Dear Friend,
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi declared on Friday that he will resign in the wake of the bloodiest day yet in two months of mass protests against social inequality, mass unemployment, the failure of basic public services and rampant corruption.
Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer and Angela Valenzuela write, "After more than a year of grim scientific projections and growing activism, world leaders, and the public alike are increasingly recognizing the severity and urgency of the climate crisis. And yet nothing has been done."
Kindly support honest journalism to survive. https://countercurrents.org/subscription/
If you think the contents of this news letter are critical for the dignified living and survival of humanity and other species on earth, please forward it to your friends and spread the word. It's time for humanity to come together as one family! You can subscribe to our news letter here http://www.countercurrents.org/news-letter/.
In Solidarity
Binu
Mathew
Editor
Countercurrents.org
Iraqi prime minister offers resignation after army unleashes bloodbath
by Bill Van Auken
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi declared on Friday that he will resign in the wake of the bloodiest day yet in two months of mass protests against social inequality, mass unemployment, the failure of basic public services and rampant corruption.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi declared on Friday that he will resign in the wake of the bloodiest day yet in two months of mass protests against social inequality, mass unemployment, the failure of basic public services and rampant corruption.
“I will submit to the esteemed parliament a formal letter requesting my resignation from the premiership,” he said. While the statement did not set a date for his departure, the parliament is set to convene an emergency session on Sunday to take up the matter of his replacement.
A wounded protester is carried to receive first aid during clashes with security forces on Rasheed Street in Baghdad, Iraq, Thursday, Nov. 28, 2019. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)
Abdul Mahdi’s announcement followed the massacre of protesters in two southern Iraqi cities and the capital of Baghdad. At least 62 were killed—most of them shot to death with live ammunition—between Wednesday night and Thursday night. The largest bloodbath was in the city of Nasiriyah, where at least 46 protesters died. Another 12 were killed in the Shia Muslim holy city of Najaf, and at least four were gunned down in Baghdad.
The latest killings bring the official death toll in the two months of protests to 408, with an estimated 15,000 wounded. The real toll is undoubtedly higher, given that the figures include only those reported by the police and the Iraqi Health Ministry.
This latest bloodbath was unleashed after the government ordered the Iraqi military command to establish “emergency cells” to “impose security and restore order” following Wednesday’s storming of the Iranian consulate in Najaf, a center for Shia religious leaders and site of shrines that are a major pilgrimage destination for Shia Muslims in Iran. While allowing the Iranian staff to flee the building, the anti-government demonstrators tore down the Iranian flag, hoisted an Iraqi one and then set the consulate ablaze.
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry condemned the attack on the consulate, charging that it had been carried out by “people outside of the genuine protesters” seeking to harm relations between Iraq and Iran. For its part, the Iranian Foreign Ministry blamed the arson attack on “destructive agents and aggressors.”
There are no doubt efforts by US imperialism and its allies in the region—Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil sheikdoms—to exploit the mass upheavals that have gripped Iraq since the beginning of October for the purpose of weakening Iranian influence in the region. At the same time, however, there is genuine anger against the bourgeois-clerical government in Tehran for its support of the Iraqi government and the sectarian Shia parties which dominate it. Tehran reportedly brokered an agreement earlier this month between the major Iraqi parliamentary blocs to forestall a previous move to secure Abdul Mahdi’s resignation.
Abdul Mahdi’s vow to resign also came in direct response to a sermon by Iraq’s senior Shia Muslim religious authority, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, delivered Friday by his representative in Najaf. In it, he indicted the government for its “clear inability” to deal with the mounting unrest over the past two months, while stating that the use of deadly force against peaceful protesters was “forbidden.” At the same time, al-Sistani warned that “enemies and their apparatuses are trying to sow chaos and infighting to return the country to the age of dictatorship.”
“The parliament, from which this current government is drawn, is asked to consider its choice in this regard and act according to Iraq’s interest … [to] preserve the blood of its children,” the sermon concluded.
The announcement by Abdul Mahdi acknowledged al-Sistani’s sermon and echoed its language. It called for the government to “act in the interests of Iraq: to preserve the blood of its people; and to avoid slipping into a cycle of violence, chaos and devastation.”
The day before, Muqtada al-Sadr, the politically influential Shia cleric who backs parliament’s largest bloc and was instrumental in bringing Mahdi’s coalition to power, had called for the prime minister’s immediate resignation, warning that if he stayed it would spell “the beginning of the end of Iraq” and a potential descent into violence on the level of Syria.
No doubt, another factor influencing the attempt to defuse the conflict through Abdul Mahdi’s resignation was the mobilization of armed members of southern Iraqi tribes who confronted security forces attacking the demonstrators.
Abdul Mahdi’s announcement was greeted with celebration in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the protest movement that has spread throughout much of the country’s predominantly Shia south and led to strikes by teachers and students as well as other sections of the Iraqi working class.
At the same time, however, many of the demonstrators stressed that the prime minister’s ouster did not begin to meet their demands for sweeping political, economic and social transformations.
Abdul Mahdi was chosen as the compromise candidate by the various sectarian parties that dominate Iraqi politics and defend the interests of the corrupt ruling oligarchy that emerged in the wake of the US invasion in 2003 and the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein. A political mediocrity, he went from being a Baathist, to a member of the Stalinist Communist Party, to a follower of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, until finally winding up as a minister in the puppet regime installed by the US military occupation in 2004.
Amidst the dancing and singing in response to the resignation announcement, a speaker at Tahrir Square urged the protesters not to leave. “We want to bring down the regime,” he said.
Dabdab, 28, told the Washington Post that Abdul Mahdi’s resignation was insufficient and that the prime minister should be tried for the mass murder and maiming of protesters. “We want to change everything: all these thieves and faces,” he said. “This resignation is only step one, but it’s not what we came for. We want our country back.”
“This step is not enough for most Iraqis, especially after so many people have died,” Zainab, 29, told Al Jazeera .
The bulk of the demonstrators who have poured into Iraq’s streets by the hundreds of thousands are drawn from a generation that has been formed by the horrors of the US war and occupation, which decimated Iraqi society.
The official unemployment rate among younger workers in Iraq is 25 percent, with the real figure undoubtedly substantially higher. Hundreds of thousands of youth, including many university graduates, attempt to enter the labor market each year to confront the impossibility of finding a job without political connections. The present mass protests were preceded by sit-ins by university graduates outside government ministries demanding employment. Youth make up some 60 percent of Iraq’s population.
According to World Bank figures, 7 million of Iraq’s 38 million people live below the poverty line, while 53 percent are vulnerable to food insecurity. At least two million Iraqis remain internally displaced. US militarism’s systematic destruction of infrastructure, including electricity, water and sanitation, along with the gutting of the country’s once advanced public health system, have led to a shocking decline in health and life expectancy, which stands at just 58.7 years for men and 62.9 years for women.
While Iraq’s oil production is surpassed only by that of Saudi Arabia and Russia, bringing in $1 trillion in revenues since 2005, this wealth has fattened the profits of major foreign energy transnationals, while enriching their local agents and the corrupt bourgeois layer that controls the government in Baghdad. For the masses of Iraqis, living standards have only declined.
Initially, Abdul Mahdi dismissed the protesters’ demands for jobs, better living conditions and an end to corruption, proclaiming that there existed no “magic solution.” His subsequent attempt to pawn off a set of cosmetic reforms was met with overwhelming rejection by the people in the streets.
The Iraq protests have expressed the mass popular rejection of sectarian politics, which were promoted by the US occupation as part of a strategy of divide and rule. The center of the mass rebellion has been the predominantly Shia regions that the ruling Shia sectarian parties claim to represent. The revolt has made clear that the central issue in Iraq, as all over the world, is class, not religion, nationality or ethnicity.
The demands of the Iraqi masses, like those of workers who have taken to the streets by their millions from Chile to Lebanon, cannot be resolved outside of the overthrow of capitalism on a world scale.
Originally published by WSWS.org
Iraqis Rise Up Against 16 Years of ‘Made in the USA’ Corruption
by Nicolas J S Davies
Iraqis are mourning 60 protesters killed by police and soldiers on Thursday in Baghdad, Najaf and Nasiriyah. Nearly 400 protesters have been killed since hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets at the beginning of October. Human rights groups have described the crisis in Iraq as a “bloodbath,”
Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi has announced he will resign, and Sweden has opened an investigation against Iraqi Defense Minister Najah Al-Shammari, who is a Swedish citizen, for crimes against humanity.
