Trump trapped in Orientalism, racism, and imperialist system

By Hajiali Sepahvand, Mehdi Sepahvand

History is written by the winners and victors. Therefore, they always find an excuse to justify obscene and unjust behavior. Race has been one of the most preliminary concepts for that use, because some races have tapped their unquestionable superiority to justify all their abominable behavior as well as the ineptitude of other races. Imperialism was one of those systems which tapped the idea of race extensively. According to Bill Ashcroft, founder of post-colonial studies, “Perhaps one of the most catastrophic binary systems perpetuated by imperialism is the invention of the concept of race. The reduction of complex physical and cultural differences within and between colonized societies to the simple opposition of black/brown/yellow/white is in fact a strategy to establish a binarism of white/non-white, which asserts a relation of dominance.” This is why the idea of race and colonialism are interwoven. They have the same motivation to depict the civilized/primitive dualism; and they share some necessity to hierarchically categorize humans. According to this system, the civilized man has a mission to improve the uncivilized, barbarian, and inferior people to a higher living standard. Therefore he is entitled to behaving the uncivilized man in any way he deems right. The history and developments of ‘race’ The word “race” has always provided an effective tool for establishing the simplest of models for classifying man according to their color. Color has grown into a tool for distinguishing between groups of people and identifying their behavior. For example, the Indians are expected to be savage, the black to be inferior, and the white to be decent and dignified! But it is necessary to question such viewpoints. Therefore, historically reviewing the formation of the viewpoint is needed. Although it was exactly in the late 19th century when race was used as a separate concept of humankind with characteristic inherited features, and although great thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and William Dunbar first introduced the word race into philosophy and literature, it was in the late 1600s that Europeans did categorize humans according to their physical features. This happened at the time when Francois Bernier postulated a number of distinctive categories based on facial characters and skin color. Soon the hierarchy of groups (race had not been termed yet) was commonly accepted. In this hierarchy white Europeans were at the top. The Negro, or the black African, was usually relegated to the bottom. This viewpoint was to some extend due to the African black color and so-called primitive culture. But the underlying reason for it was that Europeans used to know from earlier the black as slaves. In 1805, French naturalist Georges Cuvier talked about the three races white, yellow, and black. This structure could be read equally importantly across and down so that white was absolutely opposed to black and partially opposed to yellow. Yellow in its turn was partially opposed to black. At the same time, imperialism was also justifying its colonialism through the motto about having a mission to civilize and educate the inferior barbarians. Consequently, new ideas about race could well serve it. With the formation of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), the discipline of social Darwinism was established. The discipline soon agreed with Cuvier’s race paradigm and the emperor’s act. The reason for this was the paradoxical dualism (debasement of the colonized subject and their idealization) that existed in the imperialist thought. On the other hand, the debasement of the primary races could provide a justification for the subjugation and, now and then, extinction of low races in social Darwinism. This was not only unavoidable, but the proper unfolding of natural law. On the other hand yet, the concept of racial improvement came into synchrony with the emperor’s ideology of civilization mission, which is what encouraged colonial powers to improve the status of debased races. Thus, the hypothesis of superiority was supported by the scientific hypothesis of race to fearlessly pursue its global dominance project. In the next stage, the black were identified as desperate creatures worthy of care, support, and improvement. This identification was soon found in unison with the previous viewpoint of blacks being primitive creatures and crippled savages. This identification helped colonialism find low-cost labor for its projects. Thomas Carlyle vigorously propounded the “right to coerce the indolent black man into the service of colonial plantation agriculture.” The usefulness of the concept of race in establishing the innate superiority of the imperialist culture can be discerned in how modern England treated British “races”, especially the Irish. In the first writing, although the Irish is first seen much as the English, the Irish culture was seen as alien and threatening. Rich (1986) traces the process from 1617 when Fynes Moryson found the language of the Irish crude, if indeed it was a language at all, their clothing almost animal-like, and their behavior shocking. Edmund Spenser refers to the “bestial Irishmen”, while William Camden in 1610 recounted the profanity, cannibalism, musicality, witchcraft, violence, incest and gluttony of the “wilde and very uncivill” Irish. In this description the Irish sound remarkably like Africans as described by nineteenth-century English commentators. In fact, by 1885, John Beddoe, president of the Anthropological Institute, had developed the “index of Nigrescence” to show that people of Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, and Ireland were essentially different than the people of Britain. More specifically, he argued that those from western Ireland and Wales were “Africanoid in their jutting jaws” and “long, slitty nostrils”, and thus originally immigrants from Africa (Szwed 1975: 20–1). Although such view is likely to seem strange, it is a good interpretation of the monopolistic motivation of imperialism which is energetically implemented through the concept of race. Linking the Irish, Welsh, and Africans together is very noteworthy, since it clearly shows the strategy adopted by the imperialist ideology to be able to separate and marginalize the colonized, whether in Britain or the Empire. Such racial hierarchy was integral to the expansion of the empire. By 1886, anthropologists in Britain reached a general consensus on the “cephalic index”, that is, discrimination of racial identity in terms of skull. Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, measured the heads of 9,000 people at the International Health Exhibition in London in 1884. In 1887, a conference on native races in the British territories heightened the anthropological-imperial interest in race. The conference was held at the same time as Queen Victoria Golden Jubilee. By the late 1890s, many famous works were out. The works would thoroughly depict the multitudinous nature of human races and the obvious superiority of the Anglo-Saxon races. The description of Negroid, despite such scientific, hair-splitting scrutiny, offered no improvement over Carlyle’s stereotypical definition. The 20th century witnessed great oscillations in theoretical approaches to race. But the term continued its path to a realistic position in the world’s public opinion. In the early decades of the 20th century “race” would tread its path to a legal stance through a “scientific” study of race diversity. But the horror of World War II and the massacre of millions of Jews, slaves, Polish, and gypsies for race issues led to the 1951 UNESCO Statement on Race. The statement underlined that race, even from the biological point of view, can in the end count for a group with a distinct density of the genome. According to the statement, mental indices should never be counted in such classification, and that the role of environment in shaping behavior is much greater than that of genetic factors. In 1960 once again a great change occurred in the biological view of human behavior. This was a contribution of authors such as Lorenz, Ardry, and Morris who claimed that a person’s behavior is largely under control of ancient instincts which culture can modify in the best way. Through such outlook, the West and its educational foundations were the pioneers and soon came to be known as the educated or civilized society, while the non-Western societies were known as uncivilized. Those whose behavior resembled the West’s more were superior. Such recognition was based on the Western view. Its absoluteness and unquestionability were the source of concern for many critics and were thus questioned, because the race paradigm had only been replaced by the education paradigm. Sociology/anthropology and modern racism Barker (1981) was one of the first to study the relationship between sociology and modern racism. Obviously sociology is considered as a Western science which studies the urban and social issues of the West. But anthropology also is a Western science, developed to study the urban and social issues of non-Western societies. Hence, sociology deals with “us” and anthropology with “them”. These two sciences have created the bipolarity, duality, and binary opposition of us/them. Scientists in these two fields believe that a Western society is an urban society in the true sense of the word, because it is past ethnicity and has initiated into the urban society, where ethnic structure is broken and a kind of dispersion is the case, a society in which all live under the rule of law, law that is the same for all and kids nobody. Therefore, such society enjoys a high level of orderliness. On the other hand, they argue that the non-Western society has not yet been initiated into this stage, because ethnic groups and clans_ while continuing their tribal and ethical conflicts in a new form_ settle down and coexist. The people in such society are still dependent on majority, just the same way in the past when the biggest clan had the biggest role in deciding things. Therefore the biggest clan has the biggest role in elections. Such views have helped recreate modern racism, since these two disciplines, as was mentioned earlier, have created the us/them binary, a binary in which the primary sign has been axiomatically and unquestionably preferred and privileged, while the secondary signifier deserves improvement, education, development, and control by the first one. By creating this binary opposition, the West once again found a replacement for Cuvier’s typology and race classification and Carlyle’s outlook. However, anthropology criticism is another contemporary field that has questioned ethnographical studies. This discipline argues that none of the activities of ethnography_ observation, listening, questioning, collecting_ are unbiased and pure, because what is known depends upon how it is known, that is, cultural knowledge is “constructed” rather than “discovered” by ethnography. Therefore, the us/them opposition lacks objective support and foundation and is rather a creation of the minds and words of sociologists and ethnographers, that is, it is a structure that has re-classified humans and recreated racism through the process of othering. The false objectivity of racist ideas and Trump’s recent decision Racism can be seen as a mode of thought which considers the unchangeable, physical characteristics of a group and tries to link them somehow directly and commonly to psychological or rational characteristics; and based on such criteria, distinguish between “superior” and “inferior” races. But the fundamental ideas of racism (such as blackness) lack objective reality. Nonetheless, the goal of the psychological forces that made blacks’ self was to acquire an objective existence in their behavior, just like ethnography which, instead of discovering cultural knowledge, created it. This was the most important truth about race. Fanon was the first to notice that, however lacking in objective reality racist ideas such as “blackness” were, the psychological force of their construction of self meant that they acquired an objective existence in and through the behavior of people. The self-images and self-construction that such social pressure exerted might be transmitted from generation to generation, and thus the “fact of blackness” came to have an objective determination not only in racist behavior and institutional practices, but more insidiously in the psychological behavior of the peoples so constructed. Now the U.S., or Trump, has found a new replacement for race and racism. Trump has dissected the world according to a new criterion: People who hail from certain lands are much more barbarian than Cuvier’s black, more savage than Carlyle’s Negroid, and more animal and uncivilized than Spenser’s Irish. These people, whose nationality is the only cause for their savageness, cannot enter the United States, even for service occupations. They are, therefore, more inferior than the black, Irish, or Negro. Can one say that man has grown more civilized? These people do not earn the title of terrorist. Today terror, assassination, and espionage are part and parcel of the politics of all countries. The interesting point is that there are noteworthy rumors and gossips about the American ways of terror and assassination. Many microbiologists believe that the U.S. attacks other peoples using bioterrorism methods, that is, highly advanced terror methods the use of which is beyond the ability of all the countries the U.S. calls terrorist, just the same way no country could respond to the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. The U.S., or Trump, have in fact created such identity for the people of these lands, or are trying to promote such an identity or image. This method is reminiscent of the ethnographic studies which created instead of discovering a cultural knowledge of non-Western people, by which it interpellated the others of Europe. It is also reminiscent of the ideology or discourse which, according to Fanon, created the subjects. It is also reminiscent of the colonialism which, according to him, fought to maintain the identity of the image it had of Algerians and the depreciated image that people had of themselves. Now the U.S. is impeaching, threatening, and using for the public fun these people in many ways. For example, a fun TV program on international channels is one where a man in Arab, Muslim, or Iranian garb throws a backpack in the middle of a crowd in the subway, a supermarket, or a park, and then everybody takes to flight. It is not so unlikely that in the future these people are identified through genetic tests and then expelled from the U.S. People from these countries should know they are accomplices and in complicity with the U.S. It is a simple equation: An Iranian national lives in the U.S. The Iranian national pays taxes to the government of Trump. The U.S. government is against Iranian people. The Iranian is one with the U.S.: The U.S.-based Iranian is against the Iranian-based Iranian. There may be some justification to call the U.S.-Iran war an Iranian vs. Iranian war. The crisis of “race” still remains in the center of the stage. Thus, one cannot expect the dangling, indefensible concept of race to be eliminated. Race in the contemporary era is as dangling and reactionary as it used to be during Europe’s imperialism. According to what was said, the direction of the development of the issue of race may appear to have changed, but it still remains as the best tool to classify people and justify inequality. Trump has recreated it in a different embodiment.

