BAGHDAD – Iraqi police arrested 31 Shiite activists Saturday in early morning raids south of Baghdad, and five American soldiers were killed in two roadside bombings, officials said. The U.S. troops were killed Friday – four in Baghdad and one in the northern Tamim province, the military said. At least 3,958 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. Saturday marked a third day of U.S. and Iraqi operations in an area that includes several Shiite holy cities – raising tension with some Shiite tribesmen and fighters who have pledged to halt attacks. Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered a six-month cease-fire for his Mahdi Army militia, but some members have broken away and violated the pledge, which expires later this month. U.S. and Iraqi forces say they are targeting rogue, criminal elements of his and other militias. But several Shiite imams, during Friday prayers, suggested Iraqi forces were taking advantage of the cease-fire to crack down on rival groups. Al-Sadr has threatened not to extend his cease-fire unless the government purges rival Shiite militiamen he alleges have infiltrated the security forces and are targeting his followers. Fifteen of Saturday’s arrests took place in Karbala, a Shiite holy city 50 miles south of Baghdad, where Shiite Islam’s two most revered saints are buried. Another 16 men were arrested in a Sadrist area of Nasiriyah, about 200 miles southeast of the capital, police said. Rahman Mshawi, spokesman for Karbala police, said four of the Karbala suspects are members of the Iraq-based People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, or Mujahedeen Khalq. The group was founded in the late 1960s and fled to Iraq in the early 1980s after it fell out with the clerical regime of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, the movement used Iraq as a base for operations against Iran’s government. Thousands of its members remain in Iraq, and both the U.S. and Iraq consider the Khalq a terrorist organization. In addition to the Khalq members, Mshawi said five others detained Saturday belong to a Shiite cult group. He did not elaborate or give details about the group. The remaining six suspects were "wanted men," Mshawi said. Meanwhile north of Baghdad, Iraqi police said a local al-Qaida in Iraq leader was killed in his home, and 12 decomposed bodies were discovered in a mass grave. Abu Omar al-Dori resisted police for about an hour before he was killed around 4 a.m. in his house in downtown Samarra, a police officer said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media. Samarra is a mostly Sunni town about 60 miles north of the Iraqi capital. According to Iraqi police, al-Dori had been assigned to lead al-Qaida in Iraq operations in Samarra just one week ago. It was unclear whether his predecessor was killed or captured. Farther east near Baqouba, a joint patrol of Iraqi police and soldiers found a mass grave with 12 bodies, including three of women, according to police and morgue officials. The bodies were found in the al-Ehaimer area on the outskirts of Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of the capital. The U.S. military had no immediate comment on either incident. Meanwhile, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani traveled Saturday to Najaf, another Shiite holy city south of Baghdad, to meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most prominent cleric. It was unclear whether the meeting was scheduled in light of the recent Shiite arrests. Talabani was expected to hold a news conference later Saturday By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, The Associated Press -2008-02-09
The Third View on Mujahedin Khalq
It goes without saying that Rajavi resorted to armed struggle expecting the support of international and foreign powers. Rajavi’s visit to France in early 1981, where he was given a glad hand winning propaganda support and facilities for settlement, was followed with declaration of military phase. It is evident that all such activities on the part of France aimed at exploiting Mojahedin in order to make due political changes in Iran. According to some MKO ex-members (e.g. Lotfollah Meisami), Rajavi was well aware of global transitions and even before initiating the armed phase was willing to make use of leftist parties and USSR-oriented groups whenever necessary. In this regard, Meisami writes:
Rajavi knows that world is divided into the West and the East and for sure is aware of their reciprocal understanding due to his political awareness. When released from prison, he got a formula according to which he had to make the West and the East satisfied to assume power. On the one hand, he makes secret contacts with the Soviets Union to make them convinced to rely on Mojahedin rather than Tudeh party pretending to be the greatest opposition group in Iran, and on the other hand, invited Western-oriented groups and parties for dialogue and negotiation. In fact he had relations with both the U.S. and the USSR. (1)
As such, he tried to recruit some Liberal intelligentsia with capitalism tendency including Hedayatollah Matindaftari, Ali-Asqar Haj Seyyed Javadi, Manuchehr Hezarkhani, Abdolkarim Lahiji, Fereydun Gilani, and later on Jamshid Peyman, some SAVAK members and Moezzi, Shah’s private pilot. An interesting point is that after the annihilation of Socialism camp, Rajavi turned to Western-oriented liberals, some of whom are already in NCR, and Rajavi makes use of their international reputation for attracting the attention and gaining the legitimacy regarding his liberalist mottos. Another instance of such an opportunistic policy is the case of Sa’adatti and delivering the case of General Moqarrabi, former member of Tudeh party, to Russians which had great consequences on armed phase for the organization. In fact, all these actions might be justified under the pretext of the world being divided into two camps of capitalism and socialism with Mojahedin’s pretentious strategic tendency towards the latter at the time. As implicitly stated by Saeed Shahsavandi, MKO made efforts preferably in winning the supports of USSR to assume political power:
In fact the purpose of organization’s contact with the USSR is gaining facilities and being armed as an authorized group. (2)
However, these facts reveal the major policy of MKO regarding the strategic role of the either camps in achieving the political power. But soon after the fall of socialism, the organization made an immediate shift toward the opposite camp.
We are to emphasize the fact that Rajavi’s opportunistic orientation in winning the political power and support of influential figures in international relations as well as world powers has been one of his goals in which his success depended upon the political status of NCR, MKO and also Rajavi’s talent in convincing them of the possibility of overthrowing the Iranian regime with regard to the potentiality of Mojahedin. In fact, the organization recruited members from both leftist parties and liberals as a means for achieving its objectives in due time. The fact that West in general and Europeans in particular, in spite of being aware of the terrorist actions of Mojahedin, supported the organization implies their fostered hope in fulfillment of the promise by Mojahedin to overthrow the Iranian government.
