So, May 28, 1998, chauvinistic Pakistanis here and all over the world erupted in wild celebrations because Pakistan successfully exploded a nuclear bomb in the Chaghai hills. That day is celebrated since as Yom-e-Takbir. I won’t bore you with details and commentary that you can easily find elsewhere on the Internet.

Twelve years later, by some strange coincidence, on that same fateful date, 96 fellow Lahorias, most of them Ahmedis, were killed by extremist Islamic supremacists who seem to want to rid the country of whatever meagre diversity it still sports. It was a massacre that lasted several hours. Two sites were targeted, both mosques, one in Grrhi Shahu, the other in Model Town, just after the main congregational Friday prayers.

The day before the first anniversary of the attack, Salman Javed, a friend from the FASTRising days, posted on a Facebook group to remind us of the upcoming day of mourning and shame. The next day, I woke up to see an SMS from an old schoolfriend, essentially a “forward”, that congratulated everyone involved in the nuclear weapons programme (politicians from Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif, named various generals and prominent weapons scientists, but interestingly enough, did not mention Salam’s role), and advised us all to own this great achievement and to rejoice in such a grand success. I tipped over. I mentioned what happened the year before and I asked him if he had ever spared a thought for the children born in the district hospital at Naukundi with all manner of deformities. Not surprisingly, he wrote back to say that he condemned the preceding year’s massacre as all loss of life was regrettable. He also said that he had never heard of the effects of nuclear radiation on the local population, not even in media foreign or websites. I didn’t bother to point out that most Baloch separatist websites were blocked within Pakistan since he would not give them credence anyway. I did mention to him that I had heard of these deformities from in-service Baloch doctors at the Bolan Medical College (actually, their teaching hospital). He responded with the standard caveat: let’s not believe things that one has only heard of. I responded that, yes, I hoped one day to visit and confirm these stories myself.

Later in the day, a comrade from the National Students Federation sent an excellent SMS that tore apart the propaganda of the nuclear establishment. Still later, at the IPSS office, Diep was talking with a visitor about their inability to mount much of a protest campaign even after such a horrendous massacre. It was she who provided the figure of 96. I had forgotten. I forget.

So, finally, I snapped out of my paralysis and proposed that we do a small candle-light vigil in front of the mosque. Luckily, many of the young people at the lecture I was attending agreed to join and in the end, we were ten or eleven, instead of the two or three I was expecting. I was really heartened to see a courageous, young Ahmedi, a friend of the NSF comrade, join us.  After all, it was such short notice, people have plans, commitments. Ten or eleven in a sprawling city of almost ten million.

At the mosque, despite our entreaties, we were refused space point-blank. The six or seven policemen on duty were sympathetic and appreciative but regretted that they were bound by the orders of the mosque authorities. The authorities, it seems, were too afraid to do anything that would bring about a repeat (or worse) of the previous year’s atrocity. We reluctantly moved away, and then decided to head to the Press Club. Our Ahmedi friend informed us that he volunteered for security duty once a week inside the mosque and that the community actually had very little faith in the ability of the police to protect them against a second attack. He also told us that they were under a barrage of constant death threats, many of whom mentioned intended targets by name, communicated via fax, sms or slips of paper. I suddenly realised that, deny it as much I would, I was on some strange kind of battle-front, where the state’s monopoly on violence disappeared and a certain class citizens had to take care of itself.

We stood in front of the Press Club for about 40 minutes in a long arc that helped slow down traffic enough for even motorists and motor-cyclists to read our placards:

• We demand that the killers of the tragedy at Grhi Shahu and Model Town be presented in a court of justice
• Yom-e-takbir or shaam-e-ghm? 96 Lahorias were massacred on 28 May, 2010
• Stop intimidating and threatening Ahmedis
• Stop shedding blood in the name of religion

The killers were never arrested. I think one of them was wounded during the gun battle, and shifted to Jinnah Hospital. The next day, they attacked the ward where he was convalescing and managed to extricate him.

It seems that there are more French people who know the number of minarets in Switzerland (four) and the number of “burqas” in France (three hundred and sixty-seven [1]), than those who are aware that the Treasury has lost twenty billion euros as a result of a “technical” decision of the executive.

Eighteen months back, in fact, instead of limiting its rescue of the banking sector to buying shares, which could later have been sold for a nice profit, the French government preferred to give them loans with un-hoped-for conditions… for the banks, that is. The twenty billion euros they won for their shareholders is almost as much as the Social Security service’s deficit last year (22 billion euros). And forty times the amount of money the State saves when, for every two retiring officials, it replaces [/recruits] only one.

The electoral rehabilitation of the National Front, and more generally of the extreme right in Europe, is not entirely un-connected with the distribution of public attention between the beam of inflamed subaltern polemics and the mote of high-priority subjects that they pretend are too difficult to understand for ordinary mortals*. The fiasco of the regional elections safely behind him, Sarkozy will now get down to the “pension reform”. The social and financial stakes being considerable, we know already that the French government will work to distract the gallery by re-launching the “burqa debate”.

To counter this maneuver certainly does not mean that one gets bogged down in muddy terrain by giving the impression of defending an obscurantist symbol. And even less to accuse of racism the feminists – men and women – who legitimately condemn it. But how can one not be amused when a Right whose destiny has almost everywhere been associated with that of the Church, with patriarchy and with moral order should suddenly discover this boundless love for secularism, feminism and free-thinking. For this Right too, Islam accomplishes miracles!