Continuity of Agenda: Destroying Syria Since 1983 By Tony Cartalucci

Syria’s current conflict, beginning in 2011, was the culmination of decades of effort by the United States to subvert and overthrow the government in Damascus. From training leaders of opposition fronts years before “spontaneous” protests erupted across Syria, to covertly building a multinational mercenary force to both trigger and leverage violence thereafter, the United States engineered, executed, and perpetuated virtually every aspect of Syria’s destructive conflict. Enlisting or coercing aid from regional allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Jordan, and Israel, Syria found itself surrounded at its borders and buried within them by chaos. “Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria” But recently revealed CIA documents drawn from the US National Archives portrays recent efforts to undermine and overthrow the Syrian government and the Syrian conflict’s relationship with neighboring Lebanon and its ally Iran as merely the most recent leg in a decades-long campaign to destabilize and overturn regional governments obstructing US interests. A 1983 document signed by former CIA officer Graham Fuller titled, “Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria” (PDF), states (their emphasis): Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.

The report also states: If Israel were to increase tensions against Syria simultaneously with an Iraqi initiative, the pressures on Assad would escalate rapidly. A Turkish move would psychologically press him further. The document exposes both then and now, the amount of influence the US exerts across the Middle East and North Africa. It also undermines the perceived agency of states including Israel and NATO-member Turkey, revealing their subordination to US interests and that actions taken by these states are often done on behalf of Wall Street and Washington rather than on behalf of their own national interests. The War in Syria Was a US Intervention Since “Day One″ Also mentioned in the document are a variety of manufactured pretexts listed to justify a unilateral military strike on northern Syria by Turkey. The document explains: Turkey has considered undertaking a unilateral military strike against terrorist camps in northern Syria and would not hesitate from using menacing diplomatic language against Syria on these issues. Comparing this signed and dated 1983 US CIA document to more recent US policy papers reveals a very overt continuity of agenda. Decades-Spanning Continuity of Agenda The corporate-financier funded policy think tank, Brookings Institution, published a 2012 document titled, “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change” (PDF), which stated: Some voices in Washington and Jerusalem are exploring whether Israel could contribute to coercing Syrian elites to remove Asad. The report continues by explaining: Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Just as the CIA sought to covertly apply pressure on Syria via Iraq, Israel, and Turkey in 1983, it seeks to do so today. Instead of to simply reopen a pipeline perceived as vital to the Iraqi war effort vis-a-vis Iran in the 1980s, the goal now is regime change altogether. It should be noted that, in addition to the 1983 CIA document, US support for violent subversion in Syria during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War also included the 1982 Muslim Brotherhood uprising and its subsequent defeat by Syrian forces within Syria – an almost verbatim analogue to the 2011 unrest that led to the current Syrian conflict – also organized and carried out by US-backed elements of the Muslim Brotherhood. It should also be noted that while the 2011 conflict in Syria began under the administration of US President Barack Obama – according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” – planning, training, and staging began at least as early as 2007 under the administration of US President George Bush. A concerted, continuous conspiracy to manipulate events across the Middle East and North Africa and project American hegemony throughout the region spanning now seven US presidencies is perhaps the most telling evidence that deeply rooted special interests – a deep state – not America’s elected representatives, crafts and executes US policy at home and abroad. Power is Held by Unelected Special Interests, Not Elected Representatives The notion that the recently elected US president, Donald Trump, can, is willing to, or is able to suddenly oppose the immense corporate-financier interests driving a concerted conspiracy spanning three decades lacks any basis in fact. In reality, those who President Trump surrounded himself with both during his campaign for the presidency and upon assembling his cabinet, are among the very conspirators behind this decades-long agenda. For those who find themselves targets of US subversion and aggression, both overt and covert, understanding the deep state and the corporate-financier interests that comprise it driving these agendas is essential. Devising a means to expose, isolate, and otherwise disrupt the unwarranted power and influence they wield – rather than dealing with their political proxies in Washington – is the only way to balance the currently lopsided equation of global power. For the American people and citizens of nations beholden to American interests, understanding that change will only come when the corporate-financier interests that constitute the deep state are confronted and decentralized, and not through elections involving proxies wholly beholden to the deep state, will be the first step toward taking back national institutions and resources hijacked by these special interests. Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Anti-Zionist activist: Israel a Jewish State, not democracy

Professor Haim Bresheeth A University of East London professor and an avid anti-Zionist has said with Trump in the White House, prospects of the Palestinians will be more and more slim for recognition of their rights by Israelis. Professor Haim Bresheeth draws a pessimistic image, as he himself admits but painfully holds it as reality, of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict where the Zionist extreme right-wingers had effectively blocked road to a hopeful situation and a viable solution to the conflict; he believes that Trump administration will definitely take side with the Jewish state bolstered by the Knesset in Tel Aviv who would not be satisfied with less than expelling all Palestinians from the West Bank. Bresheeth implicates famous Jewish tycoon Sheldon Adelson in the Jewish settlement case where he actively supported financially the building of illegal houses in Palestinian territories; the transfer of capital to Al-Quds, especially eastern part of what UN designate as an international zone, will be a blow to international convention no other US president had ever dared to defy: Trump has declared that the US embassy in Tel Aviv will be transfered to Jerusalem. What are the reasons of this transfer, and what would be its message? Trump’s policy on Israel/Palestine is crafted by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, an orthodox Jew and a strong supporter of the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Kushner has paid much towards the settlements both personally and through the Trump organization. The second source of influence on Trump is the Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who made his fortune in the casino business like the Trump family. Adelson is the richest and most generous supporter of the illegal settlements, as well as the owner of the Israeli free paper Hayom, which is the main supporter of Netanyahu and the extreme right in Israel. Trump lacks any knowledge or understanding of the conflict of Israel/Palestine, does not know or care about it being a colonial conflict, and like any white supremacist Islamophobe supports the colonialists against the indigenous people, not to mention that his hostility to Arabs and Muslims makes the Palestinians automatic enemies in his limited and narrow view of the world. By moving the embassy to Jerusalem Al-Quds, a move which no US president has agreed to since the 1948 Nakba, Trump will be striking massive blow against the UN, and its