The countries attitude, however, ceased once they realized that the second revolution was not at hand. For instance, the France government, as the main supporter of Mojahedin, changed its stance concerning Mojahedin. It has to be pointed out that Mojahedin’s freedom for political and propaganda activities in France exceeded the supposed rights of refugees in international conventions which resulted in quantitative and qualitative growth of the National Council of Resistance to posture as a liable main opposition. However, the NCR soon proved to be incapable of winning the slightest significant victory and its advocates resolved to look at it with a more realistic and cautious eye and began to withdraw their support. Referring to Mojahedin’s strategies and tactics in the Europe for winning propaganda support Antoine Gessler observes:
The People’s Mojahedin of Iran, as we have seen, are past masters in the manipulative arts. Like many far Left organisations, they know the gears that run the media. And they are very gifted at”smoke screening”reporters. (3)
Additionally, he refers to opportunistic, dualistic and pragmatist features of Mojahedin seeking legitimacy and attention of outsiders and writes:
In addition, the Mojahedin are superb lobbyists,”tracking”down political officials, deputies, senators, etc., to get a signature which is supposed to support the PMOI’s fight and provide recognition to it as the only legitimate opposition. (4)
Bijan Niyabati, a leftist member of NCR, illustrates such a condition affected by the illusionary promise of overthrow and says explicitly:
The strength of military strokes of Mojahedin against top Iranian officials spread the false picture of short-term overthrow of Iranian regime not only among Iranian political activists but also foreign parties. (5)
Therefore, the political supports given to Mojahedin and their militancy were replaced by a logical withdrawal and all those governments that had neglected illegal plots of Mojahedin in their countries, and in France in particular, in the hope of establishing relationship with the so-called alternative of the Iranian government had to limit the group’s freedom. Rajavi’s hopes dashed, he had to seek new approaches to strengthen inter-organizational constancy and adopt a defensive mechanism before reaching unavoidably consequent crises.
Niyabati acknowledges the fact that the pressure of foreign forces exerted on Mojahedin made them make some new decisions, change their external relations and internal structure. According to him, the main changes occurred in the geometrical form of internal structure of both MKO and NCR. Before the change, Mojahedin claimed to be the hegemonic lead of a united front of oppositions through a council leadership, but after being in disgrace with western supporters, they were forced to demonstrate their real anti-democratic nature which Rajavi and his sympathizers tried to conceal under a variety of theoretical justifications:
The sum of internal and international pressures and their political impacts on the National Council of Resistance, the strategic failure of armed struggle and its organizational impacts on MKO, the lack of public support in its real concept, and most important of all, an urging need to take advantage of the Iraqi soil followed by a shift from the strategy of micro to macro, which despite the Mojahedin’s claim to be promoting their previous strategy was an acknowledgement of the failure of their old strategy, necessitated MKO to turn into a full pyramidal organization that had to be absolutely ideological. (6)
As Niyabati justifies, the ideological revolution was, in some respect, an inevitable consequent of dwindled foreign supports and its impacts on MKO and NCR. France ventured to assist Mojahedin at a time when it had taken a hostile stance toward Iran and broadly contributed military and logistic aids to Saddam in his war against Iranian aiming at overthrowing the Iranian government. After a while and due to new circumstances, France had to make a revision in its policy toward Iran. Although Mojahedin had earlier made the grounds for moving to Iraq by inviting Tareq Aziz, then Vice Prime Minister to Saddam, but their destabilized conditions in France and the internal conflicts in NCR were the best justification for such a transfer. In a nutshell, their policy in moving to Iraq may be considered as a result of the loss of support of western governments and France in particular. Moreover, the initiation of the ideological revolution was a precautionary defensive measure aiming at controlling the forthcoming challenges.
References:
1. Meisami, L.; The moral decline of a Mojahed. Raah-e Mojahed journal, (32), 1985.
2. Saeed Shahsavandi interview with the voice of Iran. Part 50.
3. Antoine Gessler; Autopsy of an Ideological Drift, 163.
4. ibid.
5. Niyabati, B. A different look at the internal ideological revolution of Mojahedin. p.12.
6. ibid, p.20.
I’m very excited and pleased to introduce today’s guest poster, Danny Postel, who comes to us with some absolutely chilling revelations about the bad faith of the neoconservatives’ supposed dedication to”freedom”(I know, I know: you’re shocked). Danny is the author of Reading “Legitimation Crisis” in Tehran: Iran and the Future of Liberalism and is co-coordinator of the Committee for Academic and Intellectual Freedom of the International Society for Iranian Studies. —Rick Perlstein By Danny Postel During the week of October 22-26, an official announcement effuses, “The nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever – Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses.” Ringmastered by David Horowitz, this circus will be performing under the tent of something called the”Terrorism Awareness Project.” The purpose of this ballyhoolooza, we are told, is to confront the “Big Lies” of the Left regarding terrorism and militant Islam. Worthy subjects, to be sure. Indeed I would like to help the sponsors of the “wake-up call” promote awareness of them. Toward this end, let’s consider the American Right’s “special relationship” with one group of terrorists. The U.S. State Department officially considers the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) a Foreign Terrorist Organization. While those honors date back to 1994, they’ve been renewed during the Bush years. Indeed in 2003 Foggy Bottom went further, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran — an MEK alias — under the terrorist designation. (The MEK is also known as the People’s Mujahedeen.) To make a long and bizarre story short, the MEK got its start in early 1960s Iran, helped overthrow the Shah in 1979, but quickly turned on the revolutionary government it helped bring to power. Employing an ideological blend of Stalinism and Islamism, the tactics of a paramilitary guerilla faction, and the organizational structure of a cult, the group went into exile, eventually making their home in Iraq in the mid-1980s. Not only did Saddam give the organization cover: he armed, funded, and utilized them for a variety of ends over two decades. The group’s wicked political brew was on spectacular display on the old MEK flag (see below; since abandoned) [editor, Iran-Interlink – this is still the official MEK logo], with its sickle and Kalashnikov positioned atop ofbeneath a Koranic verse. (Not — to state the obvious — that the mere presence of a Koranic verse in and of itself implies Islamist political commitments, but in this case the shoe very much fits.) Here you have virtually everything the Right claims to oppose all rolled into one: Islamism, Marxism, terrorism, and Saddam. Naturally, then, neoconservatives would utterly deplore the MEK and everything it stands for, right? The MEK would in fact make an ideal target for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week and Terrorism Awareness efforts, no? Well, no. At least one of the carnival’s acts, it turns out, is rather fond of the Islamo-Stalinist-terrorist cult group, and has repeatedly argued for the removal of the MEK from the State Department’s list of terrorist groups and indeed urged the U.S. government to embrace it. Daniel Pipes, who will be speaking at Tufts on October 24th as part of the Horowitz high jinks, has made the MEK a recurring theme in his writings going back several years. Pipes has also gone to bat for the MEK right in the pages of Horowitz’s house organ. But Pipes is far from alone on the Right in championing the MEK. He co-authored the first piece linked to above with Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Right-wing commentator Max Boot has argued not merely for the removal of the MEK from the terrorist list but for funding and unleashing it to do battle with Iranian forces — this while casually acknowledging that it is a “political cult.” (More on Boot’s disfigured views .) In some cases the MEK plays a stealth role in the media machinery of the American Right. What the FOX News Channel tells viewers about Alireza Jafarzadeh when he appears on its airwaves is that he is an “FNC Foreign Affairs Analyst.” What you have to go to the FOX News website to discover, however, is that Jafarzadeh served “for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.” But it is scarcely known that the sonorous-sounding National Council of Resistance of Iran is in fact a front name for the MEK. Now, it’s true that Jafarzadeh discontinued his post with the National Council of Resistance of Iran—but only when (and only because) its Washington office was forced to close in 2003 as a result of the State Department decision about it being a front for the MEK. It’s not like he had a change of heart. If you attend an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” event, you might want to ask the speakers about this terrorist cult and whether they condemn it. Some of them might — not all neoconservatives agree on the MEK. But the fact that several prominent American conservatives have cozied up to an Islamist-Stalinist cult that was on Saddam’s payroll and the State Department considers a terrorist organization — this raises serious questions (to put it mildly) about the Right’s bedfellows and the calculus that determines them. It suggests the need for a little more terrorism awareness. CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS –infowars.net
Anne Khodabandeh, who is of British nationality and the wife of the Iranian Massoud Khodabandeh, replied to the article published by "Alseyassah" on the first of this month under the heading "Iraqi warnings from the agent of the Iranian regime by the name of Massoud Khodabandeh", in a letter sent to the cultural office at the embassy of the State of Kuwait in London, of which "Alseyassah" has received a copy. In the reply, Massoud says that "the article was slanderous and defamatory to my good name and unfortunately its anonymous writer did not try to contact me by email or by telephone or at my address in Britain, or at the Centre de Recherches sur le Terrorism in Paris where I work". He refers to the scurrilous accusation made by the remnants of the Baathist regime in Iraq which links his name and his wife’s name to the Iranian intelligence services – which is completely untrue and there is not a shred of evidence for the lies which appear in that article.