Iraqis are mourning 60 protesters killed by police and soldiers on Thursday in Baghdad, Najaf and Nasiriyah. Nearly 400 protesters have been killed since hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets at the beginning of October. Human rights groups have described the crisis in Iraq as a “bloodbath,” Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi has announced he will resign, and Sweden has opened an investigation against Iraqi Defense Minister Najah Al-Shammari, who is a Swedish citizen, for crimes against humanity.
According to Al Jazeera, “Protesters are demanding the overthrow of a political class seen as corrupt and serving foreign powers while many Iraqis languish in poverty without jobs, healthcare or education.” Only 36% of the adult population of Iraq have jobs, and despite the gutting of the public sector under U.S. occupation, its tattered remnants still employ more people than the private sector, which fared even worse under the violence and chaos of the U.S.’s militarized shock doctrine.
Western reporting conveniently casts Iran as the dominant foreign player in Iraq today. But while Iran has gained enormous influence and is one of the targets of the protests, most of the people ruling Iraq today are still the former exiles that the U.S. flew in with its occupation forces in 2003, “coming to Iraq with empty pockets to fill” as a taxi-driver in Baghdad told a Western reporter at the time. The real causes of Iraq’s unending political and economic crisis are these former exiles’ betrayal of their country, their endemic corruption and the U.S.’s illegitimate role in destroying Iraq’s government, handing it over to them and maintaining them in power for 16 years.
The corruption of both U.S. and Iraqi officials during the U.S. occupation is well documented. UN Security Council resolution 1483 established a $20 billion Development Fund for Iraq using previously seized Iraqi assets, money left in the UN’s “oil for food” program and new Iraqi oil revenues. An audit by KPMG and a special inspector general found that a huge proportion of that money was stolen or embezzled by U.S. and Iraqi officials.
Lebanese customs officials found $13 million in cash aboard Iraqi-American interim Interior Minister Falah Naqib’s plane. Occupation crime boss Paul Bremer maintained a $600 million slush fund with no paperwork. An Iraqi government ministry with 602 employees collected salaries for 8,206. A U.S. Army officer doubled the price on a contract to rebuild a hospital, and told the hospital’s director the extra cash was his “retirement package.” A U.S. contractor billed $60 million on a $20 million contract to rebuild a cement factory, and told Iraqi officials they should just be grateful the U.S. had saved them from Saddam Hussein. A U.S. pipeline contractor charged $3.4 million for non-existent workers and “other improper charges.” Out of 198 contracts reviewed by the inspector general, only 44 had documentation to confirm the work was done.
U.S. “paying agents” distributing money for projects around Iraq pocketed millions of dollars in cash.The inspector general only investigated one area, around Hillah, but found $96.6 million dollars unaccounted for in that area alone. One American agent could not account for $25 million, while another could only account for $6.3 million out of $23 million. The “Coalition Provisional Authority” used agents like these all over Iraq and simply “cleared” their accounts when they left the country. One agent who was challenged came back the next day with $1.9 million in missing cash.
The U.S. Congress also budgeted $18.4 billion for reconstruction in Iraq in 2003, but apart from $3.4 billion diverted to “security,” less than $1 billion of it was ever disbursed. Many Americans believe U.S. oil companies have made out like bandits in Iraq, but that’s not true either. The plans that Western oil companies drew up with Vice President Cheney in 2001 had that intent, but a law to grant Western oil companies lucrative “production sharing agreements” (PSAs) worth tens of billions per year was exposed as a smash and grab raid and the Iraqi National Assembly refused to pass it.
Finally, in 2009, Iraq’s leaders and their U.S. puppet-masters gave up on PSAs (for the time being…) and invited foreign oil companies to bid on “technical service agreements” (TSAs) worth $1 to $6 per barrel for increases in production from Iraqi oilfields. Ten years later, production has only increased to 4.6 million barrels per day, of which 3.8 million are exported. From Iraqi oil exports of about $80 billion per year, foreign firms with TSAs earn only $1.4 billion, and the largest contracts are not held by U.S. firms. China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) is earning about $430 million in 2019; BP earns $235 million; Malaysia’s Petronas $120 million; Russia’s Lukoil $105 million; and Italy’s ENI $100 million. The bulk of Iraq’s oil revenues still flow through the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC) to the corrupt U.S.-backed government in Baghdad.
Another legacy of the U.S. occupation is Iraq’s convoluted election system and the undemocratic horse-trading by which the executive branch of the Iraqi government is selected. The 2018 election was contested by 143 parties grouped into 27 coalitions or “lists,” plus 61 other independent parties. Ironically, this is similar to the contrived, multi-layered political system the British created to control Iraq and exclude Shiites from power after the Iraqi revolt of 1920.
Today, this corrupt system keeps dominant power in the hands of a cabal of corrupt Shiite and Kurdish politicians who spent many years in exile in the West, working with Ahmed Chalabi’s U.S.-based Iraqi National Congress (INC), Ayad Allawi’s U.K.-based Iraqi National Accord (INA) and various factions of the Shiite Islamist Dawa Party. Voter turnout has dwindled from 70% in 2005 to 44.5% in 2018.
Ayad Allawi and the INA were the instrument for the CIA’s hopelessly bungled military coup in Iraq in 1996. The Iraqi government followed every detail of the plot on a closed-circuit radio handed over by one of the conspirators and arrested all the CIA’s agents inside Iraq on the eve of the coup. It executed thirty military officers and jailed a hundred more, leaving the CIA with no human intelligence from inside Iraq.
Ahmed Chalabi and the INC filled that vacuum with a web of lies that warmongering U.S. officials fed into the echo chamber of the U.S. corporate media to justify the invasion of Iraq. On June 26th 2002, the INC sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee to lobby for more U.S. funding. It identified its “Information Collection Program” as the primary source for 108 stories about Iraq’s fictitious “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and links to Al-Qaeda in U.S. and international newspapers and magazines.
After the invasion, Allawi and Chalabi became leading members of the U.S. occupation’s Iraqi Governing Council. Allawi was appointed Prime Minister of Iraq’s interim government in 2004, and Chalabi was appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Oil Minister in the transitional government in 2005. Chalabi failed to win a seat in the 2005 National Assembly election, but was later elected to the assembly and remained a powerful figure until his death in 2015. Allawi and the INA are still involved in the horse-trading for senior positions after every election, despite never getting more than 8% of the votes – and only 6% in 2018.
These are the senior ministers of the new Iraqi government formed after the 2018 election, with some details of their Western backgrounds:
Adil Abdul-Mahdi – Prime Minister (France). Born in Baghdad in 1942. Father was a government minister under the British-backed monarchy. Lived in France from 1969-2003, earning a Ph.D in politics at Poitiers. In France, he became a follower of Ayatollah Khomeini and a founding member of the Iran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) in 1982. Was SCIRI’s representative in Iraqi Kurdistan for a period in the 1990s. After the invasion, he became Finance Minister in Allawi’s interim government in 2004; Vice President from 2005-11; Oil Minister from 2014-16.
Barham Salih – President (U.K. & U.S.). Born in Sulaymaniyah in 1960. Ph.D. in Engineering (Liverpool – 1987). Joined Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in 1976. Jailed for 6 weeks in in 1979 and left Iraq for the U.K. PUK representative in London from 1979-91; head of PUK office in Washington from 1991-2001. President of Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) from 2001-4; Deputy PM in interim Iraqi government in 2004; Planning Minister in transitional government in 2005; Deputy PM from 2006-9; Prime Minister of KRG from 2009-12.
Mohamed Ali Alhakim – Foreign Minister (U.K. & U.S.). Born in Najaf in 1952. M.Sc. (Birmingham), Ph.D. in Telecom Engineering (Southern California), Professor at Northeastern University in Boston 1995-2003. After the invasion, he became Deputy Secretary-General and Planning Coordinator in the Iraqi Governing Council; Communications Minister in interim government in 2004; Planning Director at Foreign Ministry, and Economic Adviser to VP Abdul-Mahdi from 2005-10; and UN Ambassador from 2010-18.
Fuad Hussein – Finance Minister & Deputy PM (Netherlands & France). Born in Khanaqin (majority Kurdish town in Diyala province) in 1946. Joined Kurdish Student Union and Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) as a student in Baghdad. Lived in Netherlands from 1975-87; incomplete Ph.D. in International Relations; married to Dutch Christian woman. Appointed deputy head of Kurdish Institute in Paris in 1987. Attended Iraqi exile political conferences in Beirut (1991), New York (1999) & London (2002). After the invasion, he became an adviser at the Education Ministry from 2003-5; and Chief of Staff to Masoud Barzani, President of the KRG, from 2005-17.