In 1988, Mr. George H. Bush succeeded Mr. Reagan after a campaign of remarkable demagogy [2], during which he demanded that the burning of the Stars and Stripes be criminalised – an act that is committed between one and seven times per year… With the courage that we can imagine, more than 90% of American parliamentarians adopted a repressive measure that went in this direction – which was annulled by the Supreme Court. At the same time, one of the biggest scandals of the economic history of the United States erupted, that of the Savings & Loans associations deregulated by Congress, which had been pillaged by swindlers, emboldened by senators whose campaigns they had financed. In 1988, no one or almost no one, had warned of the danger of such a rip-off, even though it was already known. Too complicated, and in any case, the defence of the national flag was on everyone’s mind.

The American taxpayer paid 500 billion dollars for the Savings & Loans scandal. We will soon discover what the “burqa” really hides. And how much it costs.

* The mote and the beam (or plank) is a French expression used to highlight the contrast between two things, especially with respect to how they are perceived. It derives from Scripture, Luke 6:41.

Part I: Some questions to ask oneself at the onset of each war

Part II: The objectives of the USA go far beyond oil

Part III: Avenues for action

Some questions to ask oneself at the onset of each war

27 times. The United States has bombed some other country 27 times since 1945. Each time, we were told that these acts were “just” and “humanitarian”. Today, we are told that this war is different from the preceding ones. But they said the same thing the last time. And the time before that. They say it every single time. Isn’t it time we wrote down the questions one must ask oneself before a war in order to avoid being manipulated?

Is there always money for war?

In the most powerful country on the planet, more than 45 million people live below the poverty line. In the United States, schools and public services are falling into ruin because the State “has no money”. In Europe, too, “no money” for pensions or to create jobs. But when the greed of the bankers provokes a financial crisis – then, within a few days, they’re able to find billions to save them. Which enabled these same American bankers to distribute 140 billion USD in profit to their shareholders and speculative traders.

For war, too, it seems easy to find money. Furthermore, it’s our taxes that pay for these weapons and this destruction. Is it truly reasonable to burn hundreds of thousands of euros with every missile or fifty million euros an hour on an aircraft carrier? Surely war must be a good bargain for someone?

At the same time, a child dies of hunger every five seconds and the number of poor people only increases on our planet in spite of all the promises.

What is the difference between a Libyan, a Palestinian and a Bahraini?

Presidents, ministers and generals swear solemnly that their only goal is to save Libyans. But at the same time, the Sultan of Bahrain massacres protesters disarmed by the two thousand Saudi Arabian soldiers sent in by the United States. At the same time, in Yemen, the troops of the dictator Saleh, ally of the U.S.A., mow down 52 protesters with their machine guns. These facts are not contested by anyone, yet the US Secretary of War, Robert Gates, simply declared, “I do not believe that it is my role to intervene in the internal affairs of Yemen”. [1]

Why this “two weights, two measures”? Because Saleh docilely welcomes the US 5th Fleet and says yes to everything that Washington commands? Because the barbaric regime of Saudi Arabia is an accomplice of the multinational oil companies? Is it that there are “good dictators” and “bad dictators”?

How can the USA and France pretend to be “humanitarian”? When Israel killed two thousand civilians in their bombardment of Gaza, did they establish a “no-fly zone”? No. Did they impose sanctions? No. None. Worse, Javier Solana, at the time responsible for foreign affairs at the EU, declared in Jerusalem, “Israel is a member of the European Union without being a member of its institutions. Israel participates in all the programmes” of research and technology of the Europe of the 27, going on to add, “No other country outside the continent has the kind of relations that Israel enjoys with the European Union.” On this point, Solana speaks the truth: Europe and its arms manufacturers collaborate closely with Israel in the production of drones, missiles and other armaments that rain death down on Gaza.

Let us not forget that Israel drove out 700,000 Palestinians from their villages in 1948, still refuses to let them exercise their rights and continues to commit multiple war crimes. Under this occupation, 20% of the Palestinian population is, or has been, in Israeli prisons. Pregnant women are forced to give birth manacled to their beds and sent back to their cells with their babies! But these crimes are committed with the complicity of the USA and the EU.

The life of a Palestinian or a Bahraini is not worth the same as that of a Libyan? Is it that there are “good Arabs” and “bad Arabs”?

For those who still believe in humanitarian war…

In a televised debate that I had with Louis Michel, ex Belgian Foreign Minister and European Commissioner for Cooperation in Development, he swore to me – hand on his heart – that this war aimed to “bring into agreement the conscience of Europe.” He was supported by Isabelle Durant, leader of the Belgian and European Greens. Thus have the “peace and love” environmentalists mutated into war-mongers!

The problem is that we are given the same line of a humanitarian war each time and that these people “of the Left”, like Durant, let themselves be fooled each time. Wouldn’t it be better to read what American leaders really think instead of just listening to them on television?

Let us listen to the famous Alan Greenspan, long time director of the US Federal Reserve, on the subject of the US bombardment of Iraq: “I am saddened that it should be politically incorrect to recognize what everyone knows: the war on Iraq was essentially for the oil” [2]. He adds, “The officials of the White House responded, ‘Well, unfortunately, we cannot talk about the oil.’” [3]

Let us listen to John Norris, director of communications of Strobe Talbott, at the time the Deputy US Secretary of State, responsible for the Balkans: “What best explains the NATO campaign is that Yugoslavia resisted the larger political and economic reforms [he means refused to give up socialism], and not our duty to the Albanians of Kosovo.” [4]

Let us listen to the former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, on the subject of the bombing of Afghanistan: “There are tendencies, supported by China and Japan, to create a free-trade zone in Asia. A hostile Asiatc bloc combining the most populous countries of the world with huge resources and some of the most important industrialized countries would be incompatible with the American national interest. For these reasons, America must maintain a presence in Asia…” [5]

This confirmed the strategy put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man responsible for external politics under Carter and the Obama’s inspiration: “Eurasia (Europe + Asia) remains the chess-board on which the fight for global supremacy is played out [...] The manner in which the United States ‘manages’ Eurasia is crucially important. The biggest continent on the surface of the globe is also its geopolitical axis. The power that controls it, controls two of the three most developed, most productive regions. 75% of the world population, the majority of material resources, either as enterprises or mines of primary materials, around 60% of the world total.” [6]

Have we in the Left not learned anything from the humanitarian media-lies of the preceding wars?

