priced condominiums—while eliminating poor neighborhoods and freewheeling public spaces like Taksim Square. “It's all about superiority, and ruling over the people like sultans,” declared one protestor. It's not just about the trees in Gezi Park, said another: “We are here to stand up against those who are trying to make a profit from our land.”

The Ningbo Rebellion

The same trajectory of events—a small-scale environmental protest evolving into a full-scale challenge to governmental authority—can be seen in other mass protests of recent years.

Take a Chinese example: in October 2012, students and middle class people joined with poor farmers to protest the construction of an $8.8 billion petrochemical facility in Ningbo, a city of 3.4 million people south of Shanghai. In a country where environmental pollution has reached nearly unprecedented levels, these protests were touched off by fears that the plant, to be built by the state-owned energy company Sinopec with local government support, would produce paraxylene, a toxic substance used in plastics, paints, and cleaning solvents.

Here, too, the initial spark that led to the protests was small-scale. On October 22nd, some 200 farmers obstructed a road near the district government's office in an attempt to block the plant's construction. After the police were called in to clear the blockade, students from nearby Ningbo University joined the protests. Using social media, the protestors quickly enlisted support from middle-class residents of the city who converged in their thousands on downtown Ningbo. When riot police moved in to break up the crowds, the protestors fought back, attacking police cars and throwing bricks and water bottles. While the police eventually gained the upper hand after several days of pitched battles, the Chinese government concluded that mass action of this sort, occurring in the heart of a major city and featuring an alliance of students, farmers, and young professionals, was too great a threat. After five days of fighting, the government gave in, announcing the cancellation of the petrochemical project.

The Ningbo demonstrations were hardly the first such upheavals to erupt in China. They did, however, highlight a growing governmental vulnerability to mass environmental protest. For decades, the reigning Chinese Communist Party has justified its monopolistic hold on power by citing its success in generating rapid economic growth. But that growth means the use of ever more fossil fuels and petrochemicals, which, in turn, means increased carbon emissions and disastrous atmospheric pollution, including one “airpocalypse” after another.

Until recently, most Chinese seemed to accept such conditions as the inevitable consequences of growth, but it seems that tolerance of environmental degradation is rapidly diminishing. As a result, the party finds itself in a terrible bind: it can slow development as a step toward cleaning up the environment, incurring a risk of growing economic discontent, or it can continue its growth-at-all-costs policy, and find itself embroiled in a firestorm of Ningbo-style environmental protests.

This dilemma—the environment versus the economy—has proven to be at the heart of similar mass eruptions elsewhere on the planet.

After Fukushima

Two of the largest protests of this sort were sparked by the reactor meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants on March 11, 2011, after a massive tsunami struck northern Japan. In both of these actions—the first in Germany, the second in Japan—the future of nuclear power and the survival of governments were placed in doubt.

The biggest protests occurred in Germany. On March 26th, 15 days after the Fukushima explosions, an estimated 250,000 people participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations across the country—100,000 in Berlin, and up to 40,000 each in Hamburg, Munich, and Cologne. “Today's demonstrations are just the prelude to a new, strong, anti-nuclear movement,” declared Jochen Stay, a protest leader. “We're not going to let up until the plants are finally mothballed.”

At issue was the fate of Germany's remaining nuclear power plants. Although touted as an attractive alternative to fossil fuels, nuclear power is seen by most Germans as a dangerous and unwelcome energy option. Several months prior to Fukushima, German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted that Germany would keep its 17 operating reactors until 2040, allowing a smooth transition from the country's historic reliance on coal to renewable energy for generating electricity. Immediately after Fukushima, she ordered a temporary shutdown of Germany's seven oldest reactors for safety inspections but refused to close the others, provoking an outpouring of protest.

Witnessing the scale of the demonstrations, and after suffering an electoral defeat in the key state of Baden-Württemberg, Merkel evidently came to the conclusion that clinging to her position would be the equivalent of political suicide. On May 30th, she announced that the seven reactors undergoing inspections would be closed permanently and the remaining 10 would be phased out by 2022, almost 20 years earlier than in her original plan.

