Alternatives International

Peoples' Social Forum: Canada

Bradley Castelli — 2014-07-02T02:07:28Z

The 2014 Peoples' Social Forum will take place from August 21 to 24 this summer in Ottawa. The first ever pan-Canadian social forum is expected to draw some 10 000 participants from all over the country, with specific representation from English and French Canadians, as well as First Nations communities. According to its website, the Peoples' Social Forum is a critical public space aimed at fostering activist involvement of individuals and civil society organizations that want to transform Canada as it exists today. It is intended as a space for social movements to meet and converge, for the free expression of alternative ideas and grassroots exchanges and for artistic manifestations reflecting a diversity of demands and aspirations.

Several public consultations were held leading up to the Forum in order to establish themes that will be treated specifically over the four-day event. Of the sixteen themes that have been agreed upon, climate seems to be an issue that links them all together. This is due in part to the fact that as an international community we have crossed the threshold from climate change as a mere possibility or hypothetical endpoint that needs to be addressed in order to be averted, toward a real-time global condition that needs to be managed with growing desperation. With regard to the Canadian context, climate change is an important issue given the Harper Conservatives' aspirations to establish Canada as a global energy superpower through intensive exploitation of the Alberta tar sands.

While these aspirations certainly entail environmental and climate-related consequences, they have also enabled shortsighted governance, the erosion of Canadian democracy, economic instability, and in the eyes of many critically thinking Canadians, pose serious risks to human security and rights in Canada. Just because the majority of Canadians have not seen the massive leaky toxic tailings lakes, have not touched the world's dirtiest oil, or are not aware of the various violations of land rights and treaties inherent in bitumen exploitation, does not mean that we are not all adversely affected by the world's biggest energy project.

If the decision-makers whom we have empowered cannot or refuse to serve collective Canadian interests, then it is up to us to protect such interests and hold those who prioritize individual and corporate interests accountable for their misconduct. In this sense, the Peoples' Social Forum provides an inclusive and horizontal political forum that promotes dialogue and encourages progress toward resolving Canadian problems in a manner that benefits Canadians as a collective. Stephen Harper has gone to great lengths to marginalize and silence civil society, climate scientists, environmental groups, and political activists alike, but the Peoples' Social Forum serves as a reminder that these voices have not been silenced altogether and that Canadians themselves are the true agenda-setters, regardless of government intent.

It is important to keep political and social dialogue open and accessible to all Canadians, even if that means asking hard questions and making bold statements that may be brushed off as being radical or controversial. If you have questions about the direction in which Canada is moving, or suggestions for what ought to be done to ensure that we are all on the same page with regard to what progress actually means, come join the dialogue from August 21 to 24.

For more information, please visit http://www.peoplessocialforum.org/

Soccer Is Democratic. The World Cup Is Oligarchy.

Nathalie Baptiste — 2014-07-02T02:07:25Z

It's the biggest sporting event in the world. Fans from virtually every place on Earth don jerseys, scarves, and caps and head to the nearest bar to chug an ice-cold beer while passionately yelling and cheering their team on—hopefully to victory.

The World Cup only happens every four years, and for most of us, there's nothing like it.

In a test of stamina, national pride, and strength, 32 teams representing 32 different countries have descended upon Brazil. The first match, between host country Brazil and Croatia, took place at Arena Corinthians in Sao Paulo. The crowd there was lively, energized by a type of spirit that can only be felt at the World Cup.

What all those revelers and die-hard soccer fans may not have realized is that the very city that hosted the iconic opening match was one of the most affected by forced evictions, with thousands of poor residents shunted aside to make way for stadiums that may never be used again. These evictions in Sao Paulo and across the country have left thousands of people homeless; the compensation for losing your home is a pittance that doesn't begin to cover the cost of housing in a country where real estate prices are skyrocketing.

“World Cup For Whom?” reads a sign painted on the street in Sao Paulo.