He also gives the reason why it was published. Mr Khodabandeh explains that he lives in the United Kingdom and is currently visiting Iraq at the invitation of government officials, and was invited in order to attend various meeting on the issue of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq. He adds that "in the course of this work I have regular contact with the US army and relevant humanitarian bodies and I am seeking ways to rescue people from the hands of the Saddamists in Diyali province". He considers that "as all Kuwaiti citizens know all too well, the "Mojahedin-e Khalq" organisation acted as Saddam’s private army in Iraq and helped to crush the Kurdish uprising in 1991 at the end of the first Gulf war. The Iraqi Government is now determined to remove all remnants of the Baathist regime, including the Iranian foreign terrorist group "Mojahedin-e Khalq", from its territory". He adds "I have travelled to Iraq to help those people who want to leave the group to find refuge and return to their families and to normal life."
He concludes by saying that readers of the newspaper "Alseyassah" will understand now why the Saddamists have tried to blacken his name and he states that the paper’s editors have acted properly in giving him the right to reply.
In this connection, it is important for "Alseyassah" to explain to Mr and Mrs Khodabandeh and to our readers that what was published on the first of February was an announcement and not an article and it was not simply ascribed to anonymous sources but it made clear in it that it was an announcement issued by the "League of Iraqi Academics and Educationalists" and it is important to explain that the accusations made by the League that Mrs Ann and her husband are "working in the service of the Iranian security services in Iraq and that they are carrying out the tasks of the Iranian regime under false pretences" were accusations carried by "Alseyassah" but not espoused by it, as was stated in the announcement itself.
A round table discussion centred on the issue of terrorism in Iraq and possible solutions to this problem. The Symposium was divided in to 3 parts: – the general threat posed by terrorist groups and the ways they operate in Iraq – foreign terrorist organisations in Iraq – the creation of terrorist organisations in Iraq and the global supporters of these terrorist groups Participants of the Symposium ranged from university professors including, Dr. Aziz Jabar Shayal, Dr. Samir Alshweely and Dr. Rasheed Saleh, professors of Political Studies from the University of Baghdad. The Symposium was also attended by many governmental and non-governmental representatives from a wide range of ministries and NGOs, including representatives from Iraq’s Ministries of Defence, Human Rights and Security.
Massoud Khodabandeh from the Centre de recherches sur le terrorisme depuis le 11 septembre 2001 (Paris), who was in Baghdad for meetings concerning the fate of the remaining individuals following dismantlement of Camp Ashraf which houses the disarmed Iranian terrorist organisation Mojahedin Khalq Organisation, was invited to participate in the discussion.
Prominent among the participants was Mr. Bassam Alhassani, advisor to Prime Minister Noori Al Maleki.
The Symposium ended with a full report on the issues discussed and Dr. Aziz Jabar Shayal delivered the end resolution in which one paragraph emphasized the necessity for the dismantlement and deportation of the foreign terrorist Mojahedin Khalq organisation and encouragement and facilitation by the government and others to help the remaining individuals find a safe palace outside Iraq and return to normal life.
The symposium was covered by media representatives who reported from the meeting room.
Alaraghia television, Iraq’s main TV network, reported the Symposium and broadcast a brief interview with Massoud Khodabandeh.
In the interview, Massoud Khodabandeh emphasised above all the right of the Iraqi people to enjoy security and have justice served against the perpetrators of violent acts in their country, in particular the criminal heads of the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq organisation which was involved in the massacre of the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings against Saddam Hussein in March 1991. Mr Khodabandeh said that in his belief and according to all the studies of the Centre de Recherches sur le Terrorisme, the phenomenon of terrorism cannot have a single solution and needs inter governmental cooperation as well as the involvement of NGOs to protect the human rights of the who have been inveigled by terrorist leaders into this path, and to give them a second chance of integration back into their societies.
Thanking the organisers of the Symposium Mr Khodabandeh emphasised the cult culture of terrorist organisations and the methods they use to brainwash their followers. He also gave examples of foreign support by some influential groups and parties who facilitate the flow of finance for terrorism. Not the least the relationship between the remainders of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, London, Washington and other countries with the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation, and the way this relationship is becoming clear in the escalation of violence in Diyali province as well as the streets of London and other European countries.
The Symposium lasted for over two hours. Afterwards the participants formed smaller groups to further discuss the variety of issues raised by the Seminar.
A full report and media coverage will be published shortly. Thursday, 31st of January 2008.
Centre for International and Inter-governmental Studies of the University of Baghdad
Confirmation of this news takes place after some reports were published indicating that in the past few weeks the efforts of dozens of former MKO to escape Iraq and seek refuge in western countries have failed and many of them are left hanging around in Iraq where they are in a very desperate situation.
In the past four years since Iraq was occupied by the US forces and its allies, some MKO members gradually left this organization and Camp Ashraf which is their base in Iraq.
The US army which is guarding Camp Ashraf during this period, kept the dissidents under its own protection in a camp near to this base. As the press office of coalition forces under the US command has informed the BBC, during the last four years 380 individuals of MKO have returned to Iran at their own request. But those dissidents who did not wish to return to Iran despite the efforts made by the United States did not gain the confirmation of any country for their application for refuge.
