Category: World

  • Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World

    Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World

    By KENNETH CHANG

    ORIGINS Darwin's finches on the Islamic symbol in art work used at a conference in Massachusetts about the acceptance of evolution among Muslims.
    ORIGINS Darwin's finches on the Islamic symbol in art work used at a conference in Massachusetts about the acceptance of evolution among Muslims.

    AMHERST, Mass. — Creationism is growing in the Muslim world, from Turkey to Pakistan to Indonesia, international academics said last month as they gathered here to discuss the topic.

    But, they said, young-Earthcreationists, who believe God created the universe, Earth and life just a few thousand years ago, are rare, if not nonexistent.

    One reason is that although the Koran, the holy text of Islam, says the universe was created in six days, the next line adds that a day, in this instance, is metaphorical: “a thousand years of your reckoning.”

    By contrast, some Christian creationists find in the Bible a strict chronology that requires a 6,000-year-old Earth and thus object not only to evolution but also to much of modern geology and cosmology, which say the Earth and the universe are billions of years old.

    “Views of scientific evolution are clearly influenced by underlying religious beliefs,” said Salman Hameed, who convened the two-day conference here at Hampshire College, where he is a professor of integrated science and humanities. “There is no young-Earth creationism.”

    But that does not mean that all of evolution fits Islam or that all Muslims happily accept the findings of modern biology. More and more seem to be joining the ranks of the so-called old-Earth creationists. They do not quarrel with astronomers and geologists, just biologists, insisting that life is the creation of God, not the happenstance consequence of random occurrences.

    The debate over evolution is only now gaining prominence in many Islamic countries as education improves and more students are exposed to the ideas of modern biology.

    The degree of acceptance of evolution varies among Islamic countries.

    Research led by the Evolution Education Research Center at McGill University, in Montreal, found that high school biology textbooks in Pakistan covered the theory of evolution. Quotations from the Koran at the beginning of the chapters are chosen to suggest that the religion and the theory coexist harmoniously.

    In a survey of 2,527 Pakistani high school students conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators, 28 percent of the students agreed with the creationist sentiment, “Evolution is not a well-accepted scientific fact.” More than 60 percent disagreed, and the rest were not sure.

    Eighty-six percent agreed with this statement: “Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time.”

    The situation in Turkey is different and changed only in the past couple of decades. One of the conference participants, Taner Edis, said he never encountered creationist undertones when he was growing up in Turkey in the 1970s. “I first noticed creationism when I came to America for graduate school,” said Dr. Edis, now a professor of physics at Truman State University in Missouri. He thought it an American oddity.

    Some years later, while browsing a bookstore on a visit to Turkey, Dr. Edis found books about creationism filed in the science section. “It actually caught me by surprise,” he said.

    In Turkey, officially a secular government but now ruled by an Islamic party, the teaching of evolution has largely disappeared, at least below the university level, and the science curriculum in public schools is written in deference to religious beliefs, Dr. Edis said.

    Harun Yahya, a Turkish creationist of the old-Earth variety, has gained prominence in Turkey and elsewhere. A quarter of a world away, most of the biology teachers in Indonesia use Mr. Yahya’s creationist books in their classrooms, the McGill researchers found, although some said they did that to provide counterarguments to materials their students were reading anyway.

    In the McGill research, fewer students in Indonesia than in Pakistan thought evolution a well-accepted scientific fact, yet 85 percent agreed that fossils showed that life had existed for billions of years and changed over time.

    The quality of biology education “varies highly depending on what country you’re in and what school you’re in,” said Jason R. Wiles, a professor of biology at Syracuse Universityand associate director of the McGill center.

    In addition, the situation in countries with a Shiite majority may be far different than in places where Sunnis are more numerous. There is no single leader, like the Roman Catholic pope, who can dictate an official view that holds for all Muslims.

    Even finding out how different countries teach evolution can be difficult, Dr. Hameed said. Saudi Arabia, for example, does not let foreigners see the biology textbooks. “We don’t have much information,” he said.