On June 4, 10,000 protesters belonging to Brazil's Homeless Workers' Movement shut down a major highway leading to Arena Corinthians. Their demands included more government spending on transportation, health, education, and low-income housing.

After all, if their government could spend billions on shiny new stadiums and brand new infrastructure to accommodate the influx of foreign visitors, surely it could spring for a few dollars for some development projects for its poorest citizens.

Unfortunately for Brazilians, that doesn't seem to be the case.

“Fuck the World Cup”

Sao Paulo isn't the only Brazilian host city harboring anti-World Cup sentiments.

In 2008, a year after Brazil first won the right to host the 2014 World Cup, 79 percent of Brazilians were in favor of their nation being the host. Brazil's national team is a five-time World Cup champion, more than any other country, and has produced several legendary futbolistas. So it's no surprise that Brazilians were initially excited to host the games.

Six years later, however, that number has fallen to a dismal 48 percent, a shift reflected in the number of Brazilians participating in protests.

In May alone, 12 Brazilian cities were rocked by anti-World Cup protests. In Rio, demonstrators coordinated with workers on strike, claiming that the money spent rehabilitating the Maracanã stadium could pay for 200 schools. In Belo Horizonte, 2,000 protesters swarmed the streets. In the capital city of Brasilia, demonstrators carried banners that denounced the deaths of stadium workers.

As the games began, protests showed no signs of winding down. Demonstrators and police clashed in the streets of Rio on June 15, three days into the World Cup. In one instance, police responded to a protest with tear gas—but ended up accidentally gassing tourists. Also in Rio, the Associated Press released a video of an officer shooting live rounds into a crowd of protesters.

Other Brazilians have chosen to express their discontent by painting anti-World Cup murals in the streets. Some of them depict hungry children with nothing to eat but soccer balls. Some of them pay homage to the largely indigenous communities that were evicted from their homes.

And some of them are harsh but succinct: Fuck the World Cup.

An International Problem

Echoing the Sochi Olympics, which came under fire for exorbitant costs and haphazard facilities, this World Cup will be the most expensive in history—and calling Brazil unprepared is putting it lightly.

As of April, Brazil had spent $7 billion repairing stadiums and refurbishing hotels, a figure that is believed to have swelled to upwards of $11 billion since. Despite this being three times the original budget, many of the projects are still not completed—even though the games have already started.

One day before kick-off, the Amazonia stadium still wasn't completed. The stadium is located in the middle of the Amazon and is difficult to get to by road. Once the World Cup is over, the teams that will call the stadium home will almost certainly struggle to fill its seats, making the $300 million spent on its construction a total waste.

And of course, it's not just Brazil.

Awash with scandal, corruption, and bribery, FIFA's popularity is plunging. Even though the 2022 World Cup is a full eight years away, human rights activists and soccer fans alike are already calling on FIFA to take the World Cup away from Qatar.

The charges that Qatar won host-nation status because FIFA officials were bribed are indeed terrible, but the human rights situation there is even worse. Human rights group have called foul over Qatar's treatment of the migrant workers building the infrastructure for the Cup. Allegations include meager pay, unsanitary living conditions, and passport theft. Worst of all, 400 people have died constructing stadiums—and number that could reach 4,000 if immediate action isn't taken.

More Backlash Inevitable

International mega events and controversy seem to be synonymous as of late, and it doesn't help that Rio de Janeiro is set to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. Protests over those games have already coincided with World Cup demonstrations.

Russia, still recovering from the negative press surrounding the 2014 Sochi Olympics, won the rights to host the 2018 World Cup. More backlash is inevitable.

Soccer is a democratic sport. Anyone anywhere can pick up a ball, kick it around, and learn to play. But what's happening in Brazil is not representative of that sentiment. The Brazilian government has trampled over the rights of its own people, not in the name of soccer but in the name of money and prestige.