Thamir Ghadhban – Oil Minister & Deputy PM (U.K.). Born in Karbala in 1945. B.Sc. (UCL) & M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering (Imperial College, London). Joined Basra Petroleum Co. in 1973. Director General of Engineering and then Planning at Iraqi Oil Ministry from 1989-92. Imprisoned for 3 months and demoted in 1992, but did not leave Iraq, and was reappointed Director General of Planning in 2001. After the invasion, he was promoted to CEO of Oil Ministry; Oil Minister in the interim government in 2004; elected to National Assembly in 2005 and served on 3-man committee that drafted the failed oil law; chaired Prime Minister’s Advisors’ Committee from 2006-16.
Major General (Retd) Najah Al-Shammari – Defense Minister (Sweden). Born in Baghdad in 1967. The only Sunni Arab among senior ministers. Military officer since 1987. Has lived in Sweden and may have been member of Allawi’s INA before 2003. Senior officer in U.S.-backed Iraqi special forces recruited from INC, INA and Kurdish Peshmerga from 2003-7. Deputy commander of “counterterrorism” forces 2007-9. Residency in Sweden 2009-15. Swedish citizen since 2015. Reportedly under investigation for benefits fraud in Sweden, and now for crimes against humanity in killing of over 300 protesters in October-November 2019.
In 2003, the U.S. and its allies unleashed unspeakable, systematic violence against the people of Iraq. Public health experts reliably estimated that the first three years of war and hostile military occupation cost about 650,000 Iraqi lives. But the U.S. did succeed in installing a puppet government of formerly Western-based Shiite and Kurdish politicians in the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, with control over Iraq’s oil revenues. As we can see, many of the ministers in the U.S.-appointed interim government in 2004 are still ruling Iraq today.
U.S. forces deployed ever-escalating violence against Iraqis who resisted the invasion and hostile military occupation of their country. In 2004, the U.S. began training a large force of Iraqi police commandos for the Interior Ministry, and unleashed commando units recruited from SCIRI’s Badr Brigade militia as death squads in Baghdad in April 2005. This U.S.-backed reign of terror peaked in the summer of 2006, with the corpses of as many as 1,800 victims brought to the Baghdad morgue each month. An Iraqi human rights group examined 3,498 bodies of summary execution victims and identified 92% of them as people arrested by Interior Ministry forces.
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency tracked “enemy-initiated attacks” throughout the occupation and found that over 90% were against U.S. and allied military targets, not “sectarian” attacks on civilians. But the U.S. officials used a narrative of “sectarian violence” to blame the work of U.S.-trained Interior Ministry death squads on independent Shiite militias like Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
The government Iraqis are protesting against today is still led by the same gang of U.S.-backed Iraqi exiles who wove a web of lies to stage manage the invasion of their own country in 2003, and then hid behind the walls of the Green Zone while U.S. forces and death squads slaughtered their people to make the country “safe” for their corrupt government.
More recently they again acted as cheerleaders as American bombs, rockets and artillery reduced most of Mosul, Iraq’s second city, to rubble, after twelve years of occupation, corruption and savage repression drove its people into the arms of the Islamic State. Kurdish intelligence reports revealed that more than 40,000 civilians were killed in the U.S.-led destruction of Mosul.
The cost of rebuilding Mosul, Fallujah and other cities and towns is conservatively estimated at $88 billion. But despite $80 billion per year in oil exports and a federal budget of over $100 billion, the Iraqi government has allocated no money at all for reconstruction. Foreign, mostly wealthy Arab countries, have pledged $30 billion, including just $3 billion from the U.S., but very little of that has been, or may ever be, delivered. On the pretext of fighting the Islamic State, the U.S. has reestablished a huge military base for over 5,000 U.S. troops at Al-Asad airbase in Anbar province.
The history of Iraq since 2003 has been a never-ending disaster for its people. Many of this new generation of Iraqis who have grown up amid the ruins and chaos the U.S. occupation left in its wake believe they have nothing to lose but their blood and their lives, as they take to the streets to reclaim their dignity, their future and their country’s sovereignty.
The bloody handprints of U.S. officials and their Iraqi puppets all over this crisis should stand as a dire warning to Americans of the predictably catastrophic results of an illegal foreign policy based on sanctions, coups, threats and the use of military force to try to impose the will of deluded U.S. leaders on people all over the world.
Nicolas J.S.Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He is an independent journalist and a researcher for CODEPINK.
Why We Strike Again
Co-Written by Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer and Angela Valenzuela
After more than a year of grim scientific projections and growing activism, world leaders, and the public alike are increasingly recognizing the severity and urgency of the climate crisis. And yet nothing has been done.
Co-Written by Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer and Angela Valenzuela
After more than a year of grim scientific projections and growing activism, world leaders, and the public alike are increasingly recognizing the severity and urgency of the climate crisis. And yet nothing has been done.
For more than a year, children and young people from around the world have been striking for the climate. We launched a movement that defied all expectations, with millions of people lending their voices – and their bodies – to the cause. We did this not because it was our dream, but because we didn’t see anyone else taking action to secure our future. And despite the vocal support we have received from many adults – including some of the world’s most powerful leaders – we still don’t.
Striking is not a choice we relish; we do it because we see no other options. We have watched a string of United Nations climate conferences unfold. Countless negotiations have produced much-hyped but ultimately empty commitments from the world’s governments – the same governments that allow fossil-fuel companies to drill for ever-more oil and gas, and burn away our futures for their profit.
Politicians and fossil-fuel companies have known about climate change for decades. And yet the politicians let the profiteers continue to exploit our planet’s resources and destroy its ecosystems in a quest for quick cash that threatens our very existence.
Don’t take our word for it: scientists are sounding the alarm. They warn that we have never been less likely to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels – the threshold beyond which the most destructive effects of climate change would be triggered.
Worse, recent research shows that we are on track to produce 120% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with the 1.5°C limit.The concentration of climate-heating greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has reached a record high, with no sign of a slowdown. Even if countries fulfill their current emissions-reduction pledges, we are headed for a 3.2°C increase.
Young people like us bear the brunt of our leaders’ failures. Research shows that pollution from burning fossil fuels is the world’s most significant threat to children’s health. Just this month, five million masks were handed out at schools in New Delhi, India’s capital, owing to toxic smog. Fossil fuels are literally choking the life from us.
The science is crying out for urgent action, and still our leaders dare to ignore it. So we continue to fight.
After a year of strikes, our voices are being heard. We are being invited to speak in the corridors of power. At the UN, we addressed a room filled with world leaders. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, we met with prime ministers, presidents, and even the pope. We have spent hundreds of hours participating in panels and speaking with journalists and filmmakers. We have been offered awards for our activism.
Our efforts have helped to shift the wider conversation on climate change. People now increasingly discuss the crisis we face, not in whispers or as an afterthought, but publicly and with a sense of urgency. Polls confirm changing perceptions. One recent survey showed that, in seven of the eight countries included, climate breakdown is considered to be the most important issue facing the world. Another confirmed that schoolchildren have led the way in raising awareness.
With public opinion shifting, world leaders, too, say that they have heard us. They say that they agree with our demand for urgent action to tackle the climate crisis. But they do nothing. As they head to Madrid for the 25th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, we call out this hypocrisy.
On the next two Fridays, we will again take to the streets: worldwide on November 29, and in Madrid, Santiago, and many other places on December 6 during the UN climate conference. Schoolchildren, young people, and adults all over the world will stand together, demanding that our leaders take action – not because we want them to, but because the science demands it.
That action must be powerful and wide-ranging. After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.
Some say that the Madrid conference is not very important; the big decisions will be made at COP26 in Glasgow next year. We disagree. As the science makes clear, we don’t have a single day to lose.
We have learned that, if we do not step up, nobody will. So we will keep up a steady drumbeat of strikes, protests, and other actions. We will become louder and louder. We will do whatever it takes to persuade our leaders to unite behind science so clear that even children understand it.
Collective action works; we have proved that. But to change everything, we need everyone. Each and every one of us must participate in the climate resistance movement. We cannot just say we care; we must show it.
Join us. Participate in our upcoming climate strikes in Madrid or in your hometown. Show your community, the fossil-fuel industry, and your political leaders that you will not tolerate inaction on climate change anymore. With numbers on our side, we have a chance.
And to the leaders who are headed to Madrid, our message is simple: the eyes of all future generations are upon you. Act accordingly.