When Obama says it himself, you don’t believe even him?

The 28th of March, Obama justified thus the war against Libya: “Conscious of the costs and risks of military action, we are naturally reticent to use force to resolve the numerous challenges of the world. But when our interests and our values are at stake, we have the responsibility to act. Given the costs and the risks of intervention, we must every time consider our interests in the face of the necessity to act. America has an important strategic interest in stopping Qaddafi from defeating those who oppose him.” Isn’t it clear? Some say, “Yes, it’s true, the United States only act where it is in their interest as well. But, at least, even though we can’t intervene everywhere, we would have saved these people.”

Wrong. We will have demonstrated that only interests are defended. Not values. First of all, every war that the US wages claims more victims than ever before (in Iraq, one million direct or indirect victims!) Secondly, the intervention in Libya prepares the ground for many more…

Who refused to negotiate?

But as soon as you express your suspicions about the opportunity of this war against Libya, you are made to feel guilty, “So you refuse to save the Libyans from the massacre?”

Badly framed question. Supposing that all that we have been told really took place. First of all, do we stop a massacre with another massacre? We know that our bombing will kill many innocent civilians. Even if, as in every war, our generals promise that this one will be “clean”, we have become used to this propaganda.

Secondly, there was a much simpler and more effective way of immediately saving lives. All the countries of Latin America proposed to immediately send a mediation mission, led by Lula. The Arab League and the African Union supported this démarche and Qaddafi had accepted (proposing also that international observers be sent to verify the cease-fire). But the Libyan rebels and the Westerners refused this mediation. Why? “Because Qaddafi is not sincere”, they say. Possible. Whereas the rebels and the Westerners have always been sincere? As for the United States, it is useful to remind oneself of their behaviour in all preceding wars every time a cease-fire was possible…

In 1991, when Bush senior attacked Iraq because it had invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein proposed to retreat if Israel also pulled out of theillegally occupied territories in Palestine. But the USA and the Europeans refused six negotiation proposals. [7]

In 1997, when Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, Milosevic had accepted all the conditions imposed at Rambouillet, but the USA and NATO added another, impossible to accept voluntarily: the total occupation of Serbia. [8]

In 2001, when Bush junior attacked Afghanistan, the Taliban had proposed to hand Bin Laden over to an international tribunal if proof of his complicity were furnished, but Bush refused to negotiate.

In 2003, when Bush attacked Iraq on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein proposed the sending in of inspectors but Bush refused because he knew that the inspectors would not find anything. This was confirmed by the leak of a memo of a meeting between the British government and the heads of the British secret services in July 2002: “The British leaders wanted the ultimatum to be drafted in inacceptable terms so that Saddam Hussein would reject it immediately. But they were far from certain that this would work. So there was a Plan B: the planes patrolling the no-fly zone would do some extra bombing in the hope that this would provoke a reaction that would give an excuse for a big bombing campaign.” [9]

So, before affirming that “we” always speak the truth and “they” always lie, and that “we” always look for peaceful solutions while “they” are never ready to compromise, one must be more prudent… Sooner or later, the public will learn what really happened during the negotiations held backstage, and will find, once again, that it has been manipulated. But it will be too late, and one does not revive the dead.

Libya is like Tunisia and Egypt?

In his excellent interview, published a few days ago in Investig’Action, Mohamed Hassan asked the right question, “Libya: popular revolt, civil war or military aggression?” In light of some recently conducted research, it is possible to reply: the three, in fact. A spontaneous revolt, rapidly controlled and transformed into civil war (which had been prepared), all of which served as the pretext for military aggression. Which, also, had been prepared. Nothing falls from the sky in politics. Some explanation is required…

In Tunisia and in Egypt, the popular revolts grew progressively over some weeks, becoming gradually more organised and coming together on certain clear demands, which permitted them to throw out the tyrants. But when one analyses the ultra-rapid chain of events in Benghazi, one is intrigued. February 15th, demonstration of the relatives of the political prisoners from the 2006 revolt. Demonstration harshly repressed, as has always been the case in Libya and in the other Arab countries. And, just two days later, another demonstration, except that this time, the demonstrators are armed and immediately escalate the struggle against Qaddafi to the next phase. In the space of two days, a popular revolt becomes a civil war! Totally spontaneously?

To know this, one must closely examine what the rather imprecise term “Libyan opposition” hides. In our opinion, four components, with very different interests. 1) A democratic opposition. (2) Dignitaries from Qaddafi’s regime, “turned” by the West. (3) Libyan tribes, discontented with the division of the spoils. (4) Combatants with Islamist tendencies.

Who are in this “Libyan opposition”?