    For many Muslims, even evolution and the notion that life flourished without the intervening hand of Allah is largely compatible with their religion. What many find unacceptable is human evolution, the idea that humans evolved from primitive primates. The Koran states that Allah created Adam, the first man, separately out of clay.

    Pervez A. Hoodbhoy, a prominent atomic physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan, said that when he gave lectures covering the sweep of cosmological history from the Big Bang to the evolution of life on Earth, the audience listened without objection to most of it. “Everything is O.K. until the apes stand up,” Dr. Hoodbhoy said.

    Mentioning human evolution led to near riots, and he had to be escorted out. “That’s the one thing that will never be possible to bridge,” he said. “Your lineage is what determines your worth.”

    Biology education, even in places like Pakistan that otherwise teach evolution, largely omits the question of where humans came from.

    Some academics at the conference worried that the rejection of some aspects of evolution might leave Islamic countries at a disadvantage in scientific education. Dr. Hameed said a negative reaction to evolutionary theory could reflect a struggle to retain cultural traditions and values against Western influences, even though Islamic creationists readily borrowed many of the arguments from Western creationists, just removing the young-Earth aspects.

    There is some indication that in the West, where non-Islamic influences are strongest, Islamic creationism may be stronger in reaction to the outside pressure. For example, high school students at Islamic schools in and near Toronto were far more doubting of evolution than students in Indonesia or Pakistan, the McGill researchers found. A majority of the students at the Canadian Islamic schools disagreed that a significant body of data supported evolution and that all life came from the same common ancestors.

    At the same time, many of the Canadian Muslims even acquired young-Earth creationist beliefs, which are thoroughly Western in origin. Only half the students surveyed at the Islamic schools in the Toronto area thought fossils showed that life had existed for billions of years and had changed over time, compared with the 86 percent of the students in Pakistan.

    In a study financed by the National Science Foundation, Dr. Hameed and his colleagues will survey the beliefs of Muslim doctors in five Muslim countries — Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey — and compare them with Muslim doctors in non-Muslim countries — Turkish doctors in Germany, Pakistani doctors in Britain, and Turkish and Pakistani doctors in the United States.

    “We actually expect, especially in Europe, where they have a harder time merging in the culture,” Dr. Hameed said, “harsher rejection of evolution in England and Germany” than in Muslim countries.

    Source:  www.nytimes.com, November 2, 2009

  • Milan: CIA chief given eight years for abduction

    Milan: CIA chief given eight years for abduction

    Rendition trial ends with Milan CIA chief given eight years

    • Italian court convicts Robert Lady and 23 others in absentia
    • First prosecution for US abduction of suspects to torture states

    B

    The former head of the CIA in Milan has been given an eight-year jail sentence for kidnapping at the end of the first trial anywhere in the world involving the agency’s “extraordinary rendition” programme.

    Robert Lady was tried in his absence and convicted of helping to organise the seizure of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, from a Milan street in February 2003. His superior, Jeff Castelli, the head of the CIA in Italy at the time, was acquitted on the grounds that he was covered by diplomatic immunity. Most of the other 23 alleged CIA operatives on trial were given five-year jail sentences in their absence.

    Extraordinary rendition involved the abduction of suspects and their forcible transfer for interrogation to third countries, often states in which torture was routinely employed.

    The judge ruled that neither the former head of Italian military intelligence, Nicolo Pollari, nor his deputy could be convicted because the evidence against them was subject to official secrecy restrictions. Two other Italian intelligence officials were given three years’ jail.

    Successive Italian administrations avoided applying to the US for the extradition of the 26 American defendants, who included a senior US air force officer. Their lawyers, appointed by the court, had no contact with their clients, who were regarded in Italian law as being on the run.

    Eyewitnesses testified that Abu Omar was stopped, apparently by Italian police, and bundled into a van. The prosecution charged that he was driven to the US air base at Aviano near Venice, then transferred to another American military facility at Ramstein in Germany. He was allegedly flown from there to Egypt.

    Four years later he was released without charge. He said he had been reduced to a “human wreck” by torture in a Cairo jail.