By all accounts, the decision to phase out nuclear power almost two decades early will have significant repercussions for the German economy. Shutting down the reactors and replacing them with wind and solar energy will cost an estimated $735 billion and take several decades, producing soaring electricity bills and periodic energy shortages. However, such is the strength of anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany that Merkel felt she had no choice but to close the reactors anyway.

The anti-nuclear protests in Japan occurred considerably later, but were no less momentous. On July 16, 2012, 16 months after the Fukushima disaster, an estimated 170,000 people assembled in Tokyo to protest a government plan to restart the country's nuclear reactors, idled after the disaster. This was not only Japan's largest antinuclear demonstration in many years, but the largest of any sort to occur in recent memory.

For the government, the July 16th action was particularly significant. Prior to Fukushima, most Japanese had embraced the country's growing reliance on nuclear power, putting their trust in the government to ensure its safety. After Fukushima and the disastrous attempts of the reactors' owner, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), to deal with the situation, public support for nuclear power plummeted. As it became increasingly evident that the government had mishandled the crisis, people lost faith in its ability to exercise effective control over the nuclear industry. Repeated promises that nuclear reactors could be made safe lost all credibility when it became known that government officials had long collaborated with TEPCO executives in covering up safety concerns at Fukushima and, once the meltdowns occurred, in concealing information about the true scale of the disaster and its medical implications.

The July 16th protest and others like it should be seen as a public vote against the government's energy policy and oversight capabilities. “Japanese have not spoken out against the national government,” said one protestor, a 29-year-old homemaker who brought her one-year-old son. “Now, we have to speak out, or the government will endanger us all.”

Skepticism about the government, rare for twenty-first-century Japan, has proved a major obstacle to its desire to restart the country's 50 idled reactors. While most Japanese oppose nuclear power, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe remains determined to get the rectors running again in order to reduce Japan's heavy reliance on imported energy and promote economic growth. “I think it is impossible to promise zero [nuclear power plants] at this stage,” he declared this October. “From the government's standpoint, [nuclear plants] are extremely important for a stable energy supply and economic activities.”

Despite such sentiments, Abe is finding it extremely difficult to garner support for his plans, and it is doubtful that significant numbers of those reactors will be coming online anytime soon.

The Explosions Ahead

What these episodes tell us is that people around the world are becoming ever more concerned about energy policy as it affects their lives and are prepared—often on short notice—to engage in mass protests. At the same time, governments globally, with rare exceptions, are deeply wedded to existing energy policies. These almost invariably turn them into targets, no matter what the original spark for mass opposition. As the results of climate change become ever more disruptive, government officials will find themselves repeatedly choosing between long-held energy plans and the possibility of losing their grip on power.

Because few governments are as yet prepared to launch the sorts of efforts that might even begin to effectively address the peril of climate change, they will increasingly be seen as obstacles to essential action and so as entities that need to be removed. In short, climate rebellion—spontaneous protests that may at any moment evolve into unquenchable mass movements—is on the horizon. Faced with such rebellions, recalcitrant governments will respond with some combination of accommodation to popular demands and harsh repression.

Many governments will be at risk from such developments, but the Chinese leadership appears to be especially vulnerable. The ruling party has staked its future viability on an endless carbon-fueled growth agenda that is steadily destroying the country's environment. It has already faced half-a-dozen environmental upheavals like the one in Ningbo, and has responded to them by agreeing to protestors' demands or by employing brute force. The question is: How long can this go on?

Environmental conditions are bound to worsen, especially as China continues to rely on coal for home heating and electrical power, and yet there is no indication that the ruling Communist Party is prepared to take the radical steps required to significantly reduce domestic coal consumption. This translates into the possibility of mass protests erupting at any time and on a potentially unprecedented scale. And these, in turn, could bring the Party's very survival into question—a scenario guaranteed to produce immense anxiety among the country's top leaders.

And what about the United States? At this point, it would be ludicrous to say that, as a result of popular disturbances, the nation's political leadership is at any risk of being swept away or even forced to take serious steps to scale back reliance on fossil fuels. There are, however, certainly signs of a growing nationwide campaign against aspects of fossil fuel reliance, including vigorous protests against hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

For environmental activist and writer Bill McKibben, all this adds up to an incipient mass movement against the continued consumption of fossil fuels. “In the last few years,” he has written, this movement “has blocked the construction of dozens of coal-fired power plants, fought the oil industry to a draw on the Keystone pipeline, convinced a wide swath of American institutions to divest themselves of their fossil fuel stocks, and challenged practices like mountaintop-removal coal mining and fracking for natural gas.” It may not have achieved the success of the drive for gay marriage, he observed, but it “continues to grow quickly, and it's starting to claim some victories.”

