Balfour declaration’s disastrous legacy for Palestinians

Crescent International

Some people may take comfort in the fact that Britain is facing its Brexit moment. It is twisting and turning as it tries to find a solution to a dilemma of its own making.

Britain’s Brexit travails, however, bring little comfort to the Palestinians. On November 2, 1917, Lord Arthur Balfour, then serving as British Foreign Secretary, promised without any legal basis the Palestinians’ land to create a homeland for the Jewish people.

Balfour was not motivated by sympathy for the Jewish people. Britain and Europe in general have had an appalling record of anti-Semitism that dates back centuries.

The British Foreign Secretary was motivated by two sinister motives.

First, Britain was desperate for American participation in the First World War.

For this, Balfour wanted the British Zionist leader Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild to use his links with American officials to convince them to join the war effort on the side of Britain.

Second, Britain wanted to transfer its “Jewish problem” to the Middle East for others to deal with.

This was not predicated on any sympathy for the Jewish people; rather it was Britain’s colonial enterprise to create problems for others.

This is precisely what Britain did with the state of Jammu and Kashmir whose disastrous consequences have bedeviled not only the Kashmiris but held back the progress of nearly 1.4 billion people on the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent.

If the Palestinians are not thrilled by Britain’s colonial decision-making that consigned them to become the dispossessed of the world, who can blame them?

On November 2, 2019, marking the 102nd anniversary of the Balfour declaration, PLO Secretary General Saeb Erakat, issued a statement saying:

“It’s time for Britain to act with responsibility to realize the political rights of the Palestinian people, which were denied a century ago.”

Erekat added: “Palestine remains a victim to this colonialist pledge… which denied the political rights of our people and their legitimate right to self-determination.”

Jerome Chanes, a contributing editor of the Jewish magazine, Forward, and a fellow at the Center for Jewish Studies at the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center, wrote an interesting article about the “Dark Forces” behind the Balfour declaration.

Published in Forward on August 23, 2014, while the Israeli onslaught was underway on Gaza, Chanes wrote:

“Conventional wisdom has it that the Balfour Declaration was all about Zionism, that British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour were nice guys, “Zionists” both — whatever that meant in 1917 — and that the declaration written was motivated by some kind of Zionist inspiration.

“Alas, the genesis of the declaration had little to do with Zionism and everything to do with World War I, British interests in the war, power politics — and anti-Semitism.

“Indeed, the declaration derived from classic European anti-Judaism and from the gentile English version of anti-Semitism.”

In 1917, while the Palestinians numbered more than 650,000 the Jewish population was less than 50,000, or about 5% of the total population.

Until then, Palestine was part of the Ottoman State. Muslims had had control of Palestine including Jerusalem since 638 CE except the 88-year-long Crusader interregnum from 1099 – 1187.

Throughout Muslim rule, Jews were allowed into Palestine, especially Jerusalem to worship despite the Crusaders’ horrific massacre of Muslims, Jews and Palestinian Christians.

The Christian Crusaders from Europe considered Palestinian Christians to be too cozy and comfortable with Muslim Palestinians, hence they had to die.

The Balfour declaration followed by the Versailles Conference in 1919 supported Jewish immigration into Palestine without taking into consideration the rights and feelings of the majority Palestinian people.

Despite such betrayal by the great powers, the Palestinians harbor no ill-will toward the Jewish people. Their antipathy is toward the racist ideology of Zionism.

To understand this monstrous ideology of racism and what it produces, consider this.

On October 28, an Israeli military court sentenced an Israeli soldier to one month’s labour for killing a Palestinian child during the Great Return March protest in the besieged Gaza Strip.

An unarmed 14-year-old Palestinian youth, Othman Hilles, was shot during a demonstration on July 13, 2018, the Times of Israel reported.

The military court ordered the soldier’s name be banned from publication.

Israeli snipers have shot more than 30,000 Palestinians since March 2018, firing live ammunition at unarmed protesters on their own land. At least 270 Palestinians among them doctors, journalists and children have been killed.

Palestinians have participated in the thousands in the Great Return March to draw attention to the illegal usurpation of their land and for being bottled up in the open-air prison called Gaza.

To understand the true nature of Zionist ideology, the Israeli sniper using high velocity rifle, shot and killed Hilles who was unarmed and posed no threat to the soldier.

Yet, the military court convicted him of merely “disobeying an order leading to a threat to life or health.” There was no mention of deliberate killing and a youth that posed no threat to the soldier.

Only a racist ideology can produce such a verdict.

END

Call for Complete overhaul of the UN

Firoz Osman

In the midst of simmering global tensions, the 74th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting in New York staged many of the adversaries. These included Donald Trump, Hassan Rouhani, Narendra Modi, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Imran Khan, Boris Johnson and Abdel Fattah el Sisi.