Meanwhile, reports indicate that within the last few weeks, dozens of them decided to leave the camp they were living in which was protected by the US forces and try to leave Iraq through different ways but this effort was unsuccessful for most of them and they returned to the camp protected by the US forces. Some were arrested after crossing the Turkish border and returned to Iraq, a few managed to remain in Turkey or go to Greece illegally.
The Society for Defending Immigrants and Iranians in France (ARIA) tries to help the MKO dissidents to leave Iraq and settle in another country. According to this society 208 MKO dissidents were staying in the US camp up to last month. The press office of the US forces today gives their number at 110. Javad Firuzmand, the spokesman of ARIA society who himself has left the MKO says that this number had reduced to 50 last week and the number 110 indicates that some of those who had left there have returned to the US camp.
Mr Firuzmand told the BBC that 70 of the dissidents tried to go to Turkey after they left the Americas with the aid of some smugglers, but the Turkish border police arrested them and after one month in prison and remaining in compulsory camp were handed over to the Iraqi Police. One of these people was shot and wounded by the border police and is in hospital now in the city of Arbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. The spokesman of ARIA society says that the autonomous government of Iraqi Kurdistan is keeping the people who were handed over by the Turkish police in a temporary camp in Arbil. But some of these people tried again to cross the Turkish border. Ten of them were arrested again by the Turkish police and handed over to Iraqi police and they are now in prison in Arbil. Amongst those who managed to cross the border ten were able to reach Greece with the aid of smugglers and 15 are living covertly in Istanbul and Ankara and Van in Turkey.
According to Javad Firuzmand, the MKO dissidents who are staying in Turkey could not approach the Human Rights and Turkish organizations since if they are revealed they would be arrested and returned to Iraq. The ten who stay in Greece are also in covert situation in that country. The ARIA society spokesman added that about 15 individuals approached Jordan and there is no information about the destiny of other 8.
The BBC’s effort to contact the UNHCR to obtain information about the destiny of these MKO dissidents did not reach anywhere but enquiries are still ongoing. The ARIA society which is a human rights establishment defending Iranians has demanded help for these people and the chance to live legally in European or other free countries. During the last four years some MKO dissidents have returned to Iran – the press office of forces under US command in Iraq gives their number at 380. Javad Firuzmand, the spokesman of ARIA society says that these individuals are living and working in several Iranian cities and are freely active in the society and he himself is in contact with some of them. According to him, inside Camp Ashraf which is still run by the MKO, some 200 individuals have left the MKO too. These people are not willing to move to the American’s camp and they are kept in a separate place inside Ashraf. Mr Firuzmand says that these people also seek refuge from western countries.
Camp Ashraf was established in 1986 after MKO leader [Massoud Rajavi] moved from France to Iraq and the members of this organisation launched an armed struggle against Iran benefiting from the military facilities given by Saddam Hussein’s regime. They participated in military operations against Iran during the Iran Iraq war. This base is situated in the district of Khalis in the province of Dyala in the east of Iraq and the coalition forces under US command have given the total number of individuals living there as 3360. The United States designated the MKO as a terrorist organisation but according to international regulations and Geneva Convention, they are kept under the entity of "protected persons".
The Iranian government demands that Camp Ashraf be dismantled and all MKO members be expelled from Iraq and accuses the Americans of protecting them in order to use them against Iran. January 26, 2008
Some of Britain’s closest allies in the fight against terrorism have accused the Government of allowing banned terrorist organisations to operate openly in this country.
An investigation by The Times has revealed that at least six countries have complained about the failure of the Government to enforce the Terrorism Act 2000, which proscribes 46 foreign terrorist organisations.
The countries include Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Turkey. Iran has also voiced criticism. America, Britain’s closest ally, is known to have serious reservations about the Government’s commitment to enforcing the law.
The Terrorism Act 2000, which was introduced by Jack Straw, now the Justice Minister, was supposed to prevent London becoming an important terrorist hub, where groups were able to raise funds, distribute propaganda and plan terrorist operations.
From the start, however, the law has been difficult to apply. Many groups simply changed their names, others concealed their operations and some simply seem to have been ignored by the authorities.
One of the most blatant cases is the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a Kurdish separatist movement responsible for a recent spate of attacks in southern Turkey.
A Turkish official said that the group ran a multimillion-pound operation in North London, controlling businesses, running a political office and printing a newspaper.
“The British Government tolerates the PKK,” a Turkish official said. “if anything the group has increased its profile over the past decade.”
He said that where once the organisation extorted money from local businesses and ran human trafficking rings, now it owned supermarkets, jewellers, cafés and restaurants.
“We have complained so often about this to the British authorities that we are sick and tired of nothing being done,” he told The Times.
Pakistan, arguably Britain’s most important ally in fighting terrorism, also feels aggrieved. It has repeatedly helped the British authorities to track and apprehend terror suspects, yet it feels that its own problems have been ignored.
A Pakistani official said that Britain was “slow to respond” to the activities of the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), which is on the Home Office proscribed list. The Pakistanis are also frustrated that Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist Muslim group banned in Pakistan, has still not been proscribed in Britain despite promises from the Government.
Similar complaints have been made by the Sri Lankan High Commission over the activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, another banned group that continues to raise money and distribute propaganda in Britain among the expatriate Tamil community.
The Israeli Embassy in London has also had reason to complain over the activities of Hezbollah, the militant Shia Muslim group in Lebanon, and Hamas, the radical Palestinian group responsible for attacks against Israel.
“Hamas has been using the UK for the past few years as a major centre for publishing and distributing incitement-based material, whilst taking advantage of legal loopholes and lenient enforcement policy, an Israeli official said.
He added that a senior Hezbollah member, involved in the group’s al-Manar broadcasting service, was recently granted a visa to visit London. Al-Manar has been taken off the air in France and other countries for anti-Semitic programmes and glorifying terrorist attacks.
Saudi Arabia, another key partner in the anti-terror campaign, is also unhappy that Saudi exiles in Britain, some with connections to al-Qaeda, are able to operate openly.
“To be allowed to use Britain as a base to attack other governments and societies, to us this is puzzling,” Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi Ambassador to London, told The Times.
“We have no problem with people seeing Britain as a safe haven, but they should not use that generosity to attack other countries and to undermine relations between Britain and other countries,” he said. “And they should absolutely not use Britain as a platform from which they can preach an ideology of hatred and violence."
Part of the problem is the support that some groups enjoy from the British Establishment. Last week the banned Mujahidin-e-Khalq won a court appeal to have its name removed from the terrorist list, in a move supported by dozens of MPs.
The group, which currently operates under the name the National Council of Iranian Resistance, was armed and financed for years by Saddam Hussein and is responsible for attacks against targets in Iran.
Patrick Mercer MP, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, urged the Government to enforce its own laws.
“An organisation is either proscribed or it is not. If it is proscribed then it must be given the pariah status that it deserves,” he said. “If the Government will not enforce these proscriptions, what is the point in doing it?”