As protests sweep the nation, soccer fans face a predicament. We love soccer and want to watch our favorite players shine—but not at the expense of millions of disadvantaged Brazilians.

On ‘reasonability' in activism and demanding the impossible

Stefan Christoff — 2014-07-02T02:07:23Z

Over recent days in Montréal, after joining multiple activist discussions (including those at the Montréal Student Movement Convention), revolving around possible frameworks for asserting political demands in opposition to austerity economics and neoliberalism, my mind is racing with critical reflections.

One key problematic point that rests in my thoughts, is rooted in addressing the limiting reality that most activist-driven campaigns today in Québec and Canada assert goals or campaigns within pre-established conservative frameworks for political possibility. Even if the consensus vision at heart of the organizing, that is driving people emotionally and collectively, is anti-capitalist and revolutionary, our collective demands most often don't reflect broader transformative visions.

Clearly campaigning on real and tangible issues, rooted in popular realities is at the heart of any meaningful organizing work (as seen during the Québec student strike), but why limit our political dimensions to a reality that is deeply destructive and oppressive? Can our political campaigns speak both to real issues and also express our broader dreams for true liberation?

How can our campaigning both address concrete realities, while also expressing an inspiring ideas and questions that travel way beyond the constricting discourse of spiritually dead politicians that cynically preach ‘reasonable' frameworks, that in reality are shaped by colonial, capitalist violence. Let's stop being ‘reasonable' to systems that literally refuses to acknowledge our full humanity, or respect the sanctity of Mother Earth.

These questions are visited further, asserted beautifully within an essay included in What Would It Mean To Win? a collection of texts via the Turbulence collective, published by PM Press.

The text by Stephen Duncombe, entitled Politics in an Age of Fantasy, touches on the horrific violence of the Iraq war and reflects critically on progressive activists attempting to make demands, or build campaigns, against the war within political frameworks fixed by the very powers involved in orchestrating the war.

below is an excerpt from the excellent essay from What Would It Mean To Win? thanks for reading, take care, Stefan.

"In the autumn of 2004, shortly before the U.S. presidential election and in the middle of a typically bloody month in Iraq, the New York Times Magazine ran a feature article on the casualty of truth in the Bush administration. Like most Times articles, it was well written, well researched, and thoroughly predictable. That George W. Bush is ill informed, doesn't listen to dissenting opinion, and acts upon whatever nonsense he happens to believe is hardly news. (Even the fact that he once insisted that Sweden did not have an army and none of his cabinet dared contradict him was not all that surprising.) There was, however, one valuable insight. In a soon-to-be-infamous passage, the writer, Ron Suskind, recounted a conversation between himself and an unnamed senior adviser to the president:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about Enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That's not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create reality. And while you are studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

It was clear how the Times felt about this peek into the political mind of the presidency. The editors of the Gray Lady pulled out the passage and floated it over the article in oversized, multi-colored type. This was ideological gold: the Bush administration openly and arrogantly admitting that they didn't care about reality. One could almost feel the palpable excitement generated among the Times' liberal readership, an enthusiasm mirrored and amplified all down the left side of the political spectrum on computer listservs, call-in radio shows, and print editorials over the next few weeks. This proud assertion of naked disregard for reality and unbounded faith in fantasy was the most damning evidence of Bush insanity yet. He must surely lose the election now.

What worried me then, and still worries me today, is that my reaction was radically different. My politics have long been diametrically opposed to those of the Bush administration, and I've had a long career as a left-leaning academic and a progressive political activist. Yet I read the same words that generated so much animosity among liberals and the left and felt something else: excited, inspired … and jealous. Whereas the common sense view held that Bush's candid disregard for reality was evidence of the madness of his administration, I perceived it as a much more disturbing sign of its brilliance. I knew then that Bush, in spite of making a mess of nearly everything he had undertaken in his first presidential term, would be reelected.