A notable absentee was Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu who is fighting for his political life in order to avert a prison sentence for corruption.

The theme at the UNGA was to address multilateral efforts for poverty eradication, quality education, climate action and inclusion, but it was the threat of war in the Muslim (Middle) East and the Subcontinent that was the main focus and dominated headlines.

US president Trump projected a forlorn figure, a far cry from the menacing and bombastic speeches previously delivered at the forum.

Perhaps he was absorbed in the impending danger of impeachment he faces in coming weeks.

British prime minister Johnson had to rush back after the courts found he violated the law by proroguing parliament. Brexit could prove to be his political nemesis.

And Egypt’s al-Sisi senses the beginning of the end as another uprising erupts against his illegitimate rule.

There seems to be a shift in the rhetoric at this year’s UNGA, one from obsequiousness by some “Third” world leaders, not only exposing the hypocrisy and double standards of the dominant Western countries but accusing them, and the United Nations, of failing to uphold international law and prevent war, the UN’s raison d’ etre.

In his address, Trump barely touched on the main conference theme, instead lambasting Iran’s “menacing behaviour… fuelling the tragic wars in Syria and Yemen… and the attack on the Saudi oil refineries”.

No evidence was provided. The biggest gap in Trump’s address, of course, was his deafening silence on climate change.

Turkish president Erdogan rightly asked: “Where are the borders of the State of Israel? Is it the 1948 borders, the 1967 borders, or is there any other border?”, adding that Israel’s seizure of Palestinian territories is not legitimate.

He produced a map showing just how Israel, non-existent in 1947, colonised Palestine and expelled its people.

Malaysian PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad also castigated the Zionist entity, stating that the creation of Israel by seizing Palestinian land and expelling its 90 per cent Arab population is the root cause of terrorism.

“Since then, wars have been fought in many countries, many related to the creation of Israel. And now we have terrorism when there was none before, or at least none on the present scale.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in contrast to Trump, called for a commitment to signed international deals, dialogue and cooperation to achieve regional peace and stability without any interference in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries, and to guarantee the security of free oil flow from each Persian Gulf country.

He alluded to disruptive American interference in the region, hinting that such interference had inflamed the Muslim East with wars of extremism, fanaticism, terrorism and occupation.

In an impassioned speech Pakistani PM Imran Khan launched an extraordinary attack on his Indian counterpart, prime minister Modi, warning of a “bloodbath” when India lifts its curfew in Indian-occupied Kashmir, currently facing an unprecedented security lockdown with 900,000 troops for nearly two month.

He warned that any all-out conflict between the two nuclear-armed states would reverberate far beyond their borders. He gave a history of the RSS, the progenitor of Modi’s BJP, the ruling party, calling it a terrorist group that admired Hitler and Mussolini.

On the side-lines of the UNGA the leaders of Turkey, Pakistan and Malaysia agreed to jointly fight the rising global trend of Islamophobia, mainly in the West, and to launch an English TV channel dedicated to confronting the challenges posed by Islamophobia. They also discussed ways to enhance cooperation on regional and global developments.

A number of other leaders called for reform of the United Nations, particularly the extraordinary powers through veto of the five permanent members at the UN Security Council (UNSC).

South Africa’s call for additional African seats simply entrenches and reinforces the lopsided system. The veto must be abolished, and the Security Council become the executive branch of the UNGA. Only then will the UN cease being a tool for the oppressors.

There can be grave consequences resisting coercion by the West and for taking such a stance against hegemonic powers, such as the economic blockade faced by Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. There will be destabilisation, turmoil, destruction and attempts to overthrow governments as happened in Egypt and Turkey.

It is time that only the UN General Assembly, which comprises all countries of the world on an equitable footing, were to sanction the use of force against a member state that has violated the UN Charter or international Law.

Further, it should only be the UNGA that should sanction trade embargo and control global institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The UNSC, dominated by the victors of the Second World War—the US, France, Britain and Russia—plus China, will never willingly acquiesce to forego incarcerating, bullying, invading, bombing and occupying other countries and peoples.

Uighurs, Yemen, Libya, Mali, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Palestine immediately come to mind.

They will not allow any reforms or structural changes to the United Nations that will abolish their absolute control of the world body. It is time for courageous, smaller states to unite in their demand for a more effective, equitable and just world body.

DR FIROZ OSMAN is an executive member of the Media Review Network, an advocacy group based in Gauteng, South Africa.

 

Firoz Osman

What Is the UK After In the Waters of the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean?