The Home Office insisted that the proscription was an effective way of preventing terrorist groups operating in Britain.
“It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to take action where there is evidence of an offence being committed,” a Home Office spokesman said.
“Clearly, it is easier for the Police and Crown Prosecution Service to take action where they have firm evidence of illegal activities taking place. Any evidence that funds are being directed to a proscribed organisation from within the UK should be passed to the police.”
The Time
Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times, and Zahid Hussain, December 8, 2007
Honorable Mr. Stockwell Day, I am writing to you in order to express our deep concerns about a letter, addressed to the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, in which Mr. Casaca made serious allegations against our organization and its directors. The letter has been translated and published in one of the Mojahedin e Khalgh organization’s satellite sites at the following address: http://www.iran-efshagari.com/details_d.aspx?id_news=3476 .
As a Canadian citizen, I find Mr. Casaca’s intervention with Canada’s internal affairs presumptuous. His expression of opinion on a subject that he has no prior knowledge of is quite irresponsible. Though I am quite confident that our Centre and its directors are well recognized not only by the community we are directly serving, Iranian-Canadians, but also by the community at large as well as the relevant government offices I wish to give a brief history of our organization and its establishment.
In May 2003 and during the pre-election debates on the board of directors of a university based discussion group since part of its members strongly believed in the importance of Human Rights advocacy as part of the group’s agenda we made a decision to split the group in two sections and our organization inherited the original name and the mandate of such advocacy and the other section continued its bi-weekly discussion sessions that were held at OISE for almost three years. Our first major project, right after our registration as an organization, was the unfortunate case of Ms. Zahra Kazemi in which we worked with likes of Mr. Maurice Capithorne, Honorable David Miller, Mr. John Cartwright and many others. In our second major project, on the occasion of tragic earthquake in Bam-Iran, once again we worked with Mr. Buzz Hargrove, Mr. Jack Layton, Ms. Shelley Carroll and many other credible individuals to collect $130,000 and donate it to the Red Cross for the cause. Ever since our centre has been fully active and involved in regards to the well being of the Iranian community in Canada as well as demonstrating a transparent desire to achieve freedom and democracy by the means of peaceful and civilized activities in Iran. Needless to mention that our records, personally and professionally, is always available for audit by authorities.
In the past four years our directors were invited to serve in different organizations and sit at different boards all as result of their dedication to the cause of democracy and human rights. During this time, as one example, I have been one of the first members of the Stop the War Coalition, founder and board member of Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO), member of the Bam Relief Committee, former president of Muslim Canadian Congress and current director of Canadian Muslim Union, member of National Ethnic Press and many other positions for which have never been compensated by funds, grants, donations or any other form of payments.
In late fall 2005 Mr. Mohammadi approached our Centre and explained his situation. We, in return, gave him a realistic picture of how limited our involvement would be since his daughter is of a legal age and without Canadian status. At that time Mr. Mohammadi was working with a respectable non-Iranian lawyer, Ms. Pamila Bhardwaj, who accepted the case pro bono and because of the family’s language barrier I agreed to act as their translator and also write their letters. The lawyer is still helping the devastated family by representing them at the Ministry of Immigration and Citizenship as well as other government departments. As I was just learning about the internal history of MKO through the contacts, witnesses and the first hand experience of the family’s young son who just came back from Iraq, Camp Ashraf, I was approached by some former members of MKO being kept in TIPF, Iraq, and they informed me about the suspicious suicide of a young man by the name of Yaser Akbari Nasab. Though by the time we were informed about this sad event almost two weeks were passed of the date of his death there was no news about it on any site or other media. In an interview with Radio Farda I publicly talked about this and correctly asked for International monitoring of the situation in this camp. This is when the MKO started attacking me, our organization and other directors. Despite all the threatening and discouraging messages and by ignoring the many warnings by concern members of our community we did not change our minds and never stopped doing what we deemed appropriate, legal and democratic. Up to this day our Centre has been involved directly with the case of former members who have been trapped for years in Iraq and we did all to bring their cases to the attention of UNHCR, HRW, AI and similar international organizations. Contrary to the claim of Mojahedin, and its echo by Mr. Casaca, these people ignored the many offers of some shady HR organizations which may or may not have ties with the IRI and are consciously paying a heavy price for that decision.
The volume of the threats, allegations and accusations that we received so far, particularly me and Mr. Saeed Soltanpour, has been beyond tolerable. The most recent wave of attacks started when Mr. Mohammadi and his wife, with serious concern for the future of their daughter after the negotiations between Iran and USA regarding the future of residents of Camp Ashraf, traveled to Baghdad and after an unsuccessful visit with Somayeh on their way back to the city were physically attacked by MKO members, started a desperate campaign in Iraq. On the morning of December 10 Ms. Sonya Hooykaas, the Canadian Council from Jordan called me and by confirming the very story asked me to convince him to return to Canada since she had concerns for their safety. She also asked me if it is OK that she adds my name to her report to Ottawa to which I agreed. However, our belief is that we should not allow pressure and violent threats to paralyze us and concern for personal safety should not prevent us from helping those in urgent need. Unfortunately the current leadership of MKO transferred a credible and popular opposition group into a violent and isolated organization that exists and operates at the will of any willing player but Iranians. I trust that their isolation from the Iranian communities in the Western world as well as inside Iran has been noticed and documented by those interested.
For all these reasons we continue our work by relying on our credentials within our community and all the protection that is available to any Canadian citizens. By now, we are not only used to the exhausted methods of MKO in affiliating every single criticism with ties to the Ministry of Information in Iran but also amused by it. However, it was quite a shock to hear that a member of the European Parliament who has no knowledge of us either individually or as an organization repeats the same baseless rhetoric. It is quite naive of a politician to claim that a government, even as repressing and violent as IRI, plans such extensive operation just to rescue a young novice from a military camp in a war zone. After all, even MKO could not accuse us of any other wrong doing but our assistance to this family. Yet, Mr., Casaca ignored the fact that in no communication the father asked his daughter to sever her relations to the organization or go back to Iran. Actually the recent rush by these desperate parents was due to their fear of their child being returned to Iran as result of negotiations. After all many of MKO members including its leadership reside and operate in Western countries and mostly in Europe.
Ordinary people chose their representatives hoping that they are knowledgeable and just above all. Irresponsible judgments and unwise opinions are not the most desirable qualities for those who are vested with such power. As citizens who believe in the Canadian charter of rights we wish to bring your attention to the serious damage caused by Mr. Casaca’s passing of opinion and would like him to withdraw his allegations immediately. Also since the MKO has gone to an unusual extant in order to defame and terrorize us we would like the Canadian authorities to acknowledge the gravity of the situation and have some proper measures in place.