© 2019 Project Syndicate
Delhi’s air pollution woes require an out of the box solution
by Sagar Dhara
Delhi has a low pollution load carrying capacity due its climate and city structure. It crossed its carrying capacity more than 2 decades back. To tackle Delhi's intractable air pollution woes, engineering control methods have been used. They have
not worked. What Delhi requires are administrative control methods that will reduce its pollution load. Government has too much inertia to switch from engineering to administrative control methods. Only people's pressure can make them do that. In the long run, even administrative control methods will not work; only reducing Delhi's pollution load by shrinking the city will help.
Every October as the rains recede, Delhi prepares to choke on poisoned air which peaks for 3 months from around Deepawali. This year the Delhi Government even asked public for suggestions on how to cope with these recurrent foul air episodes, which was particularly bad this year. PM2.5 (particulate matter below 2.5 microns in diameter) concentrations, a good surrogate for all air pollutants, ranged above 500 µg/m3, i.e., nearly ten times the national standard of 60 µg/m3 for a 24 hour period, and twenty times the World Health Organization’s guidelines.
Attempts to tackle Delhi’s air quality woes
Delhi’s extreme air pollution problem, which worsens in winter, is not a new one. In the last two decades it has received more attention than any other urban air pollution problem in the world, but in vain.
To understand the contours of Delhi’s air pollution problem, five detailed studies were done in the last decade. In this period 35 automatic air quality monitoring stations, each costing over Rs 1 crore that generate online data every 15 minutes were installed.
Conversion of public transport vehicles to run on CNG and the introduction of better quality fuel began in the 1990s. Today, Delhi’s fleet of 5,500 buses is the largest CNG fleet in the world. Another 1,000 CNG buses and an equal number of electric buses are to be added by the middle of next year. The use of BS 6 fuel (with one-tenth the sulphur content of fuel supplied today) will become mandatory in India from the middle of 2020. But it became available in Delhi and 19 surrounding districts in Haryana, Rajasthan and UP since end-September.
Twenty years back Delhi had no metro. Today, with 389 km route length and over one billion riders per annum, it has jumped to become the sixth largest metro in the world. The metro was meant to reduce private vehicles on Delhi’s roads. Instead, as some bus commuters shifted to the metro, they made way for more private vehicles on the road, proving that the Jevon’s paradox is at work in Delhi. The building of a large number of flyovers in Delhi also has had the same effect.
Yet, Delhi’s air pollution woes persist. Delhi’s air quality data records indicate that hourly averages of PM2.5 concentrations have regularly peaked in the range 500-1,000 µg/m3 for over 10 years, particularly in October-November. And there is no sign of abatement.
To stave off the foul air nightmare this winter, several new air pollution mitigation measures have been introduced this year. Fifty four WAYU air filters that can suck dust and burn hydrocarbons in their surrounding air are being installed at some traffic junctions. After introducing it twice in 2016, the even-odd rule, which allows cars with certain number plates to run on alternate days, was re-introduced recently. None of these measures helped, including the even-odd rule, and PM2.5 concentrations remained above 400 µg/m3, making Delhi’s air unbreathable. The Supreme Court appointed Environmental Pollution Control Authority pushed for a temporary ban on non-CNG vehicles, i.e., 85% of registered private vehicles in Delhi, but was opposed on grounds that Delhi’s woefully inadequate public transport system would break down completely if this were done.
Engineering controls have failed
A senior functionary of the Central Pollution Control Board once remarked, “We have the same technology as that of developed countries, so why is Delhi’s air quality so poor?” To answer that question, we need to ask whether our environmental managers missed reading the Delhi air quality problem correctly, and failed to provide workable solutions that are appropriate for Delhi.
Take the case of the expensive online monitoring stations that were installed in Delhi. Information theory 101 tells us that online information is useful when immediate action can be done. For example, when there is a process upset in a reactor, the operator takes corrective action immediately. On days that Delhi had high air pollution levels, did the online data help in diverting vehicular traffic away from polluted areas, thus reducing air pollution loads in these areas? Or were commuters diverted from surface transport into the metro, reducing their exposure to air pollution? Apparently not!
Why were passive samplers not made regulatory instruments, despite a proven record of their ability to provide decision-support information that is as good as that provided by automatic stations, but at a cost that is lower by an order of magnitude of 3 times? Or is the classic syndrome of “big toys for the big boys” at work, where the environment managers make believe that big toys can do the job best.
Passive sampler
Delhi’s rapid vehicular growth and continued poor air quality in the last two decades quite clearly indicates that the Delhi metro, while facilitating public transport, did not contribute to improving the city’s air quality because it did not wean away a sufficient number of private vehicle riders. The Delhi metro has in fact added to pollution loads as last mile connectivity from metro stations to onward destinations is largely by autos, and not by non-polluting trips, i.e., by walk and cycles. If the last mile ride is by battery-operated autos, the point of pollution is transferred from the prime mover to the power plant, where air pollution causes significant crop yield losses and respiratory illness in a radius upto 25 km around thermal power plants, and which has so far remained unadressed. And if the auto is fossil fuelled, it adds to Delhi’s air pollution.
Has using CNG and lower sulphur content liquid fuels helped? Yes, they have reduced SO2 concentrations in Delhi, but not that of NO2 and PM2.5. The cost of moving to cleaner fuels is hidden in the large investment that refineries made to remove additional sulphur from crude oil, and vehicle manufacturers in fine tuning engines.
The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute that fabricated the WAYU air filters that were recently installed in Delhi, claims that these machines have an effective pollution cleaning area of 500 m2, i.e., an of 25 m x 20 m; that makes it a large room cleaner. The claimed filtering efficiency of ~80% for PM2.5 and ~40-50% for hydrocarbons in open spaces is still to be demonstrated. Even if that efficiency were achieved, how many hundreds or thousands of such machines would Delhi require? How often would the filters have to be replaced in Delhi’s choked air? And is the cleanup cost just the price of the machine, i.e., Rs 60,000, or should running and maintenance costs be added?
The efficacy and cost-benefit of the measures taken to control pollution in Delhi is yet to be adequately evaluated. Such an evaluation must also be communicated in a language that people understand. Linking Delhi’s air quality to incidence and prevalence of respiratory illnesses like asthma is better understood by public rather than expressing pollution concentrations as µg/m3 or air quality as AQI. This would also help understand to what extent air quality standards have helped in improving environmental health.
In a rare moment of truth, a former Ministry of Environment official admitted three years ago that, “We have failed to control Delhi’s air pollution.” So what went wrong? Delhi’s environmental managers followed “handed down wisdom” from North countries that used engineering control systems, consequently technological solutions, to control their pollution problems after having polluted their cities.
Two factors impede engineering control systems from delivering tangible results in Delhi. First, the average wind speeds in tropical countries are significantly lower than in temperate countries.
World wind speed map
For example, Delhi’s annual average wind speed is ~2.6 m/s, whereas London’s is double that.
Ground level pollution concentration is inversely proportional to wind speed. Given the same pollution load, Delhi’s ground level pollution concentrations will be twice that of London. Moreover, Delhi and much of North India have bad inversions in winter. Given this climatic disadvantage, the cost of using engineering control systems is Delhi prohibitively high, that is if it works at all.
(Source: weatherspark.com)
Additional pollution loads and adverse meteorology contribute to high pollution levels in October-November. Deepawali crackers and burning stubble from kharif paddy harvests in Punjab, Haryana and Western UP cause a greater pollution load for about 2-3 weeks in these months. And a post monsoon wind shift blowing from the south-east to north-west waft pollutants from stubble burning in North India directly into Delhi and carry them further south-east along the Indo-Gangetic plain.
October-November have the lowest wind speeds (<1 air="" along="" also="" and="" are="" burning="" cause="" deepawali="" delhi="" dispersion="" fig="" for="" frequency="" greatest="" greatly="" have="" higher="" impede="" in="" inversions.="" loads="" m="" meteorological="" monsoon="" moreover="" of="" p="" phenomenons="" pollution="" post="" responsible="" s="" see="" stubble="" temperature="" that="" the="" these="" they="" with="" woes.="" year.="">
PM2.5 trend from Oct 1, 2017 to Feb 25, 2018 for 17 locations in Delhi
(Source: CSE’s analysis of CPCB air quality data from 17 monitoring stations)
And this has been happening year after year.
Comparison of PM2.5 concentration for 4 locations-2017-18 and 2016-17
(Source: CSE’s analysis of CPCB air quality data from 4 DPCC monitoring stations– Mandir Marg, Punjabi Bagh, RK Puramand Anand Vihar)
The second factor that works against engineering control systems is Delhi’s city structure. Delhi is two cities rolled into one–an older one built much earlier, with narrow streets meant for animal carts and pedestrians; and a newer one built more recently, with broad streets for high density flow of fossil fuelled vehicles. Like most other cities in developing countries, Delhi is a semi-fossil fuelled city that cannot be changed easily. The old city’s narrow streets act as box traps for air pollutants; and above-grade metro deck in some parts of the old city only make pollution trapping worse.