The series of events in the “a tanker for a tanker war” between Iran and the West in the Strait of Hormuz, the most important strategic part of the Persian Gulf, has been watched by the world’s leading politicians, political scientists and media for several weeks now. Analyses of the reasons, changes in the positions of the parties involved, their short-term and long-term goals and objectives, scenarios of withdrawing from the tense situation are very ambiguous. Some saw in it the aspiration of Washington to wreak havoc in this region, since it is easier “to catch a goldfish” in the muddy water. Others understand it as the desire to found a coalition for establishing new (anti-Iranian) rules of navigation and to pin down the obstinate Iran with various sanctions.

At first (before B. Johnson’s election as Prime Minister), a cunning trap laid by US for London with the purpose to show the UK its place was considered, as the latter showed some independence at a decidedly unsuitable time for its own political change and attempted to carry out the Brexit as soon as possible, etc.

It would be undesirable to repeat the unexpected and drastic turns of events: they are already abundant on the pages of all serious media worldwide. On the one hand, it is probably worth taking a broader look at them, as they certainly will have long-term effects for the whole world because of a possible “oil deficit” and a changed strategic arrangement of forces in the region. And, on the other hand, one had better focus on analyzing the role and attitude of Britain, which, for some reason or other, became one of the centers of the conflict. In our opinion, it needs to be made, considering several important circumstances.

First, in the course of events which started with the US threats to begin military operations against Iran, the Pentagon’s fighting spirit disappeared. The US plan to send 120,000 soldiers to Iran seemed unfeasible since they would be met by more than 650,000 soldiers of the Iranian armed forces. This despite the fact that, in 2018, the Pentagon designed the document OPLAN 1002-18 on capturing a number of ports in the Persian Gulf and the Khuzestan Province where 80% of the Iranian oil and gas reserves are located and where separatist sentiment is strong. It is essential that this province is close to the partially controlled Iraq, not far from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which contains the possible countermeasures of Iran, but also makes those 120,000 troops sufficient for such action in case of possible support of the aircraft and the fleet from the bases of these adjacent countries.

Secondly, for the purpose of ensuring a greater reliability of its actions, the USCENTCOM designed the multinational naval operation Sentinel, and the US Administration officially urged Germany, France and the UK to join the naval mission for “ensuring safe navigation” through the Strait of Hormuz and “countering Iran’s aggression.”

Germany rejected this request: it has to be approved by the Parliament first. Almost all leading political forces of the country are against participating in any missions of the US against Iran. Germany is not really interested in the events in the flashpoints, since its energy security does not depend on the disputes with Iran, as it receives most of its oil from the Russian Federation or from other suppliers who do not transport it through this strait.

France is somewhat hesitant concerning participation in the initiative of the US. However, since France receives most of its oil from the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia is its largest supplier), it is in its best interests that the situation in the region should not be tense.

The UK, more than any other state, is inclined to partake in the US mission, since Iran held a British tanker, and Saudi Arabia is the main supplier of aviation fuel to the country. Without having sufficient forces in the Persian Gulf, the UK, it would seem, would support the US cause. But this purpose required the rise of the still mysterious and unpredictable Boris Johnson as the country’s Prime Minister.

Thirdly, soon after he was appointed Prime Minister, B. Johnson abandoned T. May’s doubts and, on August 5 of this year, the accession to the alliance with Washington was officially declared on the one hand. And on the other, probably, in order to strengthen the positions within the country and in the world in general, he was the first to present the idea to create a European naval coalition for ensuring the security of vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. The idea was then approved by France, the Netherlands and Italy, interest was expressed by Spain, Sweden, Poland and even Germany. It was decided that the ships of the UK Naval Forces would accompany cargo vessels under the British flag in the Strait of Hormuz and, for this purpose, the destroyer Duncan already entered the waters of the Persian Gulf.

Fourthly, the Russian Federation MFA made a number of proposals for strengthening the security in the region. In particular, establishing the Organization for Security and Cooperation which would include the Persian Gulf States, Russia, China, the US, the EU, India, etc.; compliance of the regional participants with international law; transparent cooperation in the military sphere; taking steps on transforming the region into an area without weapons of mass destruction; abandoning permanent foreign bases and gradual reduction of the military presence of the non-regional players. It is possible to establish a collective security system by carrying out consultations on a bilateral and multilateral basis, including those with the participation of the League of Arab States and the UN.