Sincerely,
Niaz Salimi
Director
Cc:
Honorable Diane Finley “ Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Honorable Maxime Bernier “ Minister of foreign affairs
Ms. Chrystiane Roy “ Iran Desk
Mr. Fernando Da Silva Marques “ Portuguese Embassy
Mr. Paulo Casaca – MEPEU
Canadian
Centre for Thought, Dialogue and Human Rights in Iran “ Toronto (CTDHR), January 6, 2008
http://cdhriran.blogspot.com/2008/01/re-letter-from-mr-paulo-casaca-member.html#links
Editor’s note: The recently released National Intelligence Estimate says Iran had “suspended its nuclear weapon program.” But Iran’s purported nuclear weapons program never existed, writes NAM contributing editor William O. Beeman. Beeman is professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota and author of “The ‘Great Satan’ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.”
Iran has never had a proven nuclear weapons program. Ever. This inconvenient fact stands as an indictment of the Bush administration’s stance on Iran.
The recently released 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran “suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003” caught the Bush administration flat-footed. In his panic, Bush grasped desperately at the idea that the weapons program may have once existed. However, the report does not offer a scintilla of evidence that the weapons program was ever an established fact.
Designating 2003 as the date that Iran “stopped” its program is telling:
this is the year the Bush administration first decided to create a case for attacking Iran based on the purported danger of its nuclear program.
In February 2003, the U.S. government-designated terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq, better known as the MEK (or MKO) “revealed” the existence of Iran’s nuclear facilities to Washington. The MEK, which had been purged from Iran during the period following the 1979 revolution, took up residence in Iraq under the protection of Saddam Hussein. The MEK, sometimes identified as an “Islamic Marxist” organization, is dedicated to the overthrow of the current Iranian government. It has been assiduous in courting American lawmakers to recruit U.S. support for its cause. Legislators such as Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Florida Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have championed this cause, and neoconservatives Patrick Clawson and Daniel Pipes lobbied for its removal from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations in order to use the MEK in the Bush White House drive for regime change in Iran.
Subsequently, the Bush administration claimed that Iran had “concealed” its weapons program for decades, and began a campaign to shut down all nuclear development.
In fact, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) grants all nations the “inalienable right” to peaceful nuclear development. Further, it does not require any nation to report its facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until fissile material, such as uranium, is actually introduced into the facility.
Iran did indeed have a brief reporting lapse. It revealed the start of its nuclear enrichment experiments at the time they began, rather than announcing this to the IAEA 180 days before experimentation as was required. This was in 2003, and it was the only serious breech of protocol.
The National Intelligence Estimate now identifies 2003 as the date when the weapons program stopped — literally at the point when the Bush administration first became aware of it.
2003 was two years before the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was more than a year before the United States began to lobby for U.N. economic sanctions against Iran. Claiming that “international pressure” had caused Iran to modify its behavior, the Bush administration tried desperately to justify its exaggerated characterizations of the danger Iran posed to the world. The only event that the Bush administration can now claim as constituting “international pressure” is the May 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
If the international community understands that Iran never had a weapons program, President George W. Bush’s statement that Iran could start the program up “again” is clearly absurd.
It is now clear that the Bush administration’s campaign to convince the world of the danger of Iran’s purported immanent nuclear weapons was a sham. The campaign was one in a series of public pretexts to effect regime change in the Islamic Republic. No amount of equivocation, or bluster about Iran’s “continuing” danger can mask the fact that American credibility on this issue has been irrevocably damaged.
The only positive outcome of this debacle may be that the Bush administration may finally accept that differences with Iran can only be solved by actually talking to the leaders of the Islamic Republic. Restoration of diplomatic relations, even at a low level, will begin the process of reducing the hostile atmosphere that has been created, and will start the long, slow process toward the restoration of productive and peaceful relations.
New America Media, News Analysis, William O. Beeman
Unlike many excellent articles approved for postings at progressive Web sites, Julian Edney’s “The Libertarian Threat”, OpEdNews.com (June 27, 2006) is an example of how anyone can claim to be a progressive, libertarian, conservative, liberal, or any other political label. Obviously, progressives do not have a monopoly on brilliant political analyses. Hopefully, Julian Edney will write a sequel “The Progressive Threat”.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_julian_e_060627_the_libertarian_thre.htm
In 1944, George Orwell wrote a book review of Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and of K. Zilliacus’ The Mirror of the Past. Orwell noted that the important lesson to be learned from these authors from opposite ends of the political spectrum is that there is more than one road to slavery. Orwell, who fought for the communists in the Spanish Civil War, wrote Homage to Catalonia to explain how different political groups used lies in their pursuit of totalitarian power. Orwell left communist groups and regarded himself as a democratic socialist. However, Orwell understood that totalitarians can join and take over democratic socialist parties, too.
Professor Paul Sheldon Foote
California State University, Fullerton
pfoote@fullerton.edu
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/
July 2, 2006
_____________________________________________________________
Review:
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus
Taken together, these two books give grounds for dismay. The first of them is an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism, the other is an even more vehement denunciation of it. They cover to some extent the same ground, they frequently quote the same authorities, and they even start out with the same premise, since each of them assumes that Western civilization depends on the sanctity of the individual. Yet each writer is convinced that the other’s policy leads directly to slavery, and the alarming thing is that they may both be right….
Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
Both of these writers are aware of this, more or less; but since they can show no practicable way of bringing it about the combined effect of their books is a depressing one.
Observer, 9 April 1944
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/twobooks.html
___________________________________________________________
While Julian Edney noted briefly that true libertarians do not support neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) or objectivists, his article created the impression that libertarians are a threat. Does the threat include the libertarian left? Edney failed to name or to cite even one true libertarian. Edney failed to praise those on the libertarian right who have exposed and have opposed the totalitarian objectives of the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites).
The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) are not capitalists. They are supporters of Trotsky who aided President Reagan to seek to cause the collapse of the communist leaders who inherited the totalitarian state from Stalin. Irving Kristol did write Two Cheers for Capitalism. However, many of the neo-conservatives support the totalitarian takeover of countries, including of Iran by the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran). Apparently, the neo-conservatives are only anti-Stalin, not anti-communist or anti-totalitarian.
The neo-conservatives are not religious, unless you count worshiping at the altar of Machiavelli. See Michael Ledeen’s book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago. Of course, the chickenhawk neoconservative cowards have no objections to evangelical Christian soldiers marching off to war to achieve their ungodly goals.
Professor Claes Ryn, in his book America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire, classified the neoconservatives as similar to the Jacobins of the French Revolution (and counter to the values of the American Revolution). On page 145, Ryn noted the usage of “democratic capitalism” to have a meaning very different from capitalism. Does Julian Edney regard Communist China’s totalitarian model with some free market elements as communist or as capitalist?