    The prosecution alleged the Americans enjoyed co-operation from the Italian authorities. The head of the government when Abu Omar was kidnapped was Silvio Berlusconi, who returned to office as prime minister last year.

    More than two years after the trial opened, the judge, Oscar Magi, heard final submissions from the prosecution and defence before retiring to consider his verdict. He told the court: “This was not an easy trial and the mere fact of its having been held is a significant event.”

    The CIA has declined to comment on the case. Successive Italian governments have denied involvement in renditions.

    To build their case, prosecutors ordered police to tap intelligence officers’ telephones and seize documents from intelligence service archives. Earlier this year Italy’s constitutional court dealt the prosecution a heavy blow when it ruled that much of the evidence gathered was protected by official secrecy and could not be used in court. Magi ruled that the trial should continue regardless.

    In a reference to the two senior Italian intelligence officials, prosecutors told the court yesterday that the defendants included those who “by kidnapping Abu Omar compromised, rather than safeguarded, national security”.

    Italian investigators had been tapping the cleric’s calls before he was abducted. Court documents leaked to the media showed he was suspected of recruiting young Muslims for the Iraqi insurgency.

    The prosecution contended that his seizure not only violated Italian sovereignty but aborted an important anti-terrorist investigation.

    The Guardian

  • Exposés:Highlights the organisational set-up, the secret locations and the people running the fascist party

    Exposés:Highlights the organisational set-up, the secret locations and the people running the fascist party

    Jim Dowson: How a militant anti-abortionist took over the BNP. Part I of a three part investigation.

    Through the keyhole

    A

    Today we start a serialisation from the current issue of Searchlight Magazine which features a special investigation into the heart of the BNP. We highlight the organisational set-up, the secret locations and the people running the fascist party. We expose how the running of the party has been outsourced to a rabid Loyalist anti-abortionist in Belfast and we reveal that this man is receiving European Union money for peace and reconciliation.

    We have also been busy working with the media. Many of the revelations and exposés we have read in the newspapers over the past few weeks have originated from Searchlight.

    Forty-seven years after Searchlight was first formed we are proving that we are still ahead of the game.

     

    From rags to riches

    By Gerry Gable

    Ten years ago Jim Dowson (pictured) was a down-at-heel anti-abortion campaigner and hardline Protestant, who had marched with a loyalist band that played songs in praise of the convicted loyalist murderer Michael Stone (pictured below).

    B

    His luck changed when he formed an alliance with Justin Barrett, a far-right Catholic lawyer and leader of the notorious Irish anti-abortion group Youth Defence, which had previously stormed buildings in Dublin in their crusade against a woman’s right to choose. In 2000 Barrett had attended a rally of the German nazi National Democratic Party, where he met Roberto Fiore, the Italian fascist friend and mentor of Nick Griffin, the BNP leader. The trip was arranged by Derek Holland, one of Griffin’s old colleagues from the days of the National Front Political Soldiers.

    Barrett attracted attention as the lead spokesperson of the successful Irish campaign against the Nice Treaty in 2001 and money started to flow from far-right anti-abortionists in the United States.

    In 1999 Dowson had formed Precious Life Scotland and it was through cooperation between his group and Youth Defence that he met Barrett. The link proved beneficial when Barrett pitched £50,000 into Dowson’s organisation to pay for the production of anti-abortion CDs and video tapes to be distributed to schools and churches in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

    Dowson was a “rent-a-cause” extremist who had been kicked out of the Orange Order. He has a list of criminal convictions including breach of the peace in 1986, possession of a weapon and breach of the peace in 1991 and criminal damage in 1992. Although a Protestant, he was happy to sell thousands of photographs of the Pope at inflated prices to Catholics in the Irish Republic.

    Barrett faded from the public arena after the Nice Treaty vote was rerun and went the other way. His political demise was hastened after the publication of his book The National Way Forward, in which he described immigration as “genocidal”. He also became increasingly antisemitic, influenced by the nazi leaders he had met in Germany.