In this entangled mess, we need to know who we are dealing with. And especially, which faction was integrated into the strategies of the big powers…

1) Democratic opposition. It is perfectly legitimate to demand change from the Qaddafi regime, dictatorial and corrupted like the other Arab regimes. A people has the right to want to replace an authoritarian regime with a more democratic system. Yet, up until now, these demands are not clearly organised and lack a precise programme. Also, there are various Libyan revolutionary movements in exile, equally disparate, but all opposed to foreign interference. For various reasons that we will clarify, today
these democratic elements do not have much say under the banner of the USA and France.

2) “Turned” dignitaries. In Benghazi, a “provisional government” has been established and is led by Mustapha Abu Jalil. “This man had been, until February 21, Qaddafi’s Minister of Justice. Two years ago, Amnesty had included him in the list of the most terrifying violators of human rights in North Africa.” [10] It is this individual who, according to the Bulgarian authorities, had organised the torture of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor detained for a long time by the regime. Another “strongman” of this opposition is Abdul Fatah Younis, Qaddafi’s ex-Interior Minister and before that, the chief of the political police. We understand thus why Massimo Introvigne, representative of the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) for the fight against racism, xenophobia and discrimination, would say that these personalities “are not the ‘sincere democrats’ of Obama’s discourse, but count among the worst instruments of Qaddafi’s regime, aspiring to drive out the Colonel to take his place.” [10]

3. Discontented tribes. Mohamed Hassan was correct in underlining the fact that Libya’s structure has remained strongly tribal. During the colonial period, under the regime of King Idriss, the eastern tribes dominated and profited from the oil riches. After the revolution of 1969, Qaddafi found support among the western tribes and this time, it was the eastern tribes who suffered. Regrettable, since a democratic and just power must fight against discrimination between regions. One may also wonder if the former colonial power did not encourage the discontented tribes in sapping the unity of the country. It would not be the first such case. Today, France and the USA intend to use the eastern tribes to take control of the country. Divide and conquer, an old classic of colonialism.

4. Al-Qaeda elements. Some cables published by Wikileaks warned that the East of Libya was, proportionally, the largest exporter in the world of “fighter-martyrs” in Iraq. Pentagon reports described an “alarming scenario” with respect to the Libyan rebels in Benghazi and Derna. Derna, a city of no more than 80,000 inhabitants, is supposed to be the biggest source of jihadis in Iraq. Furthermore, Vicent Cannistraro, former CIA chief in Libya, indicates that among the rebels, there are “many extremist Islamists capabale of creating problems” and that “there is high probability that the most dangerous individuals become influential in the event that Qaddafi should fall.” [10].

Evidently, all of this was written when Qaddafi was still “a friend”. But it shows the total absence of principles among the leaders of the USA and of its allies. When Qaddafi suppressed the Islamist revolt of Benghazi in 2006, it was with the arms and support of the Westerners. Sometimes, we are against Bin Laden-style fighters. Sometimes, we use them. One should have known.

Which element, from amongst these diverse “oppositions”, will win out? It is also, perhaps, an aim of the military intervention of Washington, Paris and London: ensuring that the “good ones” win? The good ones, from their point of view, naturally. Later, we will use the “Islamist menace” to install ourselves for good.

In any case, one thing is certain: the Libyan scenario is different from the Tunisian or Egyptian ones. There, it was, “a people united against a tyrant.” Here, we are in a civil war with Qaddafi supported by a section of the population. And in this civil war, the role played by the US and French secret services is no longer all that secret…

What has been the role of the secret services?

In reality, the Libyan affair did not start in Benghazi on February 21, but in Paris on October 21, 2010. According to the exposé of the Italian journalist, Franco Bechis (Libero, March 24), it was that day that the French secret services prepared the revolt of Benghazi. It was then (or perhaps even earlier) that they “turned” Nuri Mesmari, Qaddafi’s chief of protocol, practically his right arm, the only one who entered the home of the Libyan leader without knocking. Arriving in Paris with his whole family for a surgical procedure, Mesmari did not meet a single doctor. He did meet with several functionaries of the French secret services and with close collaborators of Sarkozy, according to the web-based bulletin Maghreb Confidential.

On November 16, at the Hotel Concorde Lafayette, he prepared an imposing delegation that would visit Benghazi two days later. Officially, it included officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and directors of the firms France Export Céréales, France Agrimer, Louis Dreyfus, Glencore, Cargill and Conagra. But, according to the Italian services, the delegation also included several French military men camouflaged as businessmen. In Benghazi, they would meet Abdallah Gehani, a Libyan colonel whom Mesmari had indicated as willing to desert.

Mid-December, Qaddafi, suspicious, sends an emissary to try and contact Mesmari. But the French arrest him. Other Libyans visit Paris on December 23, and it is they who will lead the revolt of Benghazi with the militias of Colonel Gehani. Also, Mesmari supplied the French with numerous  secrets of the Libyan defence. From all this, it becomes clear that the revolt in the east is not as spontaneous as we have been told. But this is not all. The French are not the only ones…

Who currently directs the military operations of the anti-Qaddafi “Libyan National Council”? A man just recently arrived, on March 14, from the USA, according to Al Jazeera. Described as one of the “stars” of the Libyan insurrection by the right-wing British newspaper, the Daily Mail, Khalifa Hifter is a former colonel of the Libyan army who moved to the United States. The man who, until the disastrous expedition into Chad in the late 80′s, was one of the principal military commanders of Libya, emigrated to the United States and lived his last twenty years in Virginia. Without any source of income, but at a short distance from the offices… of the CIA. [11] It’s a small world.