Paul A. Lindahl has claimed to be both a neoconservative and a capitalist. However, he has rejected any suggestion that neoconservatives are Social Darwinists. http://www-tech.mit.edu/V105/N10/lindah.10o.html
Edney needs to support his Social Darwinism claim.
Edney noted correctly that the objectivists are not true libertarians. Ayn Rand was a philosopher, not an economist, whose vague writings can be used to support even totalitarians. For details of the philosophy of objectivism, see The Ayn Rand Institute’s Web site: http://www.aynrand.org/
Claiming to be a capitalist does not make one a capitalist: http://www.capitalism.org/ . How does capitalism lead by extension to “Israel is Moral”? http://www.israelismoral.com/
A good researcher would have found the writings of Murray Rothbard about the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and about the objectivists. Justin Raimondo’s book, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, would be a good starting point for Edney’s future research. He could continue by reviewing the large number of excellent articles by Justin Raimondo on the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and on the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) posted at http://www.antiwar.com/justin . Justin Raimondo is a former Libertarian Party and Republican Party candidate for public offices. Can anyone name even one progressive who has done more than Justin Raimondo to oppose the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites), the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran), and war?
Edney explained poorly also the divisions within the Libertarian Party. There is a big difference between libertarians (left and right) and Libertarian Party factions: http://www.lp.org/ Some members of the Libertarian Party believe that the only way to win elections is to copy the big tent approaches of the Democratic and Republican parties. Other members of the Libertarian Party believe the way to win elections is to be a party of principles.
Edney can attempt to explain how it is possible for both Carol Moore and Neal Boortz to attend Libertarian Party conventions together.
Carol Moore has been a tireless campaigner for peace. Her Web groups include those who are attempting to stop a war with Iran. She has demonstrated against the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists. http://www.carolmoore.net/
By contrast, Edney can research the positions of Neal Boortz on the Iraq War and on other issues. http://boortz.com/
In March 2006, I attended a stop war on Iran presentation in Los Angeles by Ardeshir Ommani, a Workers World Party activist (http://www.workers.org). Ommani quoted favorably only one member of Congress: Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican (and former Libertarian Party candidate for President). Ommani opposed the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran). While many who claim to be progressives support Democrats, who else on the left has been honest enough to admit that libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul is one of the very few members of Congress worth re-electing?
The more than 6,000 signers of the Stop War on Iran Statement include:
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Detroit Archdiocese*, Founding President, Pax Christi*
The Most Rev. Filipe C Teixeira, OFSJC, Diocesan Bishop, Diocese of Saint Francis of Assisi, CCA
Michael Parenti, author
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Howard Zinn, author, historian
George Galloway, MP, Britain
Tony Benn, MP, Britain
Denis J. Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General
Harold Pinter, 2005 Nobel Laureate in Literature
Margarita Papandreou, former First Lady of Greece
Ardeshir Ommani, co-founder of American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)
Ervand Abrahamian, Prof. ME History, Author, Between Two Revolutions
David N. Rahni, Professor and scholar, NY
David Sole, President UAW, Local 2334*, Detroit
Steve Gillis, President, USWA Local 8751*
Fellowship of Reconciliation, Nyack, NY
Thomas Koppel and Annisette, of the Scandinavian Popular Music Band Savage Rose
Paul Foote, Professor, California State University, Fullerton*, Fullerton, CA [Republican Party]
Carol Moore, webmaster, Stopthewarnow.org*, Washington, DC [Libertarian Party]
… and many progressive organizations.
Why is Julian Edney’s name missing from this list?
http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml
For an example of a progressive Web site, Edney needs to study:
American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)
http://www.progressiveportals.com/Default.aspx?alias=www.progressiveportals.com/aifc
By contrast, one of the leading supporters of the totalitarian takeover of Iran by the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) is Bob Filner, the son of a Communist Party candidate for Congress, a Democrat, and a member of the Progressive Caucus in Congress. Where are the real progressives condemning Bob Filner and the other false progressives?
Julian Edney is correct that John Perkins wrote an important book, The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. However, Edney is wrong about claiming that the greedy thieves are capitalists. Why did greedy Wall Street and European thieves give $5 million to Lenin to return to Russian and start a communist revolution? There are more detailed books by authors across the political spectrum on how the greedy thieves operate, such as:
1. Mark Hulbert’s Interlock: The untold story of American banks, oil interests, the Shah’s money, debts, and the astounding connections between them
2. James Perloff’s The Shadows of Power
3. Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope
4. Anthony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
5. Anthony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
Sixty years after the writings of George Orwell, it is unfortunate that so much ignorance and dishonesty remains in political discourse. Orwell was correct that there is more than one road to slavery. Some examples of failures across the political spectrum of persons to understand and to oppose totalitarians are:
1. How could many Republicans and Democrats be duped by the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites)?
2. Which real progressives have done as much as Lew Rockwell, on the libertarian right, (http://www.LewRockwell.com) in opposing totalitarians, including exposing the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult or Pol Pot of Iran) and the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) who support them?
3. Why are real progressives failing to condemn fake progressives and totalitarian Democrats such as Congressman Bob Filner?
____________________________________________________________
The Libertarian threat
by Julian Edney
June 27, 2006
http://www.opednews.com/
We are losing ground against a rhetorical assault.
The Libertarian star, hurled by the upward burst of American business which occurred in the Reagan era after the fall of the Berlin Wall, has risen. This global expansion over the last two decades is capitalism’s second Big Bang, and it still accelerates. Mercantile missionaries have been flying to remote and backward nations in Indonesia, Latin America and the Middle East to show them liberty, democracy and wealth. The message: business is the solution; as your nation gets richer, it will benefit everybody.
The actual sequence is floridly exposed by writers like John Perkins (1). Ostensibly we send bold venture capitalists traipsing from country to backwater country, nailing freedom into place and unfurling banners of abundance. In practice it takes money to get started. First, corporate reps fly in and propose to arrange gargantuan loans for improvements. The lenders include the World Bank, and the loans may be used partly to bribe local officials, but they come with many rules and conditions that the construction work be done by American contractors. It is big money and it is made clear to local politicians they will get a fabulous rakeoff. The paperwork is set. Next the contractors move in and install concrete ports, iron factories, fences, oil wells, roads, telephones and mines. The factories fill with local workers. The big money loans also come with big interest payments (always in American dollars.) If the loans are not paid off quickly (they never are – these improvements take time) they compound into mountainous obligation. This brings whole sectors of the nation under the control of the foreign lenders. This may be used to extort political changes. Obstructing local leaders may be removed.
The pattern is an old one. On a local scale it used to be called carpetbagging. After the American Civil War northern profiteers traveled south taking advantage of Southern chaos and loss, buying property and plantations from devastated landowners, hiring at starvation wages, getting rich, and leveraging themselves into political office, arguing that the employment they brought benefited all. They were hated as exploiters. A poster from the period shows the KKK threatening to lynch carpetbaggers.