If it's still too early to gauge the future of this anti-carbon movement, it does seem, at least, to be gaining momentum. In the 2013 elections, for example, three cities in energy-rich Colorado—Boulder, Fort Collins, and Lafayette—voted to ban or place moratoriums on fracking within their boundaries, while protests against Keystone XL and similar projects are on the rise.

Nobody can say that a green energy revolution is a sure thing, but who can deny that energy-oriented environmental protests in the U.S. and elsewhere have the potential to expand into something far greater? Like China, the United States will experience genuine damage from climate change and its unwavering commitment to fossil fuels in the years ahead. Americans are not, for the most part, passive people. Expect them, like the Chinese, to respond to these perils with increased ire and a determination to alter government policy.

So don't be surprised if that green energy revolution erupts in your neighborhood as part of humanity's response to the greatest danger we've ever faced. If governments won't take the lead on an imperiled planet, someone will.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and conflict studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation.

Source: http://fpif.org/surviving-climate-change-towards-climate-revolution/

In Front of Pipelines, I Will Support the Mohawks

Michel LAMBERT — 2013-12-01T20:44:00Z

With hundreds of others, I participated on November 16 in an unprecedented mobilization in Kanehsatà:ke (Oka), Mohawk Territory. Twenty-three years after the terrible Oka crisis, Mohawks this time invited non-indigenous people to join the fight against the expansion of tar sands pipelines.

This unique invitation also came from several indigenous communities across Canada resulting in more than 130 demonstrations against the expansion of the tar sands. In all, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people were mobilized to mark their presence and affirm their intention to fight this battle till the end. While we symbolically blocked Highway 344 with a "Round Dance," I realized that thousands of people in Canada were then simultaneously taking a deep breath of hope before getting back into a struggle till finish.

Mordor is here!

The comparison between the nauseous and hellish land of Sauron and the oil sands development sites is nothing new. It has already been shown that the current methods of production creates a toxic local environment, with increased rates of cancer and other health risks affecting first and foremost the First Nations communities living in the region.

The industry, of which 71 per cent is controlled by oil giants owned by foreign companies, led the Alberta government to approve more than 100 oil sands projects covering 92,000 square kilometres of northern boreal forest, and 100 other projects covering 50,000 additional square kilometres are available, representing a total area the size of Florida.

If the Canadian government gets the means to export its production through new pipelines, the oil sands industry plans to triple production to more than one million barrels per day over the next few years.

Joining the struggles of Indigenous Peoples

As all Quebecers who lived in 1990, I know that the Mohawks will not abandon the fight, whatever it costs. The bond that unites the Indigenous Peoples to their lands is such that they just cannot give up their struggle to protect it. But unlike then, the "whites" will this time have to make the choice to fight alongside and accept to receive blows. At Elsipogtog, New Brunswick, we have witnessed in the last weeks a sad spectacle of colonialism "à la Tsahal" where extractive corporations are supported by a most repressive State. These images of SWN trucks protected by the RCMP will one day be in history text books! And despite the injunctions, despite imprisonment, despite the tear gas and injuries to men, women and children, the entire Mi'kmaq community still resists the extractive machine.

Yet this battle against climate change and for the protection of environment is not only theirs because we all belong to the same land. While the Canadian Government supports the expansion of extreme oil from Alberta, we are increasing the collective responsibility of all citizens from here to cope with climate changes everywhere. In the aftermath of extreme catastrophe, as the one witnessed in the Philippines recently, we have a moral obligation to question ourselves, as a society, in the creation of global climate changes. We must question ourselves even more when the most marginalized communities decide to oppose the irresponsible development of the largest industrial project on the planet ( the tar sands ) braving government repression.

In short, when communities choose to go to the front line to stop irreversible damage to our ecosystems, but more importantly, to prevent Canada from launching its "climate bomb" in the atmosphere, we must respond "present"!

A season of action

On November 16 , the National Day of Action to defend the climate saw the participation of many environmental and community groups, trade unions and indigenous communities.