How could my reaction be so different from that of so many of my colleagues and comrades? Maybe I was becoming a neocon, another addition to the long list of defectors whose progressive God had failed. Would I follow the path of Christopher Hitchens? A truly depressing thought. But what if, just maybe, the problem was not with me but with the main currents of progressive thinking in this country? More precisely, maybe there was something about progressive politics that had become increasingly problematic. The problem, as I see it, comes down to reality. Progressives believe in it, Bush's people believe in creating it. The left and right have switched roles – the right taking on the mantle of radicalism and progressives waving the flag of conservatism. The political progeny of the protestors who proclaimed, “Take your desires for reality” in May of 1968, were now counseling the reversal: take reality for your desires. Republicans were the ones proclaiming, “I have a dream.”

Progressive dreams, and the spectacles that give them tangible form, will look different than those conjured up by the Bush administration or the commercial directors of what critic Neil Gabler calls Life, the Movie. Different not only in content – this should be obvious – but in form. Given the progressive ideals of egalitarianism and a politics that values the input of everyone, our dreamscapes will not be created by media-savvy experts of the left and then handed down to the rest of us to watch, consume, and believe. Instead, our spectacles will be participatory: dreams the public can mold and shape themselves. They will be active: spectacles that work only if people help create them. They will be open-ended: setting stages to ask questions and leaving silences to formulate answers. And they will be transparent: dreams that one knows are dreams but which still have power to attract and inspire. And, finally, the spectacles we create will not cover over or replace reality and truth but perform and amplify it. Illusion may be a necessary part of political life, but delusion need not be.

Perhaps the most important reason for progressives to make their peace with the politics of dreaming has little to do with the immediate task of winning consent or creating dissent, but has instead to do with long-term vision. Without dreams we will never be able to imagine the new world we want to build. From the 1930s until the 1980s political conservatives in this country were lost: out of power and out of touch. Recalling those days, Karl Rove, George W. Bush's senior political adviser, says: “We were relegated to the desert.” While many a pragmatic Republican moved to the center, a critical core kept wandering in that desert, hallucinating a political world considered fantastic by postwar standards: a preemptive military, radical tax cuts, eroding the line between church and state, ending welfare, and privatizing Social Security. Look where their dreams are today.

Accompanying art work via Zach Matthes in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, via cutandpaint.org

Source: http://freecityradio.org/post/89532600835/on-reasonability-in-activism-and-demanding-the

The World Before Her: Two women, two worlds

Sudhish Kamath — 2014-07-02T02:07:20Z

Very rarely do we see the world through the eyes of the heroine in Indian cinema.

Most of it, if not all, has been the hero's journey. The heroine is always playing a supporting role or a cheerleader.

More importantly, very rarely have we seen India through the eyes of the young Indian woman.

And in the context of rising violence against women, moral policing by extreme right-wing groups in the recent past and the birth of a new Indian democracy where people have elected the right into power, The World Before Her is at once a fascinating exploration of the dreams, ambition and outlook of the young Indian woman and a darkly funny expose of who we have become as a country.

This hard-hitting documentary by Nisha Pahuja that released around the country on Friday is simply the best film you will see this year.

The World Before Her follows the journey and fates of two young Indian women from two very different Indias. Nineteen-year-old Ruhi Singh from Jaipur left home to be a Miss India contestant and 24-year-old Prachi Trivedi, home-schooled on right-wing ideology, is a veteran of 42 Durga Vahini camps in Aurangabad that train young Hindu girls to hate Muslims, Christians and Western culture.

As the film cuts between their lives (Ruhi's tense training days in the run-up to the finale of the beauty pageant and Prachi's training days at the Durga Vahini camp), we first see how different they are and yet slowly see that their lives are not all that different after all. They are both chasing dreams that actually live out fantasies of men and that too defined in a system, by the rules laid down by men.

Nisha's victory as a filmmaker lies in her ability to draw out candid responses from her subjects and letting us judge the truth without really trying hard to put a spin around the film.