understanding that Jerusalem Al-Quds, not to mention East Jerusalem, are both illegally occupied by Israel. The Resolution 181 of November 1947, which has partitioned Palestine into two states, has left Jerusalem as an international zone protected by the UN, hence Israel’s occupation of it is illegal, and so is moving embassies into it. By moving the embassy to Jerusalem Al-Quds, Trump will be in fact saying that he rejects the judgement of the international community through the UN, as well as the rights of the Palestinians altogether. In fact, this move is the support of Pax Israeliana, an arrangement depending on Israeli and US guns, and on a final rejection of any national rights for Palestine. No US President has done anything like that. How would this Transfer affect the US relations with Islamic countries? As every Muslim knows, Jerusalem Al-Quds and the Al Aqsa Mosque are the third most holy place for Muslims, after Mecca and Medina. By moving the embassy to Jerusalem, Trump, an enemy of Islam and the Arabs, will in effect be annulling the rights of Muslims and Christians in the city. This is likely to cause a huge problem in the Middle East for the US, with demonstrations and much hostility towards the US and Israel. Indeed, even such corrupt regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Al Sisi’s Egypt, who are closely associated with the US and Israel, will find it difficult if not impossible to control popular anger in their countries. Such a move could bring about widespread protests which may lead to changing the power-balance in the Middle East. Israel claims to be a democratic state, at the same time it emphasizes on Jewish identity and its foundation is based on occupation. What do you think about this contradiction? Of course, Israel is not now, nor has it ever been a democratic state. Israel is no longer defining itself as democracy - this description was removed by the Knesset almost three years ago - it now describes itself as a Jewish State, which is obviously undemocratic. Any country which is claiming to be based on single religion as its identity cannot by definition be democratic, if it has substantial minorities of people from different religions. Israel has never behaved as democracy, ever since its inception in 1948 - the Arab Palestinians were NEVER treated equally, and lived under a military government until 1966. Even after the abolition of the Military Government, the Palestinians in Israel, almost 22% of the population, have never enjoyed equality as citizens, and this is now truer than ever. In the last few years, tens of new laws passed by the Knesset, have removed most of the rights from the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and even removed the Arabic language as an official language of Israel. The Palestinians in the rest of Palestine are still living under a brutal military occupation, with no civil or political rights whatsoever. Marx has once said: “a nation which oppresses another nation, cannot itself be free.” This is very true about Israel, which is not even democratic towards Jews, with racism and hatred towards Mizrahi Jews (Jews from the Arab world and Iran) and towards Black Jews from Ethiopia. If for the Palestinians Israel is an Apartheid state, it is also undemocratic towards many of its Jewish citizens. Some say that there is no one in Labor Party to compete with Netanyahu. What is your opinion? The Labor Party has changed its name to the ‘Zionist Camp’ few years ago, to mark the fact that it has nothing to do with the left. Even before that time, the Labor Party, as the strongest and most dominant political power in Israel, was the political power which had carried out the Nakba, was responsible to the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and for not allowing them to return after the end of the war. Peres and Ben-Gurion have together arranged the tripartite attack on Egypt in 1956, together with the colonialist powers of Britain and France, and were also responsible for the 1967 war. After that war, they were responsible for the illegal settlements which started to be built immediately after the war ended. They were also responsible for the racist apartheid policies of the Histadrut, which supported different pay for the same jobs for Jews and Arabs. Now that they lost power and are out of government, they sometimes would like us to believe that it was the right-wing in Israel which is responsible for much of these crimes, but any historical account reveals that there was no great difference between left and right when it comes to the Palestine question. Thus, whether they put another candidate against Netanyahu, the policies will not change, as the whole Israeli society has moved strongly to the right and has become extremely nationalistic and xenophobic. At the moment, its leaders, Herzog and Livni, are perceived as Netanyahu-lite, and thus are unlikely to attract much electoral support, in the likely case of fresh elections, if Netanyahu is charged with corruption in the next couple of months, which looks almost certain. It seems that Trump will support Netanyahu and Israel (more than did Obama.) Considering this, is there any possibility that Israel takes a more violent stance against Palestinians? There is no doubt in my mind that the closeness between Trump and Netanyahu - the same billionaire (Sheldon Adelson) is supporting both, for example - is very dangerous for the Palestinians. Israel has had a long-established plan to further ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, by using regional local tense situation to launch mass expulsion of Palestinians across the river Jordan. As there was never a president in the US which was as supportive as Trump of Israeli war crimes, it is very likely that this plan will be realized during his tenure. Indeed, another political platform shared by Trump and Netanyahu is their hostility towards and wish to attack Iran; such an attack is likely to destabilize the whole Middle East, and to give Israel the chance to enact massive expulsion of Palestinians with the support of the US. This makes this new closeness between both regimes even more dangerous to region and world peace. A procedure for peace between Israel and Palestine has been proposed by France. How do you see France proposal future following Trumps grasp on power? Unfortunately, France, like the rest of the EU, has not done anything since 1967 to assist a just peace in Palestine. This panicky attempt by Paris to save something before a Trump takeover was just that - a useless attempt to be politically correct, and to suggest a political move which will be supported by Arab and Muslim countries - as well as by its own Muslim population, which is now living under the threat of a fascist president being elected in few months. This French proposal is actually a failure even before it was made - it offers the Palestinians very little, and to the Israelis it offers less than control over the whole of Palestine - something the current Israeli government, and its racialized xenophobic public will not for a moment consider seriously. The only just peace for both sides has to be forced on Israel, like the end of Apartheid was forced upon South Africa. The only power capable of so doing is the US, and it will not do so - it actually does the opposite; thus, no peace moves in the current power balance can be effective or serious - these are symbolic voices which are undertaken for internal and external political reasons, and not really for resolving the colonial conflict in Palestine. This may sound very negative or pessimistic, but unfortunately, it is the real situation right now. The most likely result of such imbalanced power relations in the Middle East is a further erosion of the life and rights of the Palestinians. Only massive change in public opinion, and a strong BDS campaign against Israel Apartheid and its atrocities can change this; one hopes that this will happen over the next few years. Without such campaign, the situation will only further deteriorate. Professor Haim Bresheeth is a filmmaker, photographer and a film studies scholar, retired from the University of East London, where he worked since early 2002. He now teaches at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). Interview by: Vandad Alvandipour