If the day was crowned with a huge success with dozens of mobilization "from Coast to Coast to Coast", the time is now to organize even more meaningful events and actions. November 16 alone shows that the success of future actions depends totally on indigenous participation.

If the environmental and social movements want to stop the expansion of tar sands, reduce our collective footprint on the environment, stop the policies of Stephen Harper and those after him with the same political ideology, they have to make a simple choice and that is to follow the "leadership" of the First Nations in this fight.

In front of pipelines, I will support the Mohawks. If social movements also do, we cannot be defeated.

Central African Republic: Retaliatory Violence Creating Atmosphere Of Insecurity

Idil Isse — 2013-12-01T20:43:55Z

French foreign minister Laurent Fabius' recent declaration that the Central African Republic (CAR) was “on the verge of genocide” brought some much needed attention to the ongoing conflict in the country. Following a coup d'état this past March in which former president François Bozizé was overthrown, the country has been experiencing an upsurge in violence. The coup was carried out by a group known as Seleka, a coalition of mainly Muslim rebels from the northern region of the country, and brought its leader Michel Djotodia to power. Although Djotodia dissolved the group in September, he has been unable to control the rebels as they continue to carry out acts of extreme violence on the population. A Christian self-defence militia known as the anti-balaka, formed in response to the Seleka coalition, are also responsible for the increase in violence. Since the coup d'état in March, the two groups have been involved in a “wave of tit for tat violence”. With the situation spiralling out of control, it has left the international community questioning what the appropriate course of action is to stabilize the situation.

Much like recent events in the country, not many people are familiar with the Central African Republic itself. Despite its rich and tumultuous history, the landlocked nation of 4 million remains relatively unknown. Similar to other African countries, the potential of the post-independence era of the CAR was impeded due to the early death of its charismatic leader Barthélémy Boganda. Boganda was a fierce nationalist and the individual responsible for negotiating the CAR's independence and although it has never been confirmed, it has been highly suspected that his mysterious death in a plane crash one year before the countrys expected independence was the work of the French secret service. In the decades following Boganda's death, a series of individuals who enjoyed French support came to power via coup d'états, the most infamous of them being Jean-Bédel Bokassa. As one of the most corrupt and violent leaders the CAR has had, the eccentric Bokassa led his country to economic ruin; his coronation as the self-proclaimed emperor of the Central African Republic cost the poverty-stricken country $22 million which at the time was one-third of the countrys annual budget. Bokassa's regime was heavily supported by the French, both militarily as well as financially. As a resource rich nation, France kept a vested interest in the CAR throughout the decades.

Although the themes of political turmoil, imperialism and poverty are ones that the Central African Republic shares with many of its fellow African countries, the deep ethnic and religious divides that are present in various African countries is not a characteristic that is common to the CAR. Despite its politically tumultuous past, the diverse groups living in the Central African Republic have historically peacefully co-existed. Unlike certain countries, there is no history of sectarian tension in the CAR. This is what makes the recent violence quite startling; in a short amount of time, the country has become deeply divided across religious lines. Each attack carried out by one group on the other community has resulted in retributive attacks. This vengeful brand of violence has intensified over the months, taking a turn for the worse this past September. There has been looting (with many villages being burnt to the ground), indiscriminate killings, as well as many other human rights violations. The increase in violence has created an atmosphere of fear and insecurity and has forced many to flee; there is an estimated 400,000 people who are internally displaced and 64,000 refugees.

As the situation quickly deteriorates and awareness of the conflict grows, the question as to how the international community should respond is becoming more pressing. Presently there is already an African Union peacekeeping operation comprised of 2, 400 troops in the country. Initially the African Union had promised 3, 600 troops however they have not been able to find the resources. Former colonial power France announced plans to send 1000 troops in addition to the 400 French troops already present in the country. Many including the UN deputy secretary-general, Jan Eliasson, do not believe that this is enough and that instead, a larger UN peacekeeping force to ensure the safety of civilians may be necessary. Right now the United Nations is only exploring options of financially supporting the African Union led operation but UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said “he would back a UN force with nearly 11,000 soldiers and police if the crisis degenerates.” Stabilizing the situation in the CAR and ensuring that it doesn't descend further into chaos is critical for a region that is already extremely unstable. The Central African Republic is bordered by countries such as Sudan, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, all of which are experiencing turbulence. If the situation in the CAR were to degenerate, it would also have serious implications for the region.