How could a high-ranking Libyan military official enter the United States in utter tranquility, a few years after the Lockerbie terrorist attack, for which Libya was convicted, and live calmly next to the CIA. He must have offered something in exchange. Published in 2001, Pierre Péan’s book Manipulations africaines (African Manipulations) traces Hifter’s connections with the CIA and the creation, with its support, of the Libyan National Liberation Front. The only exploit of said Front being the organisation in 2007, in the USA, of a “national congress” financed by the National Endowment for Democracy [12], traditional intermediary of the CIA for watering organisations working in the interest of the United States…

In March of that year, on a date not communicated, President Obama signed a secret order authorising the CIA to conduct operations in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi. The Wall Street Journal, in which this news was published, adds, “CIA officials acknowledge having been active in Libya since several weeks, just like other Western services.”

All of this is no longer very secret – it has been around on the Internet for quite some time, and what is astonishing is that the mainstream media should not have said one word about it. Yet, we already know of several “freedom fighters” thus armed and financed by the CIA. For example, in the 80′s, the Contras, terrorist militias created by Reagan to de-stabilise Nicaragua and overthrow its progressive government. Haven’t we learned anything from History? This European “Left” that applauds bombings doesn’t use the Internet?

Should we be surprised that the Italian services “expose” thus the exploits of their French brothers and that they “expose” their US colleagues? Only if one believes in the pretty tales of friendship between the “Western allies”. We’ll come to that…

To follow:

2. The objectives of the USA go far beyond oil

3. Avenues for action

By restoring a U.S. presence in the Arabian Peninsula, the Gulf war also simultaneously restored its strategic primacy as guardian of the sources of oil, which its European and Japanese partners are more dependent on that it is. The billions of dollars paid to finance the war effort in the Gulf, not only by the oil monarchies themselves but by Germany and Japan as well, consecrate the United States as it were in its role of lord protector. At the same time Washington guaranteed that it would keep and increase its lion’s share in the worldwide exploitation of oil and petrodollars.

The U.S. war in the Gulf was the first demonstration of U.S. “hyperpower”, but at the same time it emphasized the limits of this “hyperpower”, which is far from omnipotence. The chief limit to U.S. power derives from the relationship between the government in Washington and the people of the the United States, either mediated by elected officials or expressed directly in the streets. This relationship is crucial, inasmuch as the United States is – luckily – a capitalist democracy, not a dictatorship. George H. Bush had considerable difficulty in getting a green light from Congress in 1990 for his war to “liberate Kuwait”. He could not afford in any way to exceed his mandate and occupy Iraq.

Unable to take direct control of the Iraqi government by installing U.S. armed forces in Baghdad, therefore, Washington preferred not to take the risk of overthrowing the Ba’athist regime, which would have led to a chaotic situation and threatened the stability of the whole region. The risk was particularly great in March 1991 since Iraq was going through a popular uprising. The fall of the regime in these circumstances would have inevitably led to a revolutionary situation, which the United States and its Middle Eastern allies feared much more than the ongoing rule of a much weakened Saddam Hussein. The United States thus authorized Hussein to bloodily suppress the popular uprising.

– from the Introduction: “U.S. imperial strategy in the Middle East” of Eastern Cauldron / Islam, Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq in a Marxist mirror, Salah Jubir, translated by Peter Drucker, Jeddojuhd Publications, Lahore, July 2005

5^th July, 2010

Info: Nasir Manzoor, 0300-2449970

We request your attention to the following issue.

In a historic display of strength and unity, 10,000 ship breaking workers came together in Gadani today to protest deplorable working conditions and demand the fulfillment of repeatedly broken promises.

Even before the rally began, the massive congregation faced systematic harassment from the police and Anti Terrorism Task Force, who had arrived four hours in advance of the scheduled protest time of 10:30am. Not only did they attempt to physically force the protestors back to work, but led a baton charge on 150 workers, which resulted in several casualties. After wounding numerous protesters, security forces detained Edhi ambulances for a full 2 hours and prevented paramedics from tending to the injured.

Then in an attempt to intimidate the organizers and disperse the rally, the heavily armed police arrested, without just cause, the General Secretary of the Gadani Ship Breaking Democratic Workers Union (GDSBDWU), Mr. Tarhir Yusufzai and threatened to arrest the Deputy General Secretary of the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF), Mr. Nasir Mansoor. However, the sheer presence of thousands of workers forced the SHO Mr. Amir Abdullah to back down from his confrontational stance and release Mr. Tahir Yusufzai.

A convention was held noting the long struggle of the workers. Mr. Nasir Manzoor from the NTUF, Mr. Tahir Yusufzai from GDSBDWU, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa from BNP all spoke at the convention.

The workers then commenced their 8km march along the Gadani shoreline at 10:45am and were joined by over 10,000 workers. Despite the squalid living conditions forced upon the workers for years past, they found joy in solidarity with their fellow workers and were in high spirits throughout the protest.

The ship breaking owners had previously agreed to meet the workers’ demands by 30^th June in return for them calling off the strike scheduled from 16^th to 30^th June. The owners’ refusal to abide by the agreement and their underhand attempts to demoralize the union through physical threats and intimidation has only served to strengthen the resolve of the workers. Taking into account the owners’ lack of good faith and their deceitful efforts to deny basic rights to the workers, it was unanimously decided by all present that an indefinite strike be called from the 5^th of July till the following demands were met:

*100% increase in wages
*Registration with Social Security and Old age Benefits Institutes
*Medical Dispensary and Ambulance at each ship breaking yard
*Clean drinking water and canteen at each yard
*Appointment letter for every worker
* End of contract (JAMADARY) system
*Workers residential colony
*Recognition of representative character of GSBDW Union
*Occupational safety measures at work place
*End of police harassment against workers

For more information, please call

Nasir Manzoor,

Deputy General Secretary

National Trade Union Federation

(92) 300 244 9970

10 Years of Tenants struggle in Punjab

Anjaman Mozareen Punjab is organizing a mass peasants rally on 29 June at Okara on the eve of 10 years of AMP movement. On 29th June 2000, Major General Chattha asked the tenants working on Military Farms Okara to change their status to “Thakedari” (contract) system. The tenants rejected this order and felt that the move by the Military regime under General Musharaf is to vacate this land from the peasants and use it as corporate farming or to lease it to military officers.