    In contrast, Dowson’s campaigning activities grew. He turned his sights on gay people and encouraged his followers to abuse and threaten people who attended or worked in abortion clinics.

    This resulted in Dowson parting company with some of his Precious Life fellow activists, but he was now in a financial position to go it alone, turning his faction into the UK LifeLeague. He never looked back.

    Dowson, 45, started working with the British National Party late in 2007, and he quickly revolutionised its fundraising. His first appeal, launched at the time the BNP was tearing itself apart in an internal rebellion, was carried out as a free sample to show the party what he could do, but since then he has worked on a percentage commission.

    His work for the BNP grew to encompass the provision of manage-ment training in Spain and revamping the party’s administration. Early in 2009 he set up the Belfast call centre, piggybacking it on his successful fundraising for the LifeLeague, thereby cutting costs and perhaps giving doubtful BNP officers the impression of a larger operation than it actually is.

    Over the past two years he has clearly raised huge sums for the party, although it remains financially strapped. Partly this is the result of scams, such as the truth truck, which Griffin claimed had been bought with thousands of pounds of supporters’ donations. It turned out still to belong to Dowson’s private company, Adlorries.com, and, like much of the other equipment the BNP claimed to have bought, it was only leased by the party.

    Today Dowson practically owns the BNP, which he briefly joined to placate his critics but left as soon as the heat was off him. He remains at loggerheads with many senior party officers and employees. One, whom he sacked in spring, is heading for an employment tribunal.

    B1

    Griffin’s claim that the BNP is being flooded with donations via Dowson’s call centre is a lie. Income is down to a trickle and membership is a mere 8,000 or so. People are not queuing up to join after the end of the three-month moratorium on membership, they are leaving in droves, especially since the latest membership list leak from Dowson’s Belfast bunker.

    All this comes on top of the party’s forced climbdown over its racist constitution, the non-appearance of its 2008 accounts and concern over the number of senior party officers who have been put on the European Parliament payroll as staff of the two BNP MEPs.

     

    Hope Not Hate

  • How to win the Nobel Peace Prize

    How to win the Nobel Peace Prize

    The Answer to the Burning Question du jour: Why was President Obama Gifted the Nobel Peace Prize?

    Zahir Ebrahim

    obama_war_criminalIn complete realization of the ‘change’ mantra:

    “We are gonna spread happiness,

    we are gonna spread freeeeedom,

    Obama’s gonna change it,

    Obama’s gonna leeeeead em,

    we’re gonna change it,

    and re-arrange it,

    we are gonna change the world!” ( The Obama Kids Song )

    President Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The President is delighted and “Says He’s ‘Surprised’ and ‘Humbled’” according to the New York Times.

    When I first penned “How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize” in great anguish in April 2003, in Chapter 2 of Prisoners of the Cave as the “shock and awe” of Iraq was under way, I hadn’t the full prescience of all the future players at the time for I grossly omitted the new name. My apologies to the harbingers of ‘change’. Their mantra, and the $2 billion spent creating it, has obviously been very effective. After the “peace maker” moniker, anointment as the “Messiah” really can’t be that far behind. This Machiavellian fabrication of a ‘savior’ was already examined in Mr. Obama – The Post Modern Coup in November 2008.

    It is astonishing to me how simplistic the most lauded dissent-chiefs and most profound intellectuals are in the West. Even when they critique absurdities and war-mongering as per their good conscience, they tread remarkably gently. Look at historian Howard Zinn’s comment in the UK Guardian. He is once again simplistic in his vocal dissent piece – just as he has been all along on 911 – by deliberately not seeing the Orwellian propaganda agenda behind the Peace Prize:

      “I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize. Until I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel peace prizes. The Nobel committee is famous for its superficial estimates, won over by rhetoric and by empty gestures, and ignoring blatant violations of world peace.” (emphasis added)

    No, No, NO! Never ‘superficial estimates’ and never ’empty gestures’. Rather, laying the seeds of masterful propaganda towards Orwellian social engineering.