1979: The Turning Point

“Our divine movement nullified the calculations of the experts…Those who questioned how a bunch of youth working in the bazaars and teachers without having anything could defeat a regime that had everything at its disposal, realised that their materialistic calculations were void. Here, it is a divine calculation; here the Hand of God is at work. Individuals cannot create such a movement and such a force. Mankind cannot awaken all the sections in this manner; mankind cannot enable the men and women of a country; the child and adolescent of a country, to become self-sacrificing. It is the Hand of God and it is the Divine Will, which caused all sections of the nation to become brothers and invalidate all the calculations of the material pundits.” – Imam Khomeini – (Sahifeh Noor, vol. 7, p. 174) The Victory of the Islamic Revolution under Imam Khomeini’s leadership in 1979 is regarded as one of the most significant events of the 20th century. The world witnessed the emergence of Imam Khomeini, one of the most influential personalities in the Islamic world. Although he emerged in Iran, his character made him an international figure. Due to his particular attention to religion, the Islamic movement made constant progress and expanded in the Middle East following the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The Iranian Revolution of Iran refers to the overthrow of the self-proclaimed kingdom of the Pahlavi dynasty led by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and its replacement with an Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The discourse and intellectual discussions that were formed following the success of the revolution called into question the role of religion in society, challenging the idea that religion should be confined to the private sphere. The new system also envisaged the centrality of religion in the political life of the nation. The founder of this new system had no problem in making use of several terminologies from other political disciplines and interacted with other systems in order to improve the theoretical framework of the Islamic Shi‘a school of thought. Among the main objectives of the Islamic Revolution was the enhancement of people’s power, relieving them of the undesired state of dependence on foreign colonial powers to move towards self-reliance by implementing changes in key faculties of the state and national institutions. The revolution and the revival of the Islamic Identity

On many occasions Imam Khomeini stated that: “It is not concealed from anyone that the motive behind the Islamic Revolution of Iran and the secret of its victory was Islam. Our nation, throughout the country, from the capital or the remotest towns and villages and settlements, by sacrificing their blood under the cry of ‘God is the Greatest’ demanded the establishment of an Islamic Republic. In the unprecedented and amazing referendum, [that followed] almost unanimously [they] voted for an Islamic republic; and both Muslim and non-Muslim governments recognised the new state and the government of Iran, as an Islamic Republic. With regard to the above circumstances, the constitution and the rest of the laws in this republic must be based one hundred percent on Islam. And even if a single article contravenes the tenets of Islam, it is a violation of the republic and the almost unanimous majority of the nation.” According to some experts and researchers, the Islamic Revolution was one of the major factors influencing the awareness of Muslims, enhancing Islamic activities in different Muslim societies. Imam Khomeini, who revived political Islam and called it a ‘Pure Muhammed-an Islam’, harmonised politics and religion and brought Islam back to the heart of political life, revitalising it, turning it into a live religion whose divine tenets can be utilised for the benefit of society in its entirety and not in a truncated form. The result was a vibrant society that understands what it means to struggle in the way of God and to resist and combat the tyranny of hegemonic powers. The Islamic Revolution of Iran was an amazing phenomenon in the modern world that had the effect of reviving Islam’s dignity among Muslims.

Characteristics of the Islamic Revolution The Islamic Republic, drawing upon its millenary sources of knowledge, has struggled, not without fierce external opposition, to present to others an example of a comprehensive and multi-dimensional system in areas of religion, politics, economy, society and culture. It is also trying eagerly to raise awareness among the oppressed and the deprived and to create suitable ground for self-awareness, self-reliance and self-confidence.In doing so it cannot forget the importance of freedom movements, Islamic and/or anti-colonial. It also insists on the negation of external powers and the necessity of dynamic management based on Islamic principles to handle political and social changes. Regrettably, this misunderstood revolution has been a constant target of the propaganda of western powers that have forced upon it all kinds of economic and political pressures. Despite all the difficulties and international opposition, 38 years later, the Islamic Republic of Iran still stands, having made great achievements on the domestic and international stages. It has also provided the initial spark for the revival of Islam in different parts of the Muslim world. The challenges ahead are many and the objective will be to resiliently carry on and improve. {The 38th Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution of Iran (12 February 2017)}

Iran’s Islamic Revolution: “Impossible” until it became “Inevitable”

BY BARRY K GROSSMAN

Indeed, no Revolution in history has enjoyed such widespread popular support or been more clearly committed to a fixed set of universal moral values.Thirty-eight years ago, a series of unstoppable events known as Iran’s Islamic revolution unfolded through the committed and pious oversight of Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. That continuing Islamic Revolution against Kafir (disbelivers) influence, together with Sharia (Islamic law) and arguably the only kind of Islamic governance possible in this “age of nation-states” - Wilayat al-Faqih -  have, through Ayatollah Khamenei’s subsequent custodianship and guidance, provided the immovable bedrock on which today’s Islamic Republic of Iran was built.