In the year 1900, European and North American cities were non-fossil fuelled cities. Over the next 100 years, they increased their urbanization from 17% to 75% and built fully fossil fuelled cities. Upwards of 0.3 Mtoe of energy is required to build 1 km2 of a greenfield fully fossil fuelled city, or convert a semi-fossil fuelled one into a fully fossil fuelled one. That entails a minimum investment of Rs 2,000 crores per km2. The Europeans and Americans siphoned money to build their cities from their hinterlands, colonies and through unequal exchange with developing countries. Developing countries will find it hard pressed today to make such large investments for converting their cities into fully fossil fuelled ones, and therefore will have to be content with their cities remaining semi-fossil fuelled cities.
Old Delhi’s narrow streets, the addition of ~70,000 new vehicles per annum to the existing 1 crore registered vehicles in Delhi, low wind speeds and adverse meteorology make a perfect recipe for high pollution loads and poor dispersion that contribute to Delhi’s filthy air. Little of this that can be changed using engineering controls, and the little if any that can be done will be prohibitively expensive. The use of engineering controls in Delhi is akin to a walker having to walk ever faster to remain in the same place.
Haze in Delhi’s old city
Administrative controls—more likely to work
Since studies done on Delhi’s air pollution place transport emissions as the largest contributor (18-39%) to PM2.5 concentrations, followed by edaphic source (soil) dust (18-38%) and industry emissions (2-29%), let us deal with transport emissions.
A vast majority of trip modes in Delhi are by walk. Ironically, pavements and cycle paths get the least investment. In India of trips other than by walk and non-fossil fuelled transport modes, e.g., bicycles, almost 80% are by buses and trains and the energy expended by them is only 30% of the total transport sector energy expenditure. Whereas car trips constitute 8% of all trips but consume 40% of energy expended. The emissions of a person going by bus or train is ten times less than if he went by car. If our past transport planning was responsible for this, surely there is now a need for a re-think on whether we have done things the right way to minimize emissions. And this includes retrofitting Delhi with CNG as a fuel.
Energy use and emissions in various transport modes in India in 2012
| Trip mode | Car | Auto | Plane | 2-wheeler | Bus | Train |
| Energy use (Mega Joules/passenger.kilometer for single occupancy) | 2.9 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.25 | 0.1 |
| CO2 emissions (kg/passenger.km for single occupancy) | 0.24 | 0.14 | 0.1 | 0.055 | 0.024 | 0.02 |
| Per cent travel (pass.km) by each mode (%) | 8 | 3 | 0.6 | 10 | 66.4 | 12 |
| Per cent of total energy expended by each mode (%) | 40 | 11 | 2 | 17 | 28 | 2 |
Applying the philosophical principle of Occam’s Razor (avoid excessively complex solutions) to Delhi’s intractable pollution problem indicates that minimizing emissions if not eliminating them is a better solution than to first allow pollution then look for clean up solutions later. Consequently, administrative controls methods, which uses non-engineering measures to eliminate or minimize emissions, should be given priority over engineering controls.
Transport emissions are very amenable to minimization through administrative controls by reduction of trip[2] frequency and distance, and altering trip mode, first from private to public transport, and next from fossil fuelled public transport to non-fossil fuelled transport such as bicycles.
Trip distance reduction, for example, can be done in Delhi by mandating that school children go by school buses to neighbourhood schools that were not more than 2 km from home. Neighbourhood schools are in vogue in several developed countries. If the average travel distance saved by each of Delhi’s 7.5 million school children is 8 km per day (assuming that 90% of these trips are by bus and 10% by cars), about 250 million litres of diesel/petrol costing ~Rs 1,800 crores per annum, would be saved. The reduced emissions would improve air quality in Delhi significantly. Moreover, neighbourhood schools will improve educational standards in government schools and reduce the cultural divide between the rich and the poor.
Greater use of bicycles can be encouraged by increasing the number of bicycle pathways, cycle parking bays at metro stations and allowing bicycles to be carried onto metro trains. These measures will help in partially replacing autos with bicycles to do last mile connectivity to metros stations, thus reducing emissions. If 5% of metro riders switched from autos to bicycles for their last mile connectivity distance of 6 km each day, about 7.5 million litres of diesel/petrol, costing Rs 50 crores, would be saved each year, improving Delhi’s air quality.
There are other ways of reducing transport emissions. One of them is a vehicle (bicycles, 2-wheelers, cars) share schemes. A subscriber to such a scheme can pick up a vehicle from any point and drop it off at another point in the scheme’s jurisdiction. Access to a vehicle is gained by using a common key or by punching a password to a server through a mobile phone. The vehicles could be tracked using GPS trackers.
Over 1,000 cities around the world, including four in India, operate such schemes. Car share systems have become popular in cities like York. A variation of this scheme is vehicle-pooling, which is already being implemented on a small scale.
Emission can also be reduced by declaring certain parts of the city, e.g., Connought Place, as “vehicle-free.” As a public service, a few electric vehicles for senior citizens, and a cycle share scheme for general public may be allowed. Such vehicle-free zones exist in many cities. Likewise, vehicle registration and parking fees in inner city areas could be hiked, as has been done in many parts of the world. One way streets could also be increased significantly.
If annual carbon and energy footprinting by all organizations–government ministries and departments (central and state), enterprises (corporations, firms, shops and establishments) were mandated by law, like financial audits, and footprints were to be reduced by 3% per year, Delhi could halve its carbon and energy footprint in 20 years.
Implementing administrative controls requires public will
Can the present environment managers (Environmental Pollution Authority, Delhi Pollution Control Committee, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change) implement such measures? I doubt it. Their jurisdiction, as defined by environmental laws, is narrow and confined to pollution control (read “largely end of the pipe control”). Environmental managers require the cooperation of other departments to implement the above suggestions, and obtaining that is an uphill task. The more important question is whether the Union and the Delhi governments have the will to cleanup Delhi.
It is only Delhi’s citizens who can have such administrative control measures implemented by collectively pushing for them. If Delhi’s citizens wish to have cleaner air, they will have to fight for it.
Long run solution is de-growth
But the story does not end there. Administrative control of emissions is a transient measure that can minimize pollution loads, but cannot control Delhi’s adverse climate and the city’s structure, the city’s environmental nemesis. If the city is allowed to expand its pollution load will increase, and administrative controls, however good they may be, will not save Delhi from becoming a hell on earth.
Mathura, a small city located 100 km south of Delhi has an interesting tale to tell. Like Delhi it has low wind speeds and winter inversions that are worse than Delhi’s. A paper by Padmanabhamurthy and Mandal published in Mausam, the India Meteorological Department’s journal, in 1979 warned that Mathura has a high pollution potential. Yet, the UP Pollution Control Board website reports the Air Quality Index (AQI) for Mathura to be moderate (138-149) in October 2019. Whereas Delhi’s AQI for the same period was poor (average of 239), and had even dipped to the severe category (400-500) on occasion. Mathura did not suffer the same fate of poisoned air that Delhi did because of its relatively small pollution loads.
The moral of the story—Engineering control measures have not saved Delhi from the ravages of air pollution despite expensive cleanup measures adopted so far because of the low pollution load carrying capacity the city has. Administrative control measures, which help curb pollution loads, may be a better way to control air pollution in Delhi, but require massive public support in the face of stiff resistance from Delhi’s environmental managers who are entrenched in engineering control methodology.
In the long run, even administrative controls will not help a growing Delhi as it will fall into the trap of the Jevon’s Paradox. Stopping Delhi’s growth, capping its emissions, and moving towards de-growth can de-toxify Delhi’s atmosphere.
Sagar Dhara is an environmental engineer specialized in risk analysis
Originally published in Firstpost, 28 Nov 2019
[2] A trip is the travel made by a person from one point to another. A trip is characterized by its distance, frequency and mode. A trip mode is the type of transport mechanism used. Walking, cycling, going by a bullock cart, bus, car, etc are different trip modes.
Aarey forest destruction halted, Metro Railway is not the best solution
by Vidyadhar Date
Chief minister Uddhav Thackeray’s decision to stay construction of the Metro rail car shed at the controversial Aarey forest site in Mumbai needs to be seen in the proper perspective. The point is people are not against development, they are against an insensitive system riding rough shod over them.