    Thus, Professor Zinn’s concluding prescription: “The Nobel peace committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history”, which, since he diagnosed the disease incorrectly, is a cure, I am sure, to the problem that he has posited in his own mind, but one that has no forensic bearing to the modernity plaguing mankind. Indeed, this “modernity” is itself “as old as mankind”. So while Howard Zinn does conscionably lament the bizarre awarding of peace prizes to murderous trigger pullers, he very carefully does not mention the prime-movers whom they work for:

      “Oh yes, the committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final peace agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects. Kissinger, who obsequiously went along with Nixon’s expansion of the war, with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, is given a peace prize!”

    Ever since hectoring hegemons have existed, ever since oligarchs have existed wielding power from behind the scenes through their ‘errand boys’, ever since they discovered social engineering, and especially ever since Edward Bernays discovered and employed Public Relations which coincided approximately with the time that Nobel peace prizes started to be awarded, these accolades from the high and mighty serve the oligarchic agendas as needed.

    Since Professor Howard Zinn, as a profound historian who would like us to learn from history, is berating the Nobel Peace Committee on their lacking “some understanding of history”, watch the BBC documentary Century of Self to observe how Edward Bernays himself fabricated President Woodrow Wilson’s aura as the European ‘savior’ right after the “he kept us out of the war” devil had taken America to World War I at the behest of his handlers Bernard Baruch and Col. Edward Mandell House, both of whom represented the international bankers. House even penned the rationale for having ‘errand boys’ and controlling them in a fictional narrative based upon his own role during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. Who is channeling President Obama’s energies such that despite all his election promises to the contrary, he is very predictably maintaining the same overarching policy axioms as his predecessor from his day one in office?

    These prizes are anything but “empty gestures”. It is both a payoff to tickle the ego of the ‘errand boy’, and a propaganda seed. In the expert hands of the Mighty Wurlitzer, such a gift can convince the masses of the most ridiculous absurdities, like the War on Terror already has. The proof of these statements of fact is both empirical, and historical. Watch Barack Obama crafted into a fine new global ‘savior’ at the expense of the ‘untermenschen’. That’s why the United States President, ceremoniously presiding over the most militarized superpower in the world which has just devastated two civilizations to smithereens, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while he rapidly accelerates his war prosecution to bring “peace” in a one-world government.

    Here is the excerpt from Chapter 2 of Prisoners of the Cave.

    How to win the Nobel Peace Prize

    President Jimmy Carter, known as the conscionable president, refused to bomb Tehran despite recommendations from his wife and advisors, as noted by a speaker recently, builds homes for Habitat for Humanity with his own bare hands, and is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. His own National Security Advisor (ZB) took credit for handing the Soviets their Vietnam in Afghanistan, leading to the destruction of an entire civilization and loss of multiple of its generations to multiple civil wars and poverty, eventually leading to 911 – if one is to believe the facile version of 911 put forth by the American Government. Whether or not Bin Laden was involved in 911, the facts of history attest to the machinations of the United States of America in the exercise of its military and economic power since the end of World War II as forcefully articulated by George Kennan in 1948:

      “… We should cease to talk about vague and – for the Far East – unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.”*8

    ZB’s own confessions to this end are highly instructive. The 1998 ZB interview to “Le Nouvel Observateur”, translated from the original French by author and historian Bill Blum, is reproduced below. The translator notes that: “*There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.”

      Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

      Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

      Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

      Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

      Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

      Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

      Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

      Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

      Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

      Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.*9

    Frighteningly amoral execution of George Kennan’s policy articulation from 1948 of “going to have to deal in straight power concepts”. Wouldn’t you say that all American Presidents have been doing exactly that?