 

Apart from the original Islamic Revolution which followed The Messenger’s triumphal return to Mecca after the Hijrah, there has never been a better example of a genuinely Islamic, mass rejection of Kafir influence, and certainly no historic example of any “people’s revolution” which enjoyed such overwhelming public support. Despite many thousands of victims martyred by the despotic Pahlavi regime, none of the 20th century’s ideologically based revolutions elsewhere were so predominantly peaceful in the face of such sustained provocation.

Indeed, no Revolution in history has enjoyed such widespread popular support or been more clearly committed to a fixed set of universal moral values. Indeed, even critics have observed that at least ten percent of the Iranian population participated directly in Iran’s Islamic Revolution, where as little more that one percent of the relevant populations are said to have participated in each of the 1776 American, the 1789 French, and the 1918 Russian revolutions. [i]

The critics also concede that there “… was no way that the spirit of the revolution would have fizzled out inside Iran nor [could] the eagerness of the people for revolutionary change have been dampened." [ii] The Revolution, in short, is a towering achievement to be celebrated by all Muslims the world over.

Of course, there will always be people who, motivated by sectarian delusions, foreign sensibilities, or worldly self-interest, insist on quibbling over disputed historic details regarding the “means” used to secure and protect the Revolution, while ignoring both the undeniable reality of its “substance and the very real threats to the Revolution routinely posed by the enemies of Iran and Islam.

So, what can we confidently say about the “substance” of Iran’s Islamic Revolution and the circumstances which made it inevitable, without inviting dispute?

Anyone who harbours doubts about just how brutally oppressive, corrupt, and arrogant the Shah’s US backed kleptocracy was, need only consider that by 1979, the US Carter Administration, NATO, and even that mouthpiece of British colonialism, the BBC, were all openly critical of the regime. Indeed, having declined US support for a military crack down, the Carter Administration initially opted to extend qualified support for the nascent Revolution, albeit on the naive and absurdly arrogant assumption that Ayatollah Khomeini could somehow be later sidelined and managed as a Gandhi-like spiritual leader expected to embrace US styled democracy, while the US itself organised technocrats and ideologically correct elements in Iran to form a “democratic” and ideologically “correct” government.Well, to start with, when it comes to the context in which the impossible revolution became inevitable, the brutal US backed dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi which was hellbent on delivering up Iran to the Kafir has been stripped naked by history for all to see.

Iran’s Islamic Revolution quickly swept away the self-proclaimed ‘king of kings’ corrupt excesses and institutionalised hostility towards Islam, replacing western styled affectations with Islamic Governance. The dreaded SAVAK secret police were immediately disbanded and political prisoners released. Measured by the usual criteria like GDP, literacy, education, and other such indicators, in simple “worldly” terms Iran’s Revolution has been spectacularly successful considering the unrelenting efforts made by the United States, its Atlantic World Allies, and their regional client states to attack Iran both from within and from without.

Literacy and education rates have soared since the Revolution, especially among women, while maternal and infant mortality rates have declined dramatically. Literacy among women aged 15 to 24 has more than doubled, and school enrollments levels have increased by several orders of magnitude across the board.

In 1979, only 35% of Iranians over the age of 25 had completed their secondary education. After only 11 years of Islamic governance, by 2000, 85% of Iranians over 25 had completed a secondary degree. In 1979, less than 10% of Iranians over the age of 25 completed a tertiary degree. After only 11 years of Islamic governance, by 2000, almost 30% of Iranians over the age 25 held a tertiary degree. In 1979, only 52% of Iranians over the age 6 were considered literate but under Islamic governance, by 2000, 85% of Iranians over the age of 6 were considered literate.[iii]

Even with almost continuous economic sanctions imposed by the US led Atlantic World, under the guardianship of Iran’s Islamic system of governance, nominal GDP has grown substantially since the Revolution, making Iran’s $430+ billion economy the second-largest in the Middle East, with a favourable balance of trade and a predicted rate of real growth in Iran’s more diversified economy well above that forecast for other nations.

Adjusted for purchasing power parity, even using IMF calculations, Iran’s GDP (at $1.3 trillion) ranks only slightly behind Canada (at $1.6 trillion), bearing in mind that Canada is a G7 nation; that is, one of the seven nations considered by the IMF to have the largest ‘advanced economies’ and highest national wealth.

Although Iran’s population has more than doubled since 1979, implied GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity, has risen 300% from $4,267 per capita in 1980 to $17,114 per capita in 2016.

Of course, post Revolution economic progress has at times been volatile but that unfortunate reality simply reflects the extent to which foreign enemies have constantly tried to destabilise Iran, be it through unjustified and counter productive sanctions or straight out war, as well as volatility in oil prices, at least in part driven by OPEC policies intended to advance Saudi geopolitical interests.

It is easy to be overly focused on Iran’s “material” progress achieved under the stewardship of  Islamic governance despite non-stop efforts by the US led Atlantic World to eradicate the light and turn back the clock to the “dark age” which still engulfs kafir lands, but the real accomplishment to be celebrated on this and every anniversary of the events which liberated Iran from kafir yoke,  lies in the spirit, aims and moral legitimacy of Iran’s unqualified rejection of kafir influence and profiteering at Iran’s expense, while at once delivering genuine Islamic social justice to prepare the Ummah (nation) for Mahdi (the Messiah).

Islam’s revolutionary social justice in no way resembles the false promises dangled before a beguiled global public through hollow, purely symbolic gestures like the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the US Bill of Rights, France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, or the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.  Rather, Iran’s revolutionary social justice is a very real part of governing in accordance with the spirit and the letter of both Sharia and Islam’s universal message expressed through al Qur’an, Hadith, and Sunnah. 

Whereas Atlantic World “justice” asks nothing of the people but promises them the world, Islamic justice comes with both obligations and entitlements attendant on fulfilling those obligations. Whereas Islamic justice delivers all that is promised both for this life and for what inevitably follows, Atlantic World “justice” lies outside the reach of those who lack the means to “buy” it and ultimately delivers nothing.  Whereas Atlantic World justice tends to focus entirely on the individual, Islamic justice balances individual rights and obligations with community interests. 

Bearing in mind these fundamental and irreconcilable differences, it is not surprising that people who profess to embrace the Atlantic World’s ever changing sensibilities about “human rights” grounded only in transient political fashions, are constitutionally incapable of understanding that depriving individuals of justice as ordained by Sharia – be it in the form of a remedy or as punishment – is itself arguably the worst “human rights” abuse imaginable. 