The film does not shy away from the ugly side of their journey — if a Miss India contestant wonders if she has lost her dignity (we also see them get botox shots and parade around in cloaks except for legs as the judges rate their legs), the RSS-schooled girl is grateful that her Dad did not kill her at birth and let her live (we see how they are taught to fire a gun and hit back and attack Muslims and Christians).

While the film is darkly funny (Prachi's father quite righteously narrates how he once stamped his daughter with a hot iron rod to teach her a lesson) and heartbreaking (we feel for Ruhi's mother as she watches the finale of the pageant) and shows us the world before the young Indian women without flinching, it also leaves us with a flicker of hope.

The fact that Ruhi's parents are proud of their daughter and offer her unconditional support shows us exactly where the change can come from. From home. Maybe Nisha is trying to say that The World Before Her is always a product of the world behind her.

One can only hope that some day, Prachi's father can see what makes her happy.

(If it is not playing in your city, let PVR know there is an audience by pinging @ShiladityaBora on Twitter).

Source: The Hindu

We Are All Palestinians Now- A Review Of Max Blumenthal's Goliath

Rick Staggenborg — 2014-07-01T14:54:00Z

Jewish American reporter Max Blumenthal's latest book is a must-read for anyone struggling to understand why Jewish Israelis support ultimately self-destructive policies of their government. While expressing understanding of the sociological roots of its endemic racism, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel is a searing indictment of Israeli policies and society. Through exhaustive research and countless interviews over a four year period spent mostly in Israel following Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9, Blumenthal has produced a vivid portrait of a society experiencing what he argues is the logical result of being based on an ideology of exclusion and exceptionalism. He weaves history with anecdotes, poll data and contemporary Israeli news sources in producing a rich tapestry that depicts modern Israel in all its ugliness; a racist, fearful, imperialist and anti-democratic nation ruled by an economic elite whose aim is to consolidate its power by sacrificing the soul of the nation and endangering its future.

Far from being the democracy it is made out to be by Israeli and American media, Goliath makes clear that Israel is an apartheid state whose ruthless policies toward Palestinians in occupied Palestine and Israel are justified by the argument that the survival of the Jewish state depends on oppression. The government indoctrinates youth to accept militarism from the age of five by constantly evoking images of the Holocaust, while distorting its own history of ethnic cleansing that continues to this day. In schools, the media and all its institutions, children are taught to support endless war by ignoring the humanity of their Semitic relatives and portraying them all as terrorists or more fundamentally, "the other." The cost of such indoctrination is a nation of citizens who accept a distorted history of Israel that blinds them to the injustice that the rest of the world sees.

Goliath has something new for everyone, from those who know little of the truth about Israel to those who have made a study of it save those who have researched every aspect of the situation. The neophyte will be exposed to the rudiments of Israeli history, from its roots in terrorism prior to its creation to the Nakba, or Palestinian holocaust, which was marked by massacres and masked expulsions, to its long history of flouting international law and standards of human decency. It challenges all of the lies about the Arab-Israeli "War" of 1948 and the contradictory claim that Palestinians left voluntarily, selling land that had been in their families for countless generations. For those familiar with the basics, the details of how the government has turned from right wing to fascist (according to many interviewed for the book) prove enlightening.

Quotations of members of the Israeli government are particularly revealing. They show the extent to which the public accepts antidemocratic and blatantly apartheid messages, highlighting the growing power of the hard right in the Knesset. Blumenthal explains how the public has been seduced into accepting policies and laws that undermine the claim that a Jewish democracy is possible. He argues that the indoctrination from childhood of Jewish Israelis to regard Palestinians as inherently aggressive and a danger leads them to conclude that they must be dealt with by any means possible.