Who is responsible for destroying magnificent Buddhist places of learning in Odisha
by Vidya Bhushan Rawat
I was pained to see many of these artifacts which were targeted. The excavated artifacts and idols reveals that they must have been attacked by those who were not keen on Buddhism. If it had happened in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, ‘historians’ blamed to Islam and Mughals for the assault on them but what about Odisha. Who were responsible for killing Buddhism and Buddhist places of learning in India. It is important to know because these are the same people who blame Muslims for every attack on India, including breaking the idols of the Hindu Gods and goddesses.
When the World Observes the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People
by Lirar Pulikkalakath
Since 1978, in each year, 29 November is observed as the
International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People[ii]. It was on the same day, in 1947, the UNGA adopted the resolution 181 (II) on the partition of Palestine intended to establish a Jewish State and an Arab State. Thus, the annual observance of the resolution has great significance as the conflict between the two remains as one of the complex and unresolved issues in the world.
Generally, international days are to celebrate or remember special events or achievements of humanity. These occasions can give understandings about the day and educate the international community on specific issues. It can also help to invite international attention and to mobilise political will to address global issues. By creating special observances, the United Nations Organisations (UNO) promotes general awareness and action on these issues. It can be seen that most of the observances have been established by resolutions of the UN General Assembly (UNGA)[i] on various occasions. Anyhow the themes of most international days will be linked to maintenance of international security and peace, the protection of human rights, the promotion of sustainable development, and the strengthening of international law and humanitarian action. Since 1978, in each year, 29 November is observed as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People[ii]. It was on the same day, in 1947, the UNGA adopted the resolution 181 (II) on the partition of Palestine intended to establish a Jewish State and an Arab State. Thus, the annual observance of the resolution has great significance as the conflict between the two remains as one of the complex and unresolved issues in the world. The day provides an opportunity for the general public to focus, think, discuss and address the question of Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs have yet to attain their inalienable rights as defined by the UNGA. They include the right to sovereignty and national independence, the right to self-determination without outside interference, the right to return to their homeland and to access their property. The day also encourages the international community to continue their support. This brief critically analyses the disappointing roles played by different actors, especially the United States (US) over the years since the creation of Israel in 1948. It also discusses significant issues to be solved between the Palestinians and Israel while looking at the evolution of the conflict between the two.
Major Issues between the Two
The Palestine- Israel conflict is one of the most controversial and longest-running conflicts in the world. Claims over the same territory by the two remain as the core of the issue. The troubled or “disputed” land which lies roughly in between east of the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan. When the state of Israel, the Jewish state, located mostly along the coastal line of the former, most of the Palestinians live on the West Bank[iii] region. Further, when Israel controls or tries to control most of the same territories (partially or fully), the Arabs want to establish a state of their own in the name Palestine on part or all of the same land. Thus the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is upon ‘who gets what land and how it is controlled’. It is also important to note that the root causes of the conflict between the two go back to Biblical times. However, its modern history began with a series of Aliyahs[iv] mainly took place between the late 1800s until the second half of the 20th century. The territory between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River (at least Gaza strip and West Bank) now has different nomenclature. While the UN calls it the Palestinian territories, the Israeli authority considers it as “disputed” one and opines its status can be resolved on through peace negotiations[v]. The critical roles played by different actors[vi] on different occasions are very significant in this regard. When the international community or significant players in the world politics failed to solve the issues between them, West Asia or the Middle East witnessed several bloody wars over the territory. Now, the international boundary of the region is mostly a reflection of the results of these Wars especially the one waged in 1948 known as Al Nakhba[vii] and another in 1967 called the Six-Day War[viii]. Anyhow the state of Israel has been controlling these territories ever since.
Despite repeated attempts from different actors[ix] to end the enmity between the Arabs and Israel, there is no final peace settlement happened as there are many issues yet to be solved between the two. First among these is the question over the status of Jerusalem. When the Palestinians wish East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, Israel claims that the holy city is their undivided capital[x]. The second issue is about the changing border of the state of Israel and the so-called Palestine Territory[xi]. When the former is expanding day by day due to frequent wars, occupation, settlement[xii] and annexation, the latter is shrinking parallel to that. Status of Arabs in Israel is the third major issue. Nearly 2 million Arabs have Israeli citizenship[xiii] making up the one-fifth total population in the Jewish state. They suffer from various kinds of discrimination and marginalisation ever since the Independence of Israel. Their plight only worsened after the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) passed a controversial “nation-state law”[xiv] recently. Warlike situations between Hamas[xv] and Israel Defense Force (IDF) on regular gaps[xvi] is another critical issue. Above all, one of the complex issues and core demands of the Palestinians is the “right of refugees to return” to their motherland, for which Israel is not ready to accept. Today most of the Palestinian refugees[xvii] are descendants of those displaced in the first War fought between Arabs and Israel in 1948. Today, the legal status of Arab Israelis who live under Israeli occupation in East Jerusalem from that of who live in the Palestinian Authority-administered areas of West Bank and Gaza Strip. Anyhow they are technically stateless and face various kinds of challenges, control and restrictions by the Israeli authority. Though the Arabs live as citizens of Israel face various kinds of discrimination, they have access to infrastructure, education, health care and passports, while the former categories of Palestinians are deprived and denied of these fundamental rights.
When there are many issues yet to be resolved between the Arabs and Israel, the US policy (continuity and changes) towards them creates more tension and make the problem more complicated. Maha Nassar, Assistant Professor, School of Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Arizona, says that the US policies[xviii] in favour of Israel have been one of the crucial reasons behind the conflict remains unresolved. She argues that “The most powerful party involved – the United States – has consistently sided with Israel over the Palestinians and has pressured the Palestinians to give up their basic right to self-determination”[xix]. The US attitude against Palestinians only became hardened and tougher since Trump assumed power in 2017. He has taken a series of measures, introduced many controversial decisions and implemented most of the same that has been criticised as “discriminatory” and “racist” against the Palestinian people. However, still, he is talking about the “deal of the century”[xx] to resolve the Palestine- Israeli conflict. It includes the recognising of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and shifting[xxi] its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and dropping of the long-standing US commitment to have a two-state solution. Under Trump, the US government earlier reduced and later stopped its funding to UNRWA[xxii]. Next move was to close the PLO mission to Washington, DC. Latest in this episode has happened less than two weeks before the international community observes Palestine solidarity day on 29 November 2019. On 18 November Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State announced that the US administration would no longer abide by a 1978 State Department legal opinion that Israeli settlements were inconsistent with international law[xxiii].
Conclusion
The Palestinians have never enjoyed any real control over their borders, resources and security matters, or even their population. They were no fully sovereign Palestine state. It is important to note that the state of Israel was created based on the resolution 181 adopted on 29 November 1947. The same resolution also talks about an Arab Palestine state. However, unfortunately for the still the international community, especially the UNO itself failed to create a viable Palestine state. It is the responsibility of the international community to find a lasting peaceful solution to the complex and critical conflict. Public opinion in general at present is more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. However, that is not enough. It needs something new and more constructive and creative ideas and actions to have an end to the problem.
The gradual and continuous process of occupation, settlement and annexation of Palestine land by the Jewish people with the support of the state of Israel is the major challenge which the Palestinians face now. The social, political and economic status of the Palestinians living in refugee camps in the region, in the occupied territories and inside Israel need much attention to solve the issue of this stateless group. In light of fruitless efforts made by regional and international mediators to solve the issue on a ‘final map’ that satisfies both Palestinians and Jews, it is essential to remember that what Gandhi observed and opined way back in 1938. “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct”[xxiv].
Notes and References
[i] Some international days have been designated and established by specialised agencies of UNO
[ii] In 1977, the General Assembly called for the annual observance of 29 November as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
[iii] The name is due to its location in the western bank of the river Jordan. The river also acts as a natural border between Israel/ Palestine and Jordan. The same territory was under the control of Jordan from the first Arab- Israeli War in 1948 to the six-day War in 1967.
[iv] It means ascending in the Hebrew language. It refers to the large-scale migration of Jewish people from around the world, especially from Europe to Palestine. Many events, issues and political developments like anti-Semitism, Zionism, policies of colonial powers, especially Britain, World Wars, post-war changes in the international relations, etc. have contributed or intensified the process.
[v] So far, many peace processes have been initiated by different leaders, negotiations were mediated by different actors and treaties signed between the two conflicting parties. The list is very long; madras peace process in the early 1990s which culminated in the Oslo peace process, Camp David II in 2000, Road map for peace in 2003, Annapolis conference in 2007 and the recent ‘deal of the century’ proposed by Trump.