Fifthly, it is necessary to keep in mind that the UK had, has and will have  its own interests and positions both in the Persian Gulf, and in its vicinity, in the Indian Ocean. It is necessary to acknowledge that, before the 2010s, there was practically no mention of the Indian Ocean region, or the Indian Ocean Rim (the regional structure of cooperation, IORA for short) during the debates of the British parliament. However, according to the plans unveiled at the end of 2014, the UK announced placing large military platforms, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, other support ships, planes of the Royal Naval Force and the Royal Air Force on the modernized base Mina Salman in Bahrain (the necessary sum of $23 million for expanding its operation opportunities was provided by both parties). The then Minister of Foreign Affairs Philip Hammond emphasized that this measure was designed to stabilize the situation in the Persian Gulf and to protect the British interests in Libya and the neighboring areas. In our opinion, it marked the beginning of London’s gradual return to the east from the Suez Canal.

During Theresa May’s time as Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth adopted the slogan “Global Britain” with 3 priorities of interests around the world:

• North America, especially the US and Canada;
• Europe with allies and partners;
• Asia, a center of economic and political growth, maintaining the influence in which will become the key success factor of the slogan.

If the UK returns to the east from the Suez Canal, to Asia, then it has to be done by sea, through the Indian Ocean where, according to the forecasts made by the Asian Development Bank, the growth in the Asian Age directed by China, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Thailand will reach 90% of the Asian GDP and 53% of the global GDP. This will certainly become the drive of a global economic spurt as well. It is indicative that the next two decades will see an enormous increase in the volume of container transportation both in the Indian Ocean and in the Asia Pacific Region. The UK, seeking to reserve its title of a trade empire, will hardly miss such opportunities.

Apart from its economic interests, the UK, for its own purposes, obviously wants to meet the new strategic challenges and risks by an increasingly active participation in securing the trade waterways, establishing order on the sea by carrying out joint maneuvers, including the South China Sea, its possible accession to the Big 4 v. 2.0 and the IORA and strengthening its role in the Indo-Pacific Region (which is underway) in general. It would seem that the events in the Strait of Hormuz, the initiatives on their resolution and the desire to look more self-sufficient could urge the British interest in the region of the Indian Ocean and the Indo-Pacific Region. However, whether or not it will be able to realize them on its own (without its main ally, the US) with an ambitious yet unpredictable Prime Minister is a big question. It is no accident that London recently held a thorough discussion of the insufficient level of the military budget (2%), the Naval Force profile, the merchant fleet, etc., which has on numerous occasions been noted by the New Eastern Outlook. It seems that there are problems requiring debate in the new government and in the Parliament.

Meanwhile, on August 5, the British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab wielded the Big Stick again, stating that he intended to create another (stronger) alliance for ensuring the international law and order and for meeting the British security challenges. Raab believes that the new alliance would become the answer to “the menacing behavior of Iran and the destabilizing actions of Russia in Europe,” and its member states would counter both “terrorism and climate change,” among other things.

However, is the British stick big enough? Or is the British rhetoric as strong as always?

Nina Lebedeva, Candidate of Historical Sciences, leading research fellow at the Centre of Indian Research, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Britain's shadow over India's crimes in Kashmir

By Batool Subeiti 

LONDON - While there is no doubt that the Indian armed forces and the fascist Hindu nationalist ruling party in India need to be held to account for the reign of terror they have unleashed on the people of Kashmir throughout these decades, the latest attempt to annex the disputed territory to the union of India is particularly alarming and a matter of grave concern. 

It is important we don’t lose sight of the genesis of problems we are currently witnessing in South Asia. In other words, we need to hold the real culprits responsible for the violence and unrest in the subcontinent to account.

The partition of British India ended almost two hundred years of British colonial rule that conquered one of the richest countries in the world, having owned 27% of GDP in 1700, and by the time they left in 1947, they had reduced it to one of the poorest, most diseased and most illiterate countries on earth, after having claimed the lives of more than 35 million Indians in over two centuries of looting and exploitation.

It is important to note that Britain did not grant India its independence after all this time in goodwill, neither did Britain’s creation of two independent nations on the basis of religion stem as a result of its desire to avoid bloodshed (even if they did desire to avoid bloodshed, it was never in good faith but rather was a hindering factor to stability in the region that is their interests). 

Britain realized that after centuries of exploitation, it had drained the oppressed people under their rule, to the extent that it was no longer in Britain’s interest to continue maintaining direct control over the Asian subcontinent. This led them to realise a change in strategy may be the most effective way they can still maintain control to some extent, granting the nations hope in independence whilst still maintaining indirect control through the puppets

The ‘divide and rule’ strategy came into play and this change in strategy allowed the British to ensure that Muslims were never a majority in the Asian Subcontinent, as through the West’s experience of colonising they are well aware that standing up in the face of oppression is a duty in the Islamic faith and therefore they feared rebellion from the Muslim population and as a result, nations were split into India and Pakistan.

This partition caused the ‘greatest mass movement of humanity in history’, with twelve million refugees moving across the new national borders drawn up by the British barrister Radcliffe and leading to the deaths of