Particularly interesting are the poll data that indicate that a majority of Israeli youth and a growing number of older Israelis value a Jewish state over a democratic one. There is widespread acceptance of discriminatory laws designed to meet the demographic imperative that Jews must always outnumber non-Jews to retain Jewish dominance over the government, non-Jewish Israelis and policies toward Palestine and other Arab states. There are few protests over a series of recent anti-democratic laws that not only undermine the principle of equality of all Israelis but that restrict the rights of Jews who dare to dissent from the right wing policies of the government.

Contrary to the predictable argument that Blumenthal is what Zionists call a "self-hating Jew," he interviews a number of Jewish Israeli activists who express anger and frustration at having their voices suppressed and their views demonized. The problem is so bad that most Jewish Israelis who want to resist the "liberal" orthodoxy that accepts Zionism as a given choose to do so from outside the country, where 13% of Israelis now reside. The continuing immigration of fanatic Zionists, many of them religious radicals who populate the settlements and form the backbone of the government's supporters, is intensifying the drift toward fascism resulting from the suppression of real liberal dissent.

Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel is a jarring challenge to the mythology spun by the Zionist propaganda machine in both Israel and the US. It provides a compelling argument for divestment of private capital and an end to the billions of dollars in unconditional aid from US taxpayers each year. As such, it is an important addition to the growing chorus of voices of Jews of conscience around the world who are saying "Not in my name." US support of Israel does not serve the interests of America, Palestine or even Israel. The prospects for peace in the Mideast and the world depend on justice for Palestine. We are all Palestinians now.

Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/We-are-all-Palestinians-no-by-Rick-Staggenborg--Anti-democratic_Apartheid_Divestment_Fascism-140617-650.html

A Voice From Inside Mosul

ICSSI — 2014-07-01T14:25:00Z

Interview by the Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative (ICSSI), with an Iraqi human rights defender (“QC”) from Mosul – the 18th of June 2014

What is the situation now in the city of Mosul?

QC: In terms of the security situation, there is no fighting or bombing. The roads are open, but there is a shortage of basic goods and services. For example there is no electricity or Internet, and water, as well as gas cylinders and fuel are in short supply. Food prices are high, too. While the hospitals are still functioning, other government institutions have shut down.

Is it possible for non-governmental organizations [NGOs] and human rights defenders [HRDs] to work in Mosul?

QC: No, it is not possible for NGOs and HRDs to work freely. Insurgents, especially extremists, do not accept civil society, and if I said I wanted to work in Mosul they would punish me. They call it “Had”; it is punishment according to Sharia law. Organizations must operate secretly in order to send reports about the situation. I also prefer to keep my name unknown for this interview. Civil society in our cities must work in alignment with the government, otherwise you will be accused of supporting the militants. But at the same time, the insurgents also reject any independent role for civil society.

What about the displaced — are there people displaced from Mosul? How large are the numbers?

QC: There are many families — as many as one hundred thousand — who fled to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq [KRG]. We are talking about perhaps five hundred thousand people, the majority of whom are children and the elderly. The KRG authorities did not allow most of them to enter because they require that those who enter have a guarantor from the Kurdish region. Many of these now internally displaced persons [IDPs] are being kept in very basic camps. The crisis of the IDPs is immense and urgently requires the assistance of humanitarian organizations. The crisis is growing worse, especially after the battles in the city of Tal Afar, which created thousands of newly displaced civilians.

Who controls Mosul? Are there now sanctions or reprisals against civilians?

QC: The situation in Mosul has been very bad since militants seized control of the entire city. The city's immediate future is not clear. People do not know whether there will be a military strike, or if we will remain under the rule of the gunmen who seized power (who are not themselves ruled by law), or if they will form a government in these areas. Until now there have been no acts of revenge or collective punishment of civilians. We heard that a new governor has been appointed, a former army officer named Hashim Aljmas.

Who are the gunmen who entered Mosul?

QC: There was a mixture of armed groups who entered Mosul: some Islamic extremists (from ISIS) and other rebels (or nationalists) some of whom are former members of the army and some Ba'athists. In Mosul there are now different groups that are in control of each neighborhood. Generally, these groups do not discuss their future plans for the city, and they do not allow the media to operate in the city.