In kafir lands, they say Iran’s revolutionary system of Islamic governance thrives on violating “human rights” but quite apart from grounding their allegations in political rhetoric, propaganda, and straight out fabrications rather than evidence, they are premised on the presumed supremacy of “rights” unknown to Islam and born entirely of transient sensibilities cultivated in Americans by the corporatist “infotainment” industry which, while aiming to sell still more “branded” soap, fast food and soda pop to an uneducated public, simultaneously works to advance the US dominated, New World Order fantasy which the corporate establishment dreams about.

Secularists also presume to criticise Iran’s Islamic Revolution for making governance subject to the dictates of religion. If that is not bad enough, in nominally Muslim lands, where people are yet to taste Islamic Governance, there also is no shortage of “pious” Muslims who have grown fabulously wealthy dominating their secular governments along with clerics loyal to House of Saud money, who together invert this Atlantic World hubris with their own delusional thinking which, in effect, asserts that Iran’s Islamic Revolution burdens Islam with the dictates of politics and governance.  At least the Americans, for all their obvious faults, have the sequence correct, if not the conclusion.

Whatever some Muslims may intuitively feel, the concept of Velayat-e faqih [iv] (that is, ultimate authority in matters of governance vested in a Guardian Jurist guided by Sharia) is in no way necessarily inconsistent with the notion that 'Iman comes before Imam.' Of course, to understand this, one must study both the concept of Velayat-e faqih and the way it has in fact been applied. Unfortunately, that is something most sectarian Muslims are either unwilling or ill equipped to do, preferring to instead practice 'contempt prior to investigation.'

Velayat-e faqih certainly leaves room for people, as a matter of conscience, to arrive at their own conclusions in private matters and, as a practical matter, it cannot be coherently argued that Iran's Islamic Revolution could have occurred, let alone endured without a Supreme Guardian jurist:

1. to prevent "encroachment by oppressive ruling classes on the rights of the weak" and the plundering and corrupting of the people for the sake of "pleasure and material interest";
2. to prevent both "innovation” in Islamic law and approval of anti-Islamic laws by sham parliaments;" 
3. to preserve "the Islamic order" and keep all individuals on "the just path of Islam without any deviation;" and 
4. to destroy "the influence of foreign powers in the Islamic lands."

Muslims who find fault with Iran’s Islamic governance by impugning the concept of Velayat-e faqih, should honestly ask themselves where their priorities lie and whether their concerns are born of sectarian or secular motives rather than genuinely Islamic imperatives.

In the end, Iran’s Revolution and indeed the universal message of Islam itself stand on merit measured, not in worldly terms defined by the desires of men and women, but rather by the will of Allah. As such, we take it as an article of our deen that both Islam and Iran’s Islamic Revolution are eternal and beyond the reach of schemers who work tirelessly to undo Iran’s achievements and erase that which has been written. The fact that what was once considered impossible in Iran became inevitable and then endured, should in itself tell us something about this.

And so, in the name of Allah, we salute the Islamic Revolution. We salute the resolve of Iran’s people and the wise, steadfast, and, yes, enlightened leadership of both Grand Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei in steering the Islamic Revolution and the fate of Iran through almost four decades of Islamic governance and unrelenting efforts by the USA and its regional clients states to turn back the clock by any means and at any price.

Endnotes:

[i]  Statistics from: Charles Kurzman, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004, p. 121, quoted in "Patterns of Discontent: Will History Repeat in Iran?", Michael Rubin and Patrick Clawson, Middle East Review of International Affairs, March 2006.

[ii] Haleh Esfandiari director of the Woodrow Wilson Middle East Program in Washington, DC. 

[iii] Education related statistics extracted from: “Iranian Economy in the Twentieth Century: A Global Perspective”, Hadi Salehi Esfahani, Iranian Studies, volume xx, number x, April 2009.

[iv] See: “Governance of the Jurist (Velayat-e Faqeeh): Islamic Governance”, Imam Khomeini, authorised translation by Hamid Algar, The Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works (International Division). Available in secure pdf format at: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/rkhomeini/books/velayat_faqeeh.pdf

BARRY K GROSSMAN

Barry Grossman is an international lawyer and political commentator focused on human rights related issues. He has been extensively published on various legal subjects and is a frequent commentator on political affairs. He is often interviewed by Press TV and other media outlets.

Iran’s Islamic Revolution: “impossible” until it became “inevitable”

Indeed, no Revolution in history has enjoyed such widespread popular support or been more clearly committed to a fixed set of universal moral values. By Barry Grossman*

Thirty-eight years ago, a series of unstoppable events known as Iran’s Islamic revolution unfolded through the committed and pious oversight of Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. That continuing Islamic Revolution against Kafir (disbelivers) influence, together with Sharia (Islamic law) and arguably the only kind of Islamic governance possible in this “age of nation-states” - Wilayat al-Faqih - have, through Ayatollah Khamenei’s subsequent custodianship and guidance, provided the immovable bedrock on which today’s Islamic Republic of Iran was built. Apart from the original Islamic Revolution which followed The Messenger’s triumphal return to Mecca after the Hijrah, there has never been a better example of a genuinely Islamic, mass rejection of Kafir influence, and certainly no historic example of any “people’s revolution” which enjoyed such overwhelming public support. Despite many thousands of victims martyred by the despotic Pahlavi regime, none of the 20th century’s ideologically based revolutions elsewhere were so predominantly peaceful in the face of such sustained provocation.