    I had also personally witnessed on television, President Carter in 1978 toasting to the health of the King of Persia, Raza Shah, with approximately the following words: ~“To your majesty, to the love that your people have for you.” This to a tyrant responsible for brutally suppressing his own people with American supplied weapons, and while Carter is toasting his host inside the Palace, outside the streets are filled with people protesting their king. When the revolution proceeds a few month later, instead of a mea culpa, a reign of vilification, long war, and sanctions is imposed on the people of Iran. And for what crime? For wanting their freedom from American-CIA imposed tyranny at the hands of one of their own elite? The Iran Hostage Crisis, covered on ABC Nightline daily, which I would occasionally catch while eating dinner in the late night cafeteria at MIT, as I recall was quite devoid of any significant history or accurate analysis of the past 26 years leading up to the crisis. I subsequently saw a shredded memo painstakingly put together and freely available in the streets of most countries in the region about some of the imperial work being done by the American staff in the US embassy in Teheran, whom the hostage takers were calling CIA spies. The taking of these hostages, many of them civilians, was probably the biggest blunder the Iranians made after their revolution, and were paid for in spades by America with the war imposed on them through Iraq. If Jimmy Carter had deserved any Peace Prize, it would have been to avert the crisis with Tehran and successfully bring back the hostages, made amends with Iran for its people finally exercising their will and set the stage for friendship between the two countries, leaving a legacy of peace and prosperity for the region and appreciated the world over. He did not do that.

    What is the prize for?

    You might say Camp David and Egypt-Israel peace accord over a desert that was militarily occupied in a war? When his own people call Anwar Sadaat a traitor for making his private and separate peace with Israel and breaking up the Arab stance on Palestine which is what Israel wanted all along; and he is also a despised dictator of his own people hated and killed by them for his oppressive policies only to be replaced by another brutish dictator who is also continually kept in power by being the second largest US aid recipient in the world after Israel – is that a peace at the barrel of a gun or an enduring peace with justice?

    Brokering a “peace accord” that was only a new manifestation of an old “divide and conquer” plan that the peoples at least on one side of it did not want, and which only allowed Israel a freer hand to continue suppressing the Palestinians and incrementally continue to swallow up their lands without interference from its Arab neighbors, instead of one in which all could have lived in justice and peace with full rights of return for those displaced, is an imperial farce forced upon a beleaguered peoples. And the impact of precisely this “peace accord” for which Carter got the “peace” prize are visible to all and sundry in Palestine – an amazing case study in faits accomplis that become “irreversible” – a modern day genocidal resettlement of another’s land right before the very eyes of the silently bespectating world!

    What about Menachem Begin? He certainly also had all the qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize, having blown up the King David Hotel in 1948 as part of the terrorist Stern-Irgun gangs and was once the most wanted criminal in Britain.*9A

    Let’s see who might be in line next? Ariel Sharon and George Bush Jr. and Sr., as well as Bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski, because after all, they did defeat the Soviet Union and bring an end to the four decade long Cold War. They all appear to have the right pedigree of “blood-experience” for the Nobel Peace Prize!

    So pardon me if I am not tripping all over myself congratulating the “peace prize” winners!

    -###-

    By Zahir Ebrahim Link: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-to-win-nobel-peace-prize.html | PDF | Read the rest of chapter 2 in full context here | Print | Announcement = Project Humanbeingsfirst Ebook 2009

    Source:  www.thepeoplesvoice.org, October 12th, 2009

  • Is Turkey turning East?

    Is Turkey turning East?

    turkey-iranFor some time, there have been fears that Turkey has begun moving away from its traditional Euro-Atlantic orientation, towards the Middle East and the Muslim world. Turkey’s condemnation of Israel’s attack on Gaza in January was followed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s walk-out during a debate with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum.

    In early October, Turkey vetoed Israel’s participation in a joint air-force exercise, again citing its conduct in Gaza. In the same week Turkish TV aired a show portraying Israeli soldiers as child- killers, provoking fury in Tel Aviv.

    On a recent visit to Iran, the Turkish premier signed a gas deal and several economic cooperation agreements (Press TV, October 28). Before the visit, Mr Erdogan defended Iran’s right to nuclear energy and accused those countries which oppose Tehran’s atomic program of hypocrisy (Guardian, October 26). Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was understandably delighted, and pundits in the West were understandably shaken.