Israel Plays With Fire at Al Aqsa Compound

Sergio Yahni — 2013-12-01T20:37:00Z

MK Miri Regev (Likud), chairwoman of the Knesset Interior Committee, instructed police on Monday to ensure that Jewish visitors to the Al Aqsa compound (Temple Mount) are able to visit the site unimpeded by police or Arab demonstrators.

“Just because some Muslims throw stones when Jews go up to the Temple Mount is not a reason to prevent them from going, as happened over Succot,” Regev told police Ch.-Supt. Avi Biton during the committee hearing.

Rabbi Yehuda Glick of the Temple Institute was also present at the committee meeting, stating that “the festival of Hanukka represents the time that Jews stood up for their freedom and equality.”

The Temple Institute is a messianic organization established in 1987 and based in the Old City of Jerusalem. The Institute is dedicated to rebuilding the Temple on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, the ancient location of Solomon's temple, and the current site of the Al Aqsa and Omar mosques – the third holiest place in Islam.

According to the Temple Institute, its short-term goal is to rekindle the flame of the temple in the hearts of mankind in order “to bring about the building of the Holy Temple in our time.”

Currently the Temple Institute focuses on restoring and constructing sacred vessels for future religious services. The institute has also recreated biblical musical instruments for the Temple and completed the uniform of the High Priest.

Nevertheless, mainstream Judaism perceives the reconstruction of the temple not as an immediate, task, but one left to eschatological times, after the coming of the messiah. Maimonides, a key rabbinical scholar and respected authority in Jewish law, wrote that “God deliberately moved Jews away from sacrifices and towards prayer, as prayer is a higher form of worship.”

Moreover, Maimonides believed that access to the Temple Mount should only be permitted to fulfill specific religious obligations, and, even then, only under the very strict and complex rules of purification enforced at the time the temple existed. He also believed that the temple maintains its holiness and is therefor still off-limits to Jewish worshippers. Nearly all Haredi rabbis view access to the site as prohibited to Jews.

Recently, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel issued a notice reiterating the stance of chief rabbis Shlomo Amar and Yona Metzger that, according to Jewish law, it is unequivocally forbidden to visit the Temple Mount.

Nonetheless, a growing number of national religious rabbis are encouraging visits to certain parts of the mount, believing Jews are permitted access according to certain medieval rabbinical authorities. Indeed, some rabbis are of the opinion that it is imperative for Jews to ascend in order to halt the ongoing process of Islamization of the Temple Mount.

Among the Israeli parliament there is also growing support for strengthening the Jewish presence in Al Aqsa compound. In July, the Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel (Bayit Yehudi) stated that perhaps the time has come to rebuild the biblical temple.

During a meeting of the Knesset Interior Committee, Bayit Yehudi MK Zvulun Kalfa also described the situation on the compound as one of “national importance,” claiming it is “unbelievable that Jewish people cannot get access to their holiest place.”

At the beginning of November, Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) Party announced it has advanced new laws that would enact the establishment of regular prayer hours for Jews at the compound. According to the new laws, which are already undergoing legal processing through the Ministry of Religious Services, daily prayer hours would be set for visiting Jewish groups

Moreover, in May this year, the director-general of the Religious Affairs Ministry announced that regulations governing the right of Jews to pray on the compound would be reviewed and updated. He added that his office was looking into changes to the current laws in order to relax the informal ban on worship at the site.

Such statements by Israeli politicians ricocheted among Muslims in the Middle East, who accused Israel of attempting to divide the compound in a manner similar to the division at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.

Consequently, the International Union for Muslim Scholars has urged Muslims around the world to consider Friday November 22, an international day in support of Jerusalem. During this day, Muslims are encouraged to participate in solidarity activities with the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Palestinians of Jerusalem, talk about them in the Friday sermons, lectures and seminars, and pray for them.

In a statement published on November 21, the union warned of the serious consequences of Israel's ongoing violations of the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque and its attempts to divide it.