Our international version has brought backward nations in Indonesia, Latin America and the Middle East phones, satellite TV, and clinics, while natural resources are taken under the lender’s rules. This was supposed to lead to local wealth but most of the money goes to pay off the contractors and the lenders.
On this side, reports seep back to American shareholders of indigenous people working twelve-hour shifts for five dollars a day in the new concrete sweatshops surrounded by barbed wire and having no standards and no labor laws; walled hells of exploitation – but cheap labor means bonanza profits. Some mansions appear on the hillside. But not everybody is lifted. Years later, there are acres of slums. Instead of gratitude come street demonstrations against Americans.
But challenge the working conditions and you get corporate table pounding: ‘Five dollars a day is much better than the dollar a day they made herding goats.’ And if you object that it doesn’t look like liberty for the workers – ‘but we saved them from communism.’ Perkins goes on to relate how corporate reps, poolside at shimmering hotels, talk about civilizing the savages, the way the colonial British talked a century ago.
Some very wealthy American politicians are entangled in these corporations. When these politicians are interviewed on talk shows or the evening news, it’s a familiar line: we bring freedom and economic opportunity to oppressed nations (if they sit on oil fields).
The better known of these politicians are called neocons, or new (born again) conservatives. The rhetoric they use is that a rise in corporate wealth – and their wealth – benefits all. They sometimes must struggle to make these small countries see sense, as well as liberal doubters at home. They must explain. This is where ideology comes in.
Neocon business ideology is smudged, a mix of market principles with a subtext of Social Darwinism, and more subtext conveyed in TV images, and that all this is prayed on in church; clumsy. So Libertarian principles are used.
The Libertarian Party was invented in 1971 and it has never won any national elections. Actually, true Libertarians are against expansionism. They do not want foreign wars. They hate wiretapping, domestic spying, police powers, and big government. At the Libertarian center is an anarchist’s desire for as little government as possible. New as it is, the Libertarian movement has a towering advantage: a crisp ideology.
Ultimately, policy is steered by ideas. So while neocons and their lobbyists guide huge money around, they must fall back on quoting an ideology that’s not quite theirs. So Libertarians get outsize respect.
Libertarian ideology is both powerful and backward-looking. It is expounded by older authorities like Ayn Rand (2) and new, and its principles may be found in a few quite readable books (3-5). It insists on maximizing personal freedom. It uses ancient concepts like natural law, and its goals are a reversion to the ‘natural state’ – simple communities based on the rightness of inequality, and natural selection among humans. It is not democratic. It does not deal with conscience, nor with justice, nor compassion; its single-minded focus is on liberty, and it embraces concepts like survival of the fittest. It claims Adam Smith’s principle of the ‘invisible hand,’ and it promotes concepts like laissez-faire that businessmen want to use.
Libertarianism is not to be confused with populism, because populism is egalitarian and focuses on the good of the common man. Libertarians avoid anything common; they talk about natural nobilities and elites.
Throw in Libertarians’ insistence that the ‘common good’ is a deception, throw in their exaggerated assertions of the total failure of socialism, throw in their insistence that taxation is theft – and businessmen are ready to do battle at high pitch.
No matter how they press us with this, and expect us to see sense, we never will. Adam Smith’s principles are over two hundred years old. Forcing it on global markets is perverse.
And this is my thesis: Libertarian ideology throws us in jeopardy.
First, their foundation is flawed. They present freedom as shining and obvious, a self-evident good. Actually she is an ambiguous woman, surrounded by a logjam of philosophy. Many, many crimes have been committed in her name.
Second, a point on the nature of democracy. The two basic values of democracy are freedom and equality. They are the wings on which this precious bird flies, and for flying they should be equal. But as de Tocqueville originally pointed out, the two values are in conflict. Especially in big societies, the more freedom, the less equality. It’s like water in a U-shaped tube: as freedom increases on one side, equality drops. But as the equality side goes down, so do things that adhere to it: equity, equal treatment, justice.
Water always seeks its own level. If the Libertarians persist in artificially raising one side, nature will eventually reassert. Sensing this, some Libertarians propose a radical method to preserve this arrangement. Hans-Herman Hoppe demands we dismantle democracy – like dismantling the whole U-shaped tube – and reinstall ancient natural nobilities (6). This is an atavistic proposal. Hoppe (called an "international treasure" by Lew Rockwell) actually states the Constitution was an error (7) – and Ayn Rand was not far behind.
Third, a newly discovered hazard of social inequality.
There is new evidence, collected in the health sciences and published in medical journals, showing hierarchy is a killer. Simply: social inequality (aside from poverty) hurts people’s health and shortens their lives. These are based on correlations in states, countries, and cities: wherever there is marked social inequality, violence is up, health is down, infant mortality is up, and life expectancy is shorter – and this affects all levels within the community. These scientific findings, published over the last ten years in both the United States and Britain, are powerful and clear. They show egalitarian societies are simply healthier (8-10).
So the expansion of free markets under Libertarian principles cannot benefit everybody. A few people get exponentially rich, but at the same time we are exporting threats to both health and justice. If there were truth-in-lending packages attached to these foreign loans, they should include photos of our own skid rows, and statistics on American hunger.
Some of America’s political rights are formulated as freedoms – of speech, of assembly. Another is to select who will govern. By derivation, another – through elections, a slow process – is to select the shape of our society. We should protect this if we are to care for our health.
The Libertarians are up to no good.
And I am not proposing a coercive new program, nor a new political machinery, nor an end to business, nor new social engineering.
I am suggesting we let water find its own level.
Notes
1. Perkins, J. Confessions of an economic hit man. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, 2004.
2. Rand, A. Capitalism: the unknown ideal. New York: Signet Books, 1946.
3. Murray, C. What it means to be a Libertarian. New York: Broadway Books, 1997.
4. Boaz, D. Libertarianism: A primer. New York: The Free Press, 1997.
5. Hoppe, H. H. Democracy, the god that failed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2004.
6. Hoppe, H.H. "Down with Democracy" retrieved at http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe12.html
7. Hoppe, H.H. Democracy, the god that failed. p. 279.
8. Wilkinson, R. The impact of inequality: how to make sick societies healthier. New York: The New Press, 2005.
9. Kawachi, I., B.P. Kennedy and R.C.Wilkinson, The society and population health reader. New York: The New Press, 1999.
10. Sapolsky, R. "Sick of poverty." Scientific American, 2005, 293, 92-99.
Author Julian Edney can be contacted from his website.
http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm
Author: Julian Edney teaches college in Los Angeles. His book Greed: A treatise expands on these themes. He can be contacted through his website.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_julian_e_060627_the_libertarian_thre.htm