    The New York Times argued that lack of progress on EU membership was driving Turkey away (NY Times, October 27). The Christian Science Monitor called it ‘worrisome’ (Christian Science Monitor, October 29). Overall, the assumption seems to be that Turkey’s growing clout, and disillusionment with its EU membership talks, is leading it towards a closer relationship with autocratic Middle Eastern states like Iran and Syria.

    So are Europe and America ‘losing’ Turkey? Probably not. The evidence in support of this theory is disjointed and selective, and ignores other key facts. On Israel, for instance, this argument assumes that Turkey’s fury over Gaza is in some way manufactured, that it is designed entirely to win support on the ‘Arab street’ (and indeed the Persian street).

    Although Turkey’s leaders are not blind to the credit that this will earn them in the Muslim world (also, within Turkey itself), there is little doubt that their anger is genuine. Turkey has been attempting to encourage progress on the Arab-Israeli peace process for years, and saw its fragile gains destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. Rightly or wrongly, Ankara sees Israel as mainly responsible. As for the TV program, it would be absurd to assume that the Turkish government was responsible for the content and the timing.

    It is also odd to link Turkish anger at Israel with turning away from the EU. For all its links with Brussels and Washington, the Jewish state is not an integral part of ‘the West’, geographically or politically. Ankara is quite capable of opposing Israel’s actions without abandoning its EU membership application. And although the reputation of that process is heavily tarnished, and there is significant frustration amongst ordinary Turks over European hostility to Turkish membership, EU integration remains a priority of the AKP Government.

    Senior Turkish officials have made this plain in recent days. They also poured cold water on the whole idea that Turkey is turning East – “Is it so easy to change direction?” asked President Abdullah Gul rhetorically (Today’s Zaman, October 30).

    This statement hints at the heart of the matter. Complex states do not have a single geopolitical ‘direction’. President Gul visited Serbia on October 26th, but this hardly means that Ankara is seeking to re-establish Ottoman influence in the Balkans, as some seem to believe it is doing in the Middle East. To take another parallel, no-one would seriously believe that increased US diplomacy towards China would be a sign of abandoning NATO and Europe.

    Ankara’s foreign policy, now more than ever, is famously focused on ‘zero problems with neighbours’(RFE/RL, October 30). Given Turkey’s unique position at the confluence of so many different regions, this policy is bound to involve dealing with states whom the West distrusts – Iran, Russia, and Syria, for instance.

    Expecting Turkey to suspend cooperation with Tehran is an easy judgement to make in Washington or Brussels, but not so in Ankara. An otherwise hostile Wall Street Journal acknowledged this on October 30, recognising that “nations do not have the luxury of picking their neighbours” (Wall Street Journal, October 30). Turkey needs Iran to cooperate: on energy, trade, and on containing Kurdish militants.

    In any case, Turkey has absolutely no interest in a nuclear Iran. What most commentaries fearing a Turkish-Iranian alliance ignore is that, just a few weeks ago, Ankara ordered advanced Patriot missile batteries from the US (Eurasia Daily Monitor, September 16). It was keen to insist that this was not due to any threat, but the move is obviously in response to Iran’s strategic missile programme. Mr Erdogan’s praise of President Ahmadinejad was, given this context, simple diplomacy, made before a visit in which he hoped to secure extensive trade and energy deals. It would have been surprising, and contrary to Turkey’s foreign policy, to have prepared for his visit by thundering against the country’s nuclear program.

    The ‘losing Turkey’ argument – which assumes that, given the AK Party’s Islamist past, Turkey is also becoming more Islamic in nature – also ignores moves such as the thaw with Christian Armenia. This was also undertaken in the framework of the same “zero problems” concept.

    Assuming that Turkey is somehow moving away from the West, towards the Middle East, or towards some kind of pact with Iran, is a narrow view. It ignores historic rivalry between them, fails to recognise Turkish fears of an Iranian nuclear weapon (whatever Mr Erdogan might say in public), and conflates Israel with the EU or NATO. Most importantly, it underestimates Ankara’s foreign policy. Turkey is smart enough to be able to look East and West at the same time.