The Al Aqsa compound is the most volatile religious site in Palestine. The Second Intifada began after Ariel Sharon visited the compound with an escort of thousands of policemen in September 2000. Clashes in Jerusalem and across the whole country have sporadically erupted since the British occupation of Palestine following any attempts to change the status quo of the holy site.

Source: http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/regions/jerusalem/7492-israel-plays-with-fire-at-al-aqsa-compound

I Am Malala: Book Review

Pervez Hoodbhoy — 2013-12-01T18:39:00Z

How can one read this marvelous book and remain unmoved? It is a good-humored tale of grit, courage, and determination. A 14-year old girl, passionate about education being every child's right, is shot in the head and nearly killed but miraculously recovers. She makes it to the world's highest forum where she gets a standing ovation from all including the United Nations Secretary General, and sets her life's mission to fight the forces of demented Islamism.

One senses the deft hand of Christina Lamb behind I Am Malala. But this shadow-writing impacts only the form, not the substance of a precocious and courageous child's autobiography. Malala's child-like radiance shines through the book – the joy of being at school, her back-and-forth with her school-friend Moniba, the fear that her school would be closed down by the Taliban, the feeling of dread at night on hearing distant explosions, and the horror at headless corpses strewn around Mingora's khooni chowk.

After the army operation against the Taliban in 2008, over a million people fled Swat. Malala's family was among them. Ziauddin, her father, was a marked man for owning and operating a school – the Taliban had blown up hundreds of schools and executed teachers. In her book Malala says wants to become prime minister someday, believing that only good politics can bring peace to Swat and Pakistan. Why not?

The book is not without flaws. Malala sometimes chooses to give opinions on matters about which she has no direct knowledge. One that particularly struck me was her pronouncement of Benazir Bhutto as a paragon of parsimony, based upon her wearing cheap glass bangles at her wedding! Perhaps she never heard of this kleptomaniac's treasures hidden around the world, or about the Surrey Palace and her Swiss bank accounts.

Sadly, this remarkable book will be little read in Pakistan. Few books are; reading and thinking are fast disappearing habits. There were even widespread doubts, propagated by some TV anchors, that she could have been shot and still survived. It mattered little that, shortly after the event, a joint statement of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and the Harkat-e-Islami Uzbekistan took credit for the attempted killing. Their joint spokesperson said she would not be allowed to escape the second time around, and gave a set of detailed arguments why she must be killed.

Pakistanis are welcome to call her a dupe, a willing tool for evil Western forces seeking to badmouth Islam and Pakistan. They buy into the paranoid notion that Pakistan's enemies are paving the way towards destabilizing the country, followed by an invasion to snatch our precious nukes. Some call her an "Illuminati Psy Op" or "Malala Dramazai", a pawn in the hands of men like Richard Holbrooke, Gordon Brown, and Ban Ki Moon. Let them hurl still viler abuses if they so want – they make fools of themselves and justly deserve the scorn of those with civilized values. After all, ours is a nation where the butcher Hakeemullah Mehsud is a shaheed and Al-Qaida's Aafia Siddiqui is "daughter of the nation", persecuted because she stood up to the Americans. But Malala sits in the lap of imperialism and thus deserves abuse, denigration, and perhaps another bullet.

Malala's enemies are equally likely to be Islamists or America-obsessed leftists and post-modernists. These days it is so hard to tell them apart.

The author teaches physics at FC College in Lahore

Israel Guilty of Apartheid

2013-11-01T18:23:26Z

Discussion on the Verdict of Russell Tribunal on Palestine

With
Frank Barat
Coordinator of Russell Tribunal on Palestine

Thursday
21 November
7 PM

Alternatives
3720 avenue du Parc
Second Floor

Frank Barat is a French activist and one of the coordinator of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine from 2008 à 2013. He has edited: "Le champ du possible", "Palestine l'état de siège", "Gaza in Crisis" and "Justice pour la Palestine". He produces the program "Le mur a des oreilles" on Radio Panik.

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine is an International Tribunal citizens' initiative, created as a result of the inaction of the international community in relation to actual violations of international law committed by Israel. During five international meetings, the RTP discussed the liability and breach of third countries, companies and international organizations in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, and the perpetuation of violations of international law by Israel. A session was also devoted to whether the crime of apartheid as defined by international conventions, was due to Israel.www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com

Coalition pour la justice et la paix en Palestine et BDS Québec