It was just after 8 months of the military dictatorship of General Musharaf and the regime had started to attack the trade unions and was implementing neo liberal agenda by force. They had successfully imposed the 15 percent general sales tax. They have attacked the Railways Workers Union and crushed their initial resistance to their regime. The Military junta thought that it would be easy to ask the tenants to change their status and then they would e able to get this land vacated. They were proved wrong in their assessment.

The tenants contacted different political parties and social organization to help in their fight for land rights. Over 68,000 acres of land were cultivated by tenants of different public sector agriculture farms including the one occupied by military. The resistance did not start immediately. They were dozens of meetings of the tenants on the issue and then they came to a conclusion to form an organization to organize the resistance. Many elderly peasants were opposed to the resistance strategy and they were ready the change the status but wanted a good price for contract system. The young and some college and university students and graduates belonging to tenant’s families had other ideas than that. They went along all the meetings and decided to fight the military dictatorship.

Labour Party Pakistan got in contact with the movement in September 2001. It was after the organization AMP was formed and they had already decided to resist. The AMP had also invited the Jamaat Islami and their peasant wing called Kissan Board. The Kissan Board leadership was advocating a conciliatory strategy and they were of the opinion that tenants can not fight military dictatorship. LPP agreed with resistance strategy and decided to help build the movement.

AMP struggle started with a slogan Malki Yaa Mout (death or ownership). Women and youth came in the forefront and fought courageously many attempts of the military dictatorship through rangers and police to vacate this land. Nine peasants were killed by direct police and rangers firing, several dozens injured and many hundreds arrested. Over 100 FIRs were registered against the leadership of AMP during the struggle. It was a struggle owned by almost all the political parties in opposition, social organizations and trade unions. It was the first organized resistance to the military dictatorship. It inspired many nationally and internationally. AMP became an icon of struggle and a reference point.

The strategy to resist but not by arms was successful. The resistance came through street blockades, occupation of roads, blockade of roads, barricades around the villages, use of wooden sticks to fight the police and rangers, rallies and demonstrations, usage of internet, solidarity rallies in large cities of Pakistan, media stories against the repression, successful usage of courts etc. The most successful resistance was through blockade of main roads leading to Okara and Lahore.

In 2002 and 2003, there was Gaza like situation for three months around 19 villages of Okara. It was a siege and no one was allowed to enter the villages until the tenants agree to sign the contract system. During 2002, tenants were forced to sign the contract after a complete siege of 19 villages for three months. While the tenants organized their resistance inside the villages and the rangers and police could not enter the villages, the rangers would not allow any person to enter or leave the villages. It was a cat and mouse story. The siege became an international story and many foreign journalists wrote very sympathetic article in favor of the tenants. So were the pages of several Pakistani main stream media who were inspired with courageous stand of the poor tenants against the very powerful army.

The high point of the struggle was the refusal of the tenants to pay 40 percent share of the crops that was paid for generation by the tenants to the military farms administration. This was the most successful strategy and more and more tenants joined the struggle actively as this was their bread and butter question as well.

The movement is still on. The promises of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz and Pakistan Peoples Party to hand over this land to the tenants have not been fulfilled. Both parties praised the struggle of the tenants several times and agreed that once in power, they will decide in favor of the tenants. It has not been done despite the two parties in power for the last two years.

The rally on 29 June will again bring together thousands of peasants on the roads. On 22nd June 2010, Mehr Abdul Sattar, Nadeem Asharaf, Malik Saleem Jakar, Choudry Shabir and Mohammed Hanif addressed a press conference in Lahore to announce the programme of the rally. They gave three months notice to government of Punjab to decide about land ownership in favour of the tenants. They said that our rally will remain in Okara on 29th June , and if the Punjab alliance government of PPP and PMLN do not act within three months, we would have no options but to march to Lahore.

They will do what they have said. If Punjab government wants to separate the army from civilian aspects of life, this is a test case for them. Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee have asked all the social movements and trade unions to come and help the struggle of the peasants of Punjab for land rights, the only way to fight feudalism in Pakistan.

By: Farooq Tariq

I live in Lahore. Founded, according to legend, some centuries before Christ. Ancient cross-roads, trading post and melting point. Have met here Dravidians, Central Asians, Afghans, Persians, Greeks, Chinese. All the inheritors and interactors of the Indus Valley Civilisation.

I live in Lahore. By the river Ravi, “the narrator”, third (counting down from the north) of the five rivers of the land called Punjab (punj: five, ab: water). The middle river. It used to be huge, more than a kilometer across, as evidenced by the bridges that still span its bed. Dying the death of a thousand cuts ever since the British decided to settle western Punjab using a system of barrages and canals – with the enthusiastic support, in this instance, of the occupied.

I live in Lahore, compared in the sixteenth century with the greatest cities of the world, a cosmopolitan society. The city that has always saved itself from destruction at the hands of invaders and adventurers by buying them off and giving them sustenance for their eventual destination – Delhi, the heart of northern India.

Lahore, the capital of the Sikh Empire, the only state created by the people of Punjab since the coming of the Ghaznavids and Ghauris in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Lahore, daataa ki nagri. Lahore betrays her daataa. Lahore, lost without her daataa.

Lahore burned in 1947. That year, it lost its Hindu and most of its Sikh population. Shah Alam burned. Will it now lose all of its population?

I live in Lahore. There are more than 10 million other human beings who share this bit of earth with me. Help us. Stop this war, stop all these wars!

How?

One small idea is thorough social and consumer boycotts:
a) In Pakistan, boycott all those in your family and friends who you know to be corrupt holders of public office.
b) Boycott companies and individuals that have defaulted on loans, that participate in the transit of goods to NATO troops in Afghanistan, that indulge in corrupt business practices.
c) Boycott all hate mongers, whether maulvis or writers or journalists or artists. Whether they are Sunni or Shia or Deobandi or Barelvi or Naqshbandi or whatever. Whether they are pro-Army or anti-India, or anti-America, or anti-Pakistan, or anti-Islam, or anti-liberal, or anti-yehudi, or anti-Hindu, or anti-daarhi or anti-Ahmedi or anti-Christian or anti-God or anti-Muhammad or anti-Christ or anti-Moses. Don’t listen to them. Listen to them but then take them on. Not aggressively, but with patience and with care. Maybe we’ll find the most effective preachers of love amongst them. Let not “the ignorant armies clash by night.”

Dha de mandir, te dha de masjad
Dha de jo kuch dhainda
Par kisse da dil na dhaaween
Mera rab dilaan vich vasda

d) Outside Pakistan, support all actions taken against American imperialism, whether in Palestine or Venezuela or Cuba or Bolivia.

Why boycott?
Because:
i) it condemns the act, not the person because as soon as the act is rectified, the boycott is dropped
ii) it is non-violent
iii) it does not rely on any state apparatus for its enforcement
a) thus it induces debate and reflection in individuals
b) thus it gives people a little more control over their destiny

Please write back, leave comments. Let’s get going! Let’s start to dig ourselves out of this mess. Ourselves.

Background:

1. The Labour Qaumi Movement is led and staffed by workers, mainly from the power loom factories of Faisalabad. There are very few full-time activists – members generally get off from their shifts in the factories and then head out to carry out their assigned duties or attend organisational meetings.

2. The movement started with a spontaneous act of rebellion on the part of Abdul Qayyum and some two to three hundred brick kiln workers against the daily humiliations they were subjected to by their owners and management. After this event, workers would often come to seek Abdul Qayyum’s help to resolve disputes with their owners or managers. Then, in 2002, when local body elections were to be held, he was persuaded to stand as their representative. He got the most votes (>17,000), followed by the PML-N candidate (>16,000), while the rest of the candidates got a few hundred votes (all less than 400). At this point, the workers of Faislabad started treating Abdul Qayyum as their de facto councillor, Nazim, and MPA all rolled into one. So, with some like-minded friends, Abdul Qayyum held neighbourhood meetings in all the residential areas of the power loom workers in Faisalabad to talk to them about their idea of creating a movement for their rights – a movement that they themselves would run. As a result of these meetings, 137 individuals came up to them to offer their services for the creation of the movement. At this point, the group felt that they had enough strength to start an organisation. Some people in the group suggested that they should check out the people who had volunteered, to make sure that no one with a questionable reputation was included. Some people were found to have criminal records, some were engaged in dubious businesses. These were excluded and finally written invitations were sent out to the 97 volunteers who checked out. Abdul Qayyum told me that these were not especially noble people, many had never done anything political in their lives or had any kind of exposure to politics. They were neither particularly good nor bad, just workers who wanted to contribute to an effort to change their lives. A meeting was held in a ground in Faisalabad city (I forget the name) with these 97 volunteers. It started punctually at 9 AM and went on till 8 PM. No food was served by the organiser (a sympathetic friend who set up a tent and seating arrangements), only water. In the meeting, everyone who wanted to speak, spoke – even those who had very little political consciousness. Those who had more awareness, took the attendees through the whole history of the country, asking repeatedly the question, why was Pakistan created? For whom? Why were so many sacrifices made? To gain what exactly? The conclusion that attendees drew was that they had been repeatedly deceived by those in power and that it was now time to take power, to use it to benefit the working class, their fellows. So they decided to found the movement to struggle for their rights. Anyone could be a member except someone who had been unjust to workers, essentially, capitalists and investors. There would be no bar based on caste or tribe (baradri) or religious sect. The other rule they set was of exclusive allegiance: a member of the movement could not simultaneously be a member of another political party or of a trade union backed by another political party.

3. After this, groups were set up in factories and in neighbourhoods. The principle of autonomy was strictly observed: every group was free to set up their own organisation in the manner they thought best, as long as they operated in an honest and open manner. The movement members themselves chose the name “Labour Qaumi Movement” and themselves designed its symbol (the star & crescent on three vertical stripes in red, green and white).

4. A word on Abdul Qayyum and his close associates: he has worked in the power loom industry for 25 years. Before him, his father did the same work for 35 years. He has four young sons (don’t know about daughters), all of whom, along with his wife, are active in the struggle. He used to be a Jamaat-e-Islami member but left it. He is literate and a regular follower of the political scene in the country. In personal interaction, he really opened up to me once I assured him that I understood Punjabi. Some of his close associates are from the Islami Jamiat-e-Tulaba, the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam and even one from the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. But now, they reject the politics of hate-mongering of these organisations and have decided to concentrate on solving the real issues that people face in their daily lives. All of them are, like Abdul Qayyum, power loom workers. They come from all the major castes present in the area – Arain, Rajput and Jat – as well as from smaller groupings. Class consciousness is clearly on the rise here.

5. The major struggles of the movement have been against price-hikes, against layoffs (downsizing) and against load-shedding (which is, implicitly and quite blatantly, unjustly distributed amongst the populace). In these struggles, totally mis-represented in the local and national print and electronic media, many activists of the movement (including Abdul Qayyum) have been in prison several times and even now there is a whole series of FIR’s and counter-FIR’s registered with the police. But with the growth of the movement and the success of its candidates in local body elections (2 nazims and >40 union councillors), the police has had to tone down its aggression and has in fact resorted to appealing to it for help when they are unable to control social disturbances (e.g., the fracas on 12 Rabbi-ul-awwal this year).

Further information on the election and on the Labour Qaumi Movement is available here.

6. Current situation in PP 63:

– Four “serious” candidates: the PPP candidate, the PML-N candidate, the National Muslim League candidate and the LQM/LPP candidate.
– the PML-N (ex-PML-Q) candidate had to resign when it turned out that his degree was fake. That is why the seat fell vacant and the by-election is being held in the first place. Strangely enough, this person’s candidature was accepted once more by the CEC. Not sure how that works.
– both the PML-N and and PPP candidates are using the help of the state (whether provincial or federal government resources). The limit is surely the fact that the Governor Punjab has chosen Sudhar chowk, the campaign headquarters of the LQM candidate, to unveil the PPP’s supposedly labour-friendly (proposed?) legislation package.
– Abdul Qayyum is assured of good support from 8 of the 14 union councils in the constituency, but faces an uphill task in the rest.
– The campaigning is being done by workers organised in teams. There are three male teams and one female team (led by the candidate’s wife). Their aim is that each and every neighbourhood must be visited by one male team, the female team plus a third team led by the candidate himself.
– The workers collect funds amongst themselves, print stickers, have banners painted and put them up themselves without checking with the central campaign office. In this manner, they have managed to print 20,000 stickers and expect to print another 30,000. At the May Day rally organised by LQM, the donation request by the candidate led to the collection of almost Rs. 24,000 within a few hours. Almost all the donation amounts were of Rs. 10 or less.
– Taking advantage of the fact that the candidate’s brother is a painter, the campaign was able to do wall-chalking in all the localities in the constituency at a minimal cost of Rs. 180,000, something that normally costs at least five times as much.
– I found the activists of the movement to be combative, enterprising, fiercely independent and vocal people, with a clear idea of their goals and a seemingly inexhaustible endurance and patience in the face of all kinds of problems – logistical, resource-shortage, sheer obduracy of their interlocutors. They are of this soil and they have taken it upon themselves to bring about a positive change.

7. What is to be done:

– Collect funds. The campaign needs something like Rs. 200,000 for anticipated polling day (May 15, 2010) expenses. The major heads are setting up tents for the campaign’s polling agents at each polling station and the hiring of Qingqi’s and rickshas for the transport of voters to polling stations.

– Volunteer as a polling agent. There are > 130 polling booths in all with around 75 in their stronghold areas. They need people who can read and write to volunteer their time at the polling stations to ensure that no irregularities occur. Given the stakes involved (see below), it is highly probably that all of the other candidates – who are seriously annoyed with what they see as Abdul Qayyum’s impertinent violation of their traditional turf – will attempt some monkey business.
– Provide vehicles (motorcycle or a small car) to help with the campaigning activities.

Contact Info:

– Labour Party contact info: Landline: +92 42 6315162 Fax: +92 42 6271149 Mobile: +92 300 8411945
– Amanullah Kariapper (me): ajkariapper AT gmail DOT com

8. Stakes involved:
– the PPP is looking to this election for a validation/approval of its current policies, a kind of popularity rating. Imagine the kind of signal it would be if, after successfully abetting the establishment in the BB murder cover-up, avoiding/messing up the prosecution case against Zardari in the Swiss case, acceding to IMF demands to increase tariffs and reduce subsidies, completely fouling up the energy policy, they find that the people still love them!
– the PML-N is likewise looking for a vote of approval for its policy of strategic alliances with the PPP (e.g. silence on drone attacks and other measures that expand the cope of Pakistan’s collaboration in the “War on Terror”, collaboration in hampering implementation of sugar price controls) combined with purely populist gestures in Punjab (e.g. “I’ll come on to the streets if the situation does not change” – NS, Shahbaz Sharif’s cloning of the PTI’s sasta tandoor initiative).
– the National Muslim League candidate is obviously looking to establish his independent presence on the political scene. This party is his own creation. I don’t have details on why he split from PML-N (or perhaps it was PML-Q?).
– for the Labour Qaumi Movement and for the Labour Party of Pakistan, this is an exciting opportunity to have, for the first time ever, a worker representing a constituency of workers in a provincial assembly. Someone who could speak truth to power, challenge the political class in its cosy, deceiving arrangements and actually propose people-friendly legislation. I leave it to the imagination of labour activists to think out all the different avenues that such a victory opens up!

9. Open questions:

– I do not know what their stance is on the question of the rights of religious minorities. I do know, however, that they have repeatedly demonstrated in solidarity with Baloch peasants killed/targeted in Army operations.
– I’m not sure about their stance on women’s rights. Women are clearly very active in the movement, and overall, they adhere to the usual codes (of behaviour, of dress) that our society demands of women.

Introduction to Shah Hussain by Najm Hosain Syed

Coming up: translations, rants, updates on reading, on hospitality and some activism.