[vi] Introduction of mandate system by League of Nation after the end of the World of War I and the collapse of Ottoman empire, Balfour declaration (official British support to create a separate Jewish homeland in Palestine), in 1917, the UN partition plan in 1947 and the US Support to Israel ever since then have defined the fate of Palestinians of the future of Palestine.
[vii] An Arabic word, which means ‘Catastrophe’ as the War in 1948 demolished nearly 500 Palestine villages and displaced 750000 Palestinians from their home. It ultimately changed their status as ‘stateless’ people
[viii] The War happened in the first week of June 1967 that resulted in the capturing of Arab territories by Israel within six days. In the preemptive attack made by IDF against Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Palestine territories ended with another episode of Palestinian exodus and identity crisis. The War not only redefined the international boundary of countries in the region but also expanded the territory of Israel by the process of occupation, settlement and annexation. Still, these exercises are going on.
[ix] Regional and international powers mainly the US, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. and regional and international organisations namely the UN, the European Union (EU), Arab League, Palestine Liberation Organisations (PLO), etc.
[x] The UN and majority of its member countries recognised Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel and their embassies are also situated there.
[xi] The Palestine authority now mainly constitutes West Bank, troubled with continuous Jewish settlement and Gaza strip, a densely populated small lands area on the eastern coast of Mediterranean sea
[xii] Around half a million Jewish people have now built homes with the support of Israeli authority that the UN and international community considers illegal. The settlements also violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.
[xiii] Palestinian people who remained in Israel after the First War in 1948 were offered citizenship.
[xiv] The law states three controversial things. First, “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.” Secondly, it establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic to a “special status.” Finally, the law establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labour to encourage and promote its establishment and development.” Parallel to that racism has soared in the Jewish state over the years, as right-wing governments have peddled anti-Arab, security agendas that have made their life pathetic
[xv] The US and some other Western countries labelled the popular Palestinian political and militant organisation based in Gaza as a terrorist organisation.
[xvi] See BBC (2014): “Gaza crisis: Toll of operations in Gaza”, 1 September, available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28439404
[xvii] Most of the Palestinian refugees who lost their homes and land in the Al Naqba, in the Six-Day War and their descendants have spent long decades in refugee camps. According to the statistics of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Work Agency), a specialised agency of the UNO dedicated for the protection of Palestine Refugees in the Near East, their number is more than 5 million. Today, the majority of them remain, refugees, live in urban, slum-like refugee camps across West Asia.
[xviii] Different governments in the US have been playing a great role as the mediator in many peace processes between Israel and Palestine. However, its credibility has been questioned and criticised by Palestinians and most of the Arab Islamic organisations like OIC (Organization of Islamic cooperation). Because the US has been vetoing most Security Council decisions against Israel.
[xix] See SBS News (2019): “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict explained”, May, Available at: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-israeli-palestinian-conflict-explained_2
[xx] The US government has been talking about the final peace plan for the last couple of years. The unveiling of the same has so far been delayed twice when the Palestinians have already rejected the economic part of the draft proposal. See Asseburg, Muriel (2019): “The “Deal of the Century” for Israel-Palestine: US Proposals Are Likely to Speed Demise of Two-State Settlement”, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) Comment, NO. 20 April, Available at https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019C20/
[xxi] The US embassy officially opened in Jerusalem on the same day when Palestinians commemorated 70 years of their plight since Al Nakba.
[xxii] Hawari, Yara (2019): “It is time to stop lecturing Palestinians and to start listening”, Aljazeera, 20 November, available at https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/time-stop-lecturing-palestinians-start-listening-191119183221039.html
[xxiii] See Hincks, Joseph (2019): “The White House Says Israeli Settlements in the West Bank Are No Longer Illegal. Here’s What That Means”, Time, 19 November 19.
[xxiv] The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (1938): “The Jews”, Vol. 74, No. 319, 9 September, 1938 – 29 January -1939: 239- 242.
Dr. Lirar Pulikkalakath is the Chairman of the Centre for Indian Diaspora Studies and Assistant Professor, School of International Relations and Politics (SIRP), Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala, India. He has presented papers at several national and international seminars and conferences and has addressed several forums on current issues. He is the Co-ordinator of the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) of the School, member of the Board of Studies of the School, Associate Editor of the South Asian Journal of Diplomacy as well as the Indian Journal of Politics and International Relations. He has published several articles in journals and contributed to edited volumes on topics related to West Asian and North African politics, global displacement crisis as well as issues related to the Malayali migration.
Alex Lo Tells Us What We Already Know: The U.S. Chooses Whose and What Rights Matter
by Mary Metzger
Alex Lo is one of my favorite journalists; he writes for one of my favorite non-left newspapers, “The South China Morning Post.” This morning he wrote a piece, which while merely stating the obvious, does so with remarkable clarity and understated eloquence. The title of his article: “The United States is once again selective in caring about rights.”
One Pound
Capitalism, a Pinch of Democracy, and Leonard Peltier’s Thanksgiving Statement
by Priti Gulati Cox
We associate Thanksgiving with the beginning of holidays and good eatin’—things we take for granted. Discomfort Foods challenges that. It isn’t just counter-comfort, It’s also counter-association, trying to replace grandiose associations—of our bloody history, of the present and of the future—with ones that are fact-based and justice-based.
What the U.S. House’s Impeachment Inquiry Wouldn’t Ask Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
by David Boyajian
What no Democratic or Republican committee member dared ask Yovanovitch — and what she didn’t wish to discuss — was her apparent 13-year-long failure to criticize the scandalous
dismissal and forced early retirement of a fine American diplomat, John Marshall Evans. He was Bush II’s ambassador to Armenia (June 2004 to Sept. 2006). Yovanovitch followed Evans in that same post (Sept. 2008 to June 2011).
Turkey, the increasingly wayward NATO member, has been making more national and international headlines than usual.
On Oct. 29, for instance, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed (405-11) Resolution 296. It recognized the Armenian, Assyrian, Greek, and other Christian genocides committed by Turkey.
A contentious, widely criticized White House meeting involving President Trump, Turkey’s autocratic President Erdogan, and Republican senators then took place on Nov. 13.
Two days later, Marie L. Yovanovitch, dismissed by President Trump in May of 2019 as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, testified on national TV before the House Select Committee on Intelligence’s impeachment inquiry. Her dismissal, she alleged, occurred because Trump attorney and confidant Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr., Fox News hosts, and others had been slandering her as disloyal to the president.
There are intriguing links among the House’s Genocide resolution, the Trump-Erdogan-Senators meeting, and Yovanovitch, Pres. George W. Bush’s (“Bush II”) Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia.
What no Democratic or Republican committee member dared ask Yovanovitch — and what she didn’t wish to discuss — was her apparent 13-year-long failure to criticize the scandalous dismissal and forced early retirement of a fine American diplomat, John Marshall Evans.
He was Bush II’s ambassador to Armenia (June 2004 to Sept. 2006). Yovanovitch followed Evans in that same post (Sept. 2008 to June 2011).
Due to senators’ revulsion at Evans’ dismissal, the ambassadorship stood empty in the two year interim.
Armenian American communities always host U.S. ambassadors to Armenia. In February of 2005, Amb. Evans told them, “I will today call it the Armenian Genocide” because “it is unbecoming of us as Americans to play word games.”
It was an honest admission of America’s 90-year-long recognition of Turkey’s extermination (1915-23) of 1.5 million Armenian Christians. But the State Dept. disliked Evans’ use of the word “genocide.” Turkey cried foul too.
At Turkey’s insistence, the State Dept. tells American diplomats and presidents to avoid the G word (genocide) regarding the Armenian extermination. Such spinelessness, while typical of the State Dept.’s traditional obsequiousness towards Turkey, is a disgrace.
Yet Amb. Evans was simply echoing, as but one example, President Reagan’s Proclamation 4838 in 1981 which cited “the genocide of Armenians.”
Regrettably, post-Reagan presidential statements commemorating the Genocide have avoided the G word. They employ euphemisms such as “annihilation,” “forced exile and murder,” “infamous killings,” “terrible massacres,” and “marched to their death.”
However, House resolutions in 1996 (Res.3540), 1984 (Res.247), and 1975 (Res.148) affirmed the Armenian “genocide.”
Perhaps more significantly, a U.S. filing in 1951 with the International Court of Justice (“World Court”) cited “the Turkish massacre of the Armenians” as “genocide.”
Use of the G word remains important for legal reasons because it is defined in the UN Genocide Convention/Treaty of 1948 which most countries have signed.