What do the people of Mosul feel about what has happened? Why do they think that the city fell?

QC: The main reason for the fall of the city of Mosul - the second largest city in Iraq – is that the Maliki government did not respond to the demands of the citizen protestors who demonstrated in Mosul, Anbar, Salahuddin, Diyala and Hawija over a year ago and so the citizens did not support the Iraqi army.

The policy of the Iraqi government headed by Nouri al-Maliki has been totally sectarian in the way it has operated in the Iraqi provinces. The government has almost totally excluded representatives of the Sunni population from the sovereign ministries, or left them with no real authority. Even the new Iraqi army was formed on this basis.

How is the Iraqi army viewed by the sons of the city of Mosul?

QC: The Iraqi army unfortunately does not support a doctrine of loyalty to the homeland (or an Iraq that is inclusive of all people); instead it is loyal to the Madhhab or Shia doctrine. It deals with citizens according to their religious sect. The armed forces have attacked people in the cities of Mosul, Anbar, Salahuddin, Diyala and Hawija. They have carried out arrests, torture and extortion. There have also been many cases of rape by members of the army, both outside and inside prisons.

But Mosul contributed to the recent elections, wasn't that a sign of hope for change through peaceful means?

QC: The last election was frustrating. Most of the political blocs accused the Prime Minister of rigging the election for the purpose of securing a large number of seats (93) in the Iraqi parliament. This has raised a fear among many politicians and citizens that Nouri al-Maliki would return for a third term as prime minister of Iraq, which would essentially amount to the creation of a new dictatorship. Everyone is aware how he has attempted during his two terms in power to increase his control over all aspects of political life, especially the “independent” commissions including the Electoral Commission and the Human Rights Commission. He accused his opponents in Parliament of crimes and had many arrested and imprisoned. Now the state security institutions are largely dominated by one sect (Shia) and are constantly fed sectarian ideology.

I think the insurgents planned this current invasion of the provinces to coincide with the announcement of final election results, which was an excellent time for them to suggest to the citizens that their revolution would rid the Sunnis of the sectarian Maliki government, which is now trying to control the state for a third term. Maybe this is why rebels received a warm welcome from some citizens in the provinces where the insurgents took over. When the gunmen entered the city of Mosul, the military was very weak due to fear of reprisals from the community (since most of the community hates the army). This explains why military commanders fled, and why the army was unable to defeat what was only a small number of insurgents.

Do you want the army to “free” the city of Mosul?

QC: I think the solution must be a political one first. The Iraqi army, if it acts professionally and patriotically, and works in collaboration with the people of the city, is capable of freeing Mosul from the insurgents. But there must be a military plan that takes into account the population of the city and ensures the safety of Mosul's civilians. There are a million civilians who may now be at risk. Aerial bombardment would be especially catastrophic for them.

What will help the civilians in Mosul? What is the role for the U.S. in the future of Mosul?

QC: I think we need to guarantee and strengthen the capacity and the activity of civil society, so that it becomes a link between the government and society, so that citizens are empowered to play a greater role in identifying and implementing solutions to problems in the future.

I think that recent events are the beginning of the division of Iraq into three regions (Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite). This is increasingly considered by many politicians to be the solution to political and armed conflict among the different groups in Iraq. The Kurdish authorities and the leaders of the insurgents seem to have agreed that this is what will happen. Iraqis were once unified, but the experience of the past eight years and the likely continuation of the current political situation makes it almost impossible for our cities to go on like this.

I think that America understands what is happening and that it will push for the division of Iraq. The US will not necessarily send its military to Mosul or Iraq, but it will clearly play a role in what will be agreed upon. People here want civilians to rule the city so we can solve our problems ourselves. We want the extremists to leave and we want the end of military activities and the presence of weapons. But at the same time we don't want to return to sectarian rule in any way.