    Source:  cria-online.org, CU Issue 53, November 2, 2009

  • ‘Turkey’s Kissinger’ Leads Foreign-Policy Balancing Act

    ‘Turkey’s Kissinger’ Leads Foreign-Policy Balancing Act

    Ahmet Davutoglu

    Ahmet Davutoglu

    By Abbas Djavadi

    During a recent televised discussion on foreign policy, six former Turkish foreign ministers recently gave Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s performance eight out of a maximum of 10 points. The six included some harsh Social Democrat critics of the current Justice and Development (AK) party government.

    Even before his promotion from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s special adviser to foreign minister in April, Davutoglu was regarded as the eminence grise behind Turkish foreign policy, and was occasionally even referred to as “Turkey’s Kissinger.” The Turks love to see their personalities, cities, and performances positively compared with the world’s most famous, but Davutoglu doesn’t like the comparison.

    Still, the 51-year old professor of political science is considered the architect of the new active foreign policy that the AK party has been pursuing since coming to power in 2002: “zero problems” with the neighbors while continuing to maintain traditionally good relations with the West.

    The West, Russia, and most members of the international community were pleased when Turkey and Armenia on October 10 signed accords, still to be ratified by the two countries’ parliaments, to restore diplomatic ties and open borders after almost a century of enmity. The accords were widely attributed to Davutoglu’s personal planning and implementation.

    In 2008, he mediated similar indirect talks between Israel and Syria in an effort to take first steps towards a Middle East peace. The effort was met with skepticism by the Bush administration and produced no tangible results, for reasons beyond Ankara’s control.

    Meanwhile, Turkey’s increasingly good relations with Russia and Iran have raised some eyebrows in the West. At the same time, Prime Minister Erdogan’s occasionally outrageous criticism of the Israeli operation against Gaza last winter, as well as the exclusion of Israel from a NATO air drill in Turkish skies two weeks ago, have led conservatives in Washington and Europe to ask if Ankara is rethinking its traditionally good relations with Israel. Discussing a potential Israeli attack on Iran, U.S. analyst Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute recently affirmed boldly that “Turkey is now on Iran’s side.”

    Rebalancing, Not Shifting

    Since the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923, Ankara has leaned increasingly towards the West while maintaining no more than functioning good relations with its neighbors. Davutoglu describes Turkey’s new foreign policy initiative as a Turkish version of the German Ostpolitik of the 1960s. “Turkey is a natural part of the European continent and culture,” he wrote in his book “Strategic Depth,” published 10 years ago.

    Echoing U.S. President Barack Obama, Davutoglu recently said that Ankara and Washington enjoy a “model partnership.” With regard to Turkey’s relations with her neighbors and regional policy, on the other hand, he said “zero-problem-based relations” must be transformed into “maximum mutual-interest-based ones.”

    Both Davutoglu and Erdogan have their roots in Turkey’s traditional, conservative, and Islamic thinking. However, improving relations with neighboring states and playing an increasingly leading role in the region seems to be based on real political influence and economic and energy interests, rather than prestige and nostalgia for the old Ottoman Empire, as some suggest. Erdogan and Davutoglu have attracted billions of dollars in Arab investment into Turkey and plan to make the country a main oil and gas corridor between the East and Europe.

    While Muslim and non-Muslim neighbors view Ankara’s balancing act with both appreciation and suspicion, many in the West suspect that Turkish efforts to promote “mutual interests” between “rogue states” such as Iran and Syria and the West will ultimately end in Turkey’s betrayal of Western values and commitments. Others, including the Turkish opposition, even suggest that the ruling AK is tacitly pursuing that goal.

    But Davutoglu denies that the axis of Turkey’s foreign policy is shifting. A region that is increasingly peaceful, with countries cooperating with one another, is good for the West and the world, he said recently. “This is an exceptional and unique role Turkey could play.”

    Abbas Djavadi is associate director of broadcasting at RFE/RL. The views expressed in this commentary are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL

    Source: www.rferl.org, October 30, 2009