Amb. Evans Punished
Amb. Evans was nevertheless forced to issue a clarification in late February of 2005 for uttering the G word. But the State Dept. didn’t like its wording. So it wrote a clarification of the clarification and ordered Evans to sign it. Though Evans bravely toiled on, his 33-year career was in jeopardy.
The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) has over 16,000 current and retired Foreign Service members. In 2005, after Amb. Evans had uttered the G word, AFSA announced he would receive its prestigious “Constructive Dissent Award.”
The award recognizes “initiative, integrity, intellectual courage and constructive dissent” and diplomats who “question the status quo and take a stand no matter the sensitivity of the issue or the consequences” and “stick his/her neck out.” Perfect descriptions of Amb. Evans.
But Turkish anger and Bush II’s State Dept. bullied AFSA into withdrawing the award. The alleged reason: Evans’ “genocide” dissent hadn’t gone through official channels. Had Evans done so, though, his entreaty would surely have wound up in a shredder.
Cong. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) blasted the AFSA for setting “a terrible example.” The award “was taken from [Evans] because of politics and denial.”
Compare Evans’ courage with Yovanovitch’s publicly bemoaning her recall from Ukraine. Still a State Dept. employee, she’s now a Senior State Dept. Fellow at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy.
Her predecessor Amb. Evans, in contrast, was driven into early retirement in 2006 by the White House. “Born-again Christian” Bush II kowtowed to Turkish pressure over the genocide of a Christian nation.
In 2008, Bush II nominated Yovanovitch as Ambassador to Armenia. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted her confirmation hearing.
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and others were upset that neither Yovanovitch nor Bush II would acknowledge the annihilation of Armenians as “genocide.” She also incorrectly testified that no president had cited the killings of Armenians as “genocide.” As we know, Pres. Reagan did so in 1981.
After a brutal battle, the Senate nevertheless confirmed her in August of 2008.
As Ambassador to Armenia, Yovanovitch was reportedly asked whether she’d acknowledge the Armenian Genocide if the president were to do so. One would assume she’d simply say yes. Instead, she dodged the question.
An “ambassador serves his president and may be recalled at any time and for any reason [emphasis added],” she replied. “It fully depends on the president.”
If Yovanovitch really believed that, why is she grumbling about being recalled from Ukraine?
Indeed, newly-elected presidents such as Obama and Trump usually require current ambassadors to submit their resignations. Perhaps Obama-appointee (Aug. 2016) Yovanovitch should be grateful that Trump kept her on for 28 months.
Yovanovitch visited Armenian American communities in 2009. She again frustrated them with evasive answers about the Genocide and the conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijan over Armenian-majority Karabagh/Artsakh. I attended one such visit in Arlington, Mass.
And, apparently, Yovanovitch has never commented on Amb. Evans’ dismissal.
The largely unheralded John Evans stands head and shoulders above Yovanovitch, a media darling.
Obama and Other Flip-Floppers
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Senator Obama and his soon-to-be National Security Advisor and UN Ambassador Samantha Power promised Armenian Americans to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide if he became president. Power’s Pulitzer Prize-winning A Problem from Hell (2002) devoted chapter 1 to the Armenian Genocide.
Yet President Obama and Power later avoided the G word.
When Hillary Clinton became Obama’s Secretary of State (2009-13), she flip-flopped too. She avoided the G word that she’d used as a New York senator and 2008 presidential candidate.
In 2010, Sec. Clinton laid flowers at Armenia’s Genocide Memorial. She stressed, however, that her stealthy visit was merely “private,” not official.
Yet she and Presidents Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have officially paid their respects at the Kemal Ataturk mausoleum/memorial in Ankara, Turkey. Ataturk was the Turkish leader who continued the Genocide against Armenians and Christian Greeks and Assyrians from 1919 onwards.
While they avoid the G word for the Armenian Genocide, these top American leaders are comfortable honoring a Turkish genocidist.
The Armenian Genocide is nearly universally accepted by expert historians, despite Turkey’s absurd denials. Indeed, for one hundred years, historians have possessed Turkish telegrams that explicitly ordered mass murder. These have been proven, yet again, to be absolutely genuine.
Like his immediate predecessors, Pres. Trump has avoided the G word. But he has called the Armenian Genocide “mass atrocities” and (as did Obama) “Medz Yeghern” (Armenian for Great Crime).
Some impeachment inquiry members knew all about Yovanovitch’s failure to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide and Evans’ dismissal and coerced retirement. Had they brought it up, however, they would have been walking through political minefields.
Political Minefields
Republican committee members could easily have damaged Yovanovitch’s credibility. They could have revealed her evasions regarding the Armenian Genocide in her 2008 confirmation hearing and her apparent ongoing failure to express dismay at Evans’ dismissal from the post she inherited. Yet they failed to bring any of this up.
After all, it was Bush II, a Republican, who dismissed Amb. Evans, appointed Yovanovitch, failed (as has Trump) to recognize the Armenian Genocide, and pressured AFSA to rescind its award to Evans. Plus, Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois withdrew an Armenian Genocide resolution in 2000, partly at the behest of former Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
As for Democrats, committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) represents a sizeable Armenian constituency in Los Angeles. He knows Yovanovitch’s record very well. But Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama themselves avoided the G word. Moreover, in 2007 Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) withdrew an Armenian Genocide resolution. So Schiff said nothing.
Hence, the impeachment inquiry committee didn’t broach the Yovanovitch/Evans issue even though Turkish and Armenian issues were simultaneously swirling around Washington.
And, of course, had questions about Evans led to the hypocritical roles of the Jewish lobby and Israel in deny/diminishing, and defeating resolutions on, the Armenian Genocide, it would have opened a Pandora’s box.
U.S. Senate Resolution
The Senate has a pending Genocide resolution (Res.150) identical to that the House just passed.
But GOP Senators Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, David Purdue of Georgia, James Risch of Idaho, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have blocked a vote on it.
President Erdogan is undoubtedly threatening the White House over the resolution and other issues. It doesn’t help that Pres. Trump’s investments in Turkey constitute, in his own words, “a little conflict of interest.”
On May 11, 1920 the Republican majority Senate passed Resolution 359 on the “massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have suffered.” The resolution couldn’t use the G word because it was coined only in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. He recognized Turkey’s extermination of Armenians as a seminal genocide and drafted the UN Genocide Convention/Treaty.
Few Americans know that Presidents Cleveland, Harrison, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, and Hoover also condemned the atrocities Turkey perpetrated against Armenians and others over decades.
Why It Matters
Does any of this matter?
Aside from moral and humanitarian considerations, yes.
The Caucasus — Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia — remains a geopolitical hotspot and a major flash point between the U.S. and Russia. Much is at stake.
Turkey has threatened Armenia, sometimes with genocidal memes, since the latter’s independence in 1991.
Armenia’s 2 million or so Christians are trapped between hostile Turkey and Azerbaijan with their combined 90 million populations. Turkey and Azerbaijan are allies. Moreover, Israel and the powerful Jewish lobby are allies of Azerbaijan and unfriendly to Armenia.
Armenia’s existence, therefore, is continually in peril. It’s a major reason why Armenia allies itself with Russia, the nearest major Christian power.
Armenia has also excellent relations with the U.S. and Europe.
But when American presidents and the State Dept. play word games with the Armenian Genocide, this does not reassure Armenia, which must draw negative conclusions about America’s trustworthiness and intentions.
That, in turn, is not in America’s interests.
In 2008, Cong. Jim Costa (D-CA) wrote the following to Yovanovitch:
“Denying a traumatic event such as genocide, one cannot create, nor implement, honest and effective diplomacy.”
Those words ring truer than ever.
The author is a Massachusetts-based freelance journalist. Many of his articles can be found at www.Armeniapedia.org/wiki/David_Boyajian.
From Ad-hocism to Guest: Delhi University on the road to Contractual Teaching Norms
by Amit Kumar
An official communication from the office of the Vice- Chancellor, University of Delhi dated 28th August, 2019 has put the teaching career of more than 4500 ad-hoc teachers in jeopardy. The letter directs all DU colleges to appoint only guest faculty, instead of ad-hoc faculty as has been the norm in DU since 1990s, from academic session 2019-20 in case permanent appointments on vacant posts are not feasible.
Talking Faiz : ‘In This Hour of Madness’
by Subhash Gatade
Academician, writer and social activist Zaheer Ali in Conversation with SubhashGatade about his latest book ‘Romancing With Revolution : Life and Works of Faiz Ahmed Faiz’ (Aakar Books, Delhi, 2019) and why Faiz is ‘ extremely relevant in today’s India’
No comments:
Post a Comment