Indeed, no Revolution in history has enjoyed such widespread popular support or been more clearly committed to a fixed set of universal moral values. Indeed, even critics have observed that at least ten percent of the Iranian population participated directly in Iran’s Islamic Revolution, where as little more that one percent of the relevant populations are said to have participated in each of the 1776 American, the 1789 French, and the 1918 Russian revolutions. [i] The critics also concede that there “… was no way that the spirit of the revolution would have fizzled out inside Iran nor [could] the eagerness of the people for revolutionary change have been dampened." [ii] The Revolution, in short, is a towering achievement to be celebrated by all Muslims the world over. Of course, there will always be people who, motivated by sectarian delusions, foreign sensibilities, or worldly self-interest, insist on quibbling over disputed historic details regarding the “means” used to secure and protect the Revolution, while ignoring both the undeniable reality of its “substance and the very real threats to the Revolution routinely posed by the enemies of Iran and Islam. So, what can we confidently say about the “substance” of Iran’s Islamic Revolution and the circumstances which made it inevitable, without inviting dispute? Well, to start with, when it comes to the context in which the impossible revolution became inevitable, the brutal US backed dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi which was hellbent on delivering up Iran to the Kafir has been stripped naked by history for all to see. Anyone who harbours doubts about just how brutally oppressive, corrupt, and arrogant the Shah’s US backed kleptocracy was, need only consider that by 1979, the US Carter Administration, NATO, and even that mouthpiece of British colonialism, the BBC, were all openly critical of the regime. Indeed, having declined US support for a military crack down, the Carter Administration initially opted to extend qualified support for the nascent Revolution, albeit on the naive and absurdly arrogant assumption that Ayatollah Khomeini could somehow be later sidelined and managed as a Gandhi-like spiritual leader expected to embrace US styled democracy, while the US itself organised technocrats and ideologically correct elements in Iran to form a “democratic” and ideologically “correct” government. Iran’s Islamic Revolution quickly swept away the self-proclaimed ‘king of kings’ corrupt excesses and institutionalised hostility towards Islam, replacing western styled affectations with Islamic Governance. The dreaded SAVAK secret police were immediately disbanded and political prisoners released. Measured by the usual criteria like GDP, literacy, education, and other such indicators, in simple “worldly” terms Iran’s Revolution has been spectacularly successful considering the unrelenting efforts made by the United States, its Atlantic World Allies, and their regional client states to attack Iran both from within and from without. Literacy and education rates have soared since the Revolution, especially among women, while maternal and infant mortality rates have declined dramatically. Literacy among women aged 15 to 24 has more than doubled, and school enrollments levels have increased by several orders of magnitude across the board. In 1979, only 35% of Iranians over the age of 25 had completed their secondary education. After only 11 years of Islamic governance, by 2000, 85% of Iranians over 25 had completed a secondary degree. In 1979, less than 10% of Iranians over the age of 25 completed a tertiary degree. After only 11 years of Islamic governance, by 2000, almost 30% of Iranians over the age 25 held a tertiary degree. In 1979, only 52% of Iranians over the age 6 were considered literate but under Islamic governance, by 2000, 85% of Iranians over the age of 6 were considered literate.[iii] Even with almost continuous economic sanctions imposed by the US led Atlantic World, under the guardianship of Iran’s Islamic system of governance, nominal GDP has grown substantially since the Revolution, making Iran’s $430+ billion economy the second-largest in the Middle East, with a favourable balance of trade and a predicted rate of real growth in Iran’s more diversified economy well above that forecast for other nations. Adjusted for purchasing power parity, even using IMF calculations, Iran’s GDP (at $1.3 trillion) ranks only slightly behind Canada (at $1.6 trillion), bearing in mind that Canada is a G7 nation; that is, one of the seven nations considered by the IMF to have the largest ‘advanced economies’ and highest national wealth. Although Iran’s population has more than doubled since 1979, implied GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity, has risen 300% from $4,267 per capita in 1980 to $17,114 per capita in 2016. Of course, post Revolution economic progress has at times been volatile but that unfortunate reality simply reflects the extent to which foreign enemies have constantly tried to destabilise Iran, be it through unjustified and counter productive sanctions or straight out war, as well as volatility in oil prices, at least in part driven by OPEC policies intended to advance Saudi geopolitical interests. It is easy to be overly focused on Iran’s “material” progress achieved under the stewardship of Islamic governance despite non-stop efforts by the US led Atlantic World to eradicate the light and turn back the clock to the “dark age” which still engulfs kafir lands, but the real accomplishment to be celebrated on this and every anniversary of the events which liberated Iran from kafir yoke, lies in the spirit, aims and moral legitimacy of Iran’s unqualified rejection of kafir influence and profiteering at Iran’s expense, while at once delivering genuine Islamic social justice to prepare the Ummah (nation) for Mahdi (the Messiah). Islam’s revolutionary social justice in no way resembles the false promises dangled before a beguiled global public through hollow, purely symbolic gestures like the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the US Bill of Rights, France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, or the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. Rather, Iran’s revolutionary social justice is a very real part of governing in accordance with the spirit and the letter of both Sharia and Islam’s universal message expressed through al Qur’an, Hadith, and Sunnah. Whereas Atlantic World “justice” asks nothing of the people but promises them the world, Islamic justice comes with both obligations and entitlements attendant on fulfilling those obligations. Whereas Islamic justice delivers all that is promised both for this life and for what inevitably follows, Atlantic World “justice” lies outside the reach of those who lack the means to “buy” it and ultimately delivers nothing. Whereas Atlantic World justice tends to focus entirely on the individual, Islamic justice balances individual rights and obligations with community interests. Bearing in mind these fundamental and irreconcilable differences, it is not surprising that people who profess to embrace the Atlantic World’s ever changing sensibilities about “human rights” grounded only in transient political fashions, are constitutionally incapable of understanding that depriving individuals of justice as ordained by Sharia – be it in the form of a remedy or as punishment – is itself arguably the worst “human rights” abuse imaginable. In kafir lands, they say Iran’s revolutionary system of Islamic governance thrives on violating “human rights” but quite apart from grounding their allegations in political rhetoric, propaganda, and straight out fabrications rather than evidence, they are premised on the presumed supremacy of “rights” unknown to Islam and born entirely of transient sensibilities cultivated in Americans by the corporatist “infotainment” industry which, while aiming to sell still more “branded” soap, fast food and soda pop to an uneducated public, simultaneously works to advance the US dominated, New World Order fantasy which the corporate establishment dreams about.

Secularists also presume to criticise Iran’s Islamic Revolution for making governance subject to the dictates of religion. If that is not bad enough, in nominally Muslim lands, where people are yet to taste Islamic Governance, there also is no shortage of “pious” Muslims who have grown fabulously wealthy dominating their secular governments along with clerics loyal to House of Saud money, who together invert this Atlantic World hubris with their own delusional thinking which, in effect, asserts that Iran’s Islamic Revolution burdens Islam with the dictates of politics and governance. At least the Americans, for all their obvious faults, have the sequence correct, if not the conclusion. Whatever some Muslims may intuitively feel, the concept of Velayat-e faqih[iv] (that is, ultimate authority in matters of governance vested in a Guardian Jurist guided by Sharia) is in no way necessarily inconsistent with the notion that 'Iman comes before Imam.' Of course, to understand this, one must study both the concept of Velayat-e faqih and the way it has in fact been applied. Unfortunately, that is something most sectarian Muslims are either unwilling or ill equipped to do, preferring to instead practice 'contempt prior to investigation.' Velayat-e faqih certainly leaves room for people, as a matter of conscience, to arrive at their own conclusions in private matters and, as a practical matter, it cannot be coherently argued that Iran's Islamic Revolution could have occurred, let alone endured without a Supreme Guardian jurist:

to prevent "encroachment by oppressive ruling classes on the rights of the weak" and the plundering and corrupting of the people for the sake of "pleasure and material interest"; to prevent both "innovation” in Islamic law and approval of anti-Islamic laws by sham parliaments;" to preserve "the Islamic order" and keep all individuals on "the just path of Islam without any deviation;" and to destroy "the influence of foreign powers in the Islamic lands." Muslims who find fault with Iran’s Islamic governance by impugning the concept of Velayat-e faqih, should honestly ask themselves where their priorities lie and whether their concerns are born of sectarian or secular motives rather than genuinely Islamic imperatives. In the end, Iran’s Revolution and indeed the universal message of Islam itself stand on merit measured, not in worldly terms defined by the desires of men and women, but rather by the will of Allah. As such, we take it as an article of our deen that both Islam and Iran’s Islamic Revolution are eternal and beyond the reach of schemers who work tirelessly to undo Iran’s achievements and erase that which has been written. The fact that what was once considered impossible in Iran became inevitable and then endured, should in itself tell us something about this. And so, in the name of Allah, we salute the Islamic Revolution. We salute the resolve of Iran’s people and the wise, steadfast, and, yes, enlightened leadership of both Grand Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei in steering the Islamic Revolution and the fate of Iran through almost four decades of Islamic governance and unrelenting efforts by the USA and its regional clients states to turn back the clock by any means and at any price. [i] Statistics from: Charles Kurzman, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004, p. 121, quoted in "Patterns of Discontent: Will History Repeat in Iran?", Michael Rubin and Patrick Clawson, Middle East Review of International Affairs, March 2006. [ii] Haleh Esfandiari director of the Woodrow Wilson Middle East Program in Washington, DC. [iii] Education related statistics extracted from: “Iranian Economy in the Twentieth Century: A Global Perspective”, Hadi Salehi Esfahani, Iranian Studies, volume xx, number x,April 2009. [iv] See: “Governance of the Jurist (Velayat-e Faqeeh): Islamic Governance”, Imam Khomeini, authorised translation by Hamid Algar, The Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works (International Division). Available in secure pdf format at: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/rkhomeini/books/velayat_faqeeh.pdf * Barry K. Grossman received his B.Comm. from the University of Calgary in 1984 and his LLB from York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School in 1987. After working as a litigator at a major commercial law firm in Toronto, he moved to Australia to teach at the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Law in 1988. He later worked for several years as a litigation consultant to the national Australian firm of Freehill, Hollingdale & Page before taking up a full time lectureship at Monash University’s Faculty of Law. Mr. Grossman has written extensively on various legal subjects and is a frequent commentator on political affairs. He is a Muslim and has resided in Indonesia since 1999.

Indigenous Peoples Lands Guard 80 Per Cent of World’s Biodiversity

By Baher Kamal

In much of the Andes, soil erosion is thought to be one of the most limiting factors in crop production. Soil is vulnerable to erosion where it is exposed to moving water or wind and where conditions of topography or human use decrease the cohesion of the soil. ©IFAD/ Juan I. Cortés

ROME, (IPS) - They are more than 370 million self-identified peoples in some 70 countries around the world. In Latin America alone there are over 400 groups, each with a distinct language and culture, though the biggest concentration is in Asia and the Pacific– with an estimated 70 per cent. And their traditional lands guard over 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity.

They are the indigenous peoples.

They have rich and ancient cultures and view their social, economic, environmental and spiritual systems as interdependent. And they make valuable contributions to the world’s heritage thanks to their traditional knowledge and their understanding of ecosystem management.

“But they are also among the world’s most vulnerable, marginalized and disadvantaged groups. And they have in-depth, varied and locally rooted knowledge of the natural world, “says the Rome-based International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

“Unfortunately, indigenous peoples too often pay a price for being different and far too frequently face discrimination,” the Fund, which hosts on Feb 10 and 13 on Rome the Global Meeting of the Indigenous People Forum in the Italian capital.

During this biennial meeting, the United Nations specialised agency will bring together representatives of Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations from across the world, as well as leaders of partner bodies to engage in a direct dialogue and improve participation of indigenous peoples in the Fund’s country programmes.

Credit: IFAD

Over the centuries, the Indigenous peoples “have been dispossessed of their lands, territories and resources and, as a consequence, have often lost control over their own way of life. Worldwide, they account for 5 per cent of the population, but represent 15 per cent of those living in poverty.”

One of the most effective ways to enable indigenous peoples to overcome poverty, it adds, is to support their efforts to shape and direct their own destinies, and to ensure that they are the co-creators and co-managers of development initiatives.

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly on Sep. 13, 2007, establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity, well-being and rights of the world’s indigenous peoples.

Key facts
• There are more than 370 million self-identified indigenous people in the world, living in at least 70 countries
• Most of the worlds' indigenous peoples live in Asia
• Indigenous peoples form about 5,000 distinct groups and occupy about 20 per cent of the earth's territory
• Although indigenous peoples make up less than 6 per cent of the global population, they speak more than 4,000 of the world's 7,000 languages
• One of the root causes of the poverty and marginalization of indigenous peoples is loss of control over their traditional lands, territories and natural resources
• Indigenous peoples have a concept of poverty and development that reflects their own values, needs and priorities; they do not see poverty solely as the lack of income
• A growing number of indigenous peoples live in urban areas, as a result of the degradation of land, dispossession, forced evictions and lack of employment opportunities
Source: IFAD

The Declaration addresses individual and collective rights; cultural rights and identity; and rights to education, health, employment and language. And it outlaws discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them.

It also ensures their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own priorities in economic, social and cultural development. The International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples is observed on Aug. 9 every year.

Announcing the Forum, IFAD noted that it has more than 30 years of experience working with indigenous peoples. In fact, since 2003, an average of about 22 per cent of the Fund’s annual lending has supported initiatives for indigenous peoples, mainly in Asia and Latin America.

Since 2007, it has administered the Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility (IPAF). Through small grants of up to 50,000 dollars, it supports the aspirations of indigenous peoples by funding micro-projects that strengthen their culture, identity, knowledge, natural resources, and intellectual-property and human rights.

To help translate policy commitments into action, it has established an Indigenous Peoples’ Forum that promotes a process of dialogue and consultation among indigenous peoples’ organisations, IFAD staff and member states.

The Fund empowers communities to participate fully in determining strategies for their development and to pursue their own goals and visions by strengthening grass-roots organisations and local governance.

Land is not only crucial to the survival of indigenous peoples, as it is for most poor rural people – it is central to their identities, the Fund reports. “They have a deep spiritual relationship to their ancestral territories. Moreover, when they have secure access to land, they also have a firm base from which to improve their livelihoods.”

According to this international Fund, indigenous peoples and their knowledge systems have a special role to play in the conservation and sustainable management of natural resources.

The first global meeting of the Indigenous Peoples’ Forum at IFAD was held in Rome on 11-12 February 2013. ©IFAD/Giulio Napolitano

Indigenous Women’s Untapped Potential

The also named “bank of the poorest” as it provides grants and low-interest credits to the poorest rural communities, recognises indigenous women’s untapped potential as stewards of natural resources and biodiversity, as guardians of cultural diversity, and as peace brokers in conflict mitigation.

Nonetheless, it says, indigenous women are often the most disadvantaged members of their communities because of their limited access to education, assets and credit, and their exclusion from decision-making processes.

This ‘bank of the poorest’ is a specialised agency of the United Nations, which was established as an international financial institution in 1977, being one of the major outcomes of the 1974 World Food Conference, which was organised in response to the food crises of the early 1970s that primarily affected the Sahelian countries of Africa.

That world conference resolved that “an International Fund for Agricultural Development should be established immediately to finance agricultural development projects primarily for food production in the developing countries.”

One of the most important insights emerging from the Conference was that the causes of food insecurity and famine were not so much failures in food production but structural problems relating to poverty, and to the fact that the majority of the developing world’s poor populations were concentrated in rural areas.

Since its creation, IFAD invested 18.4 billion dollars to help 464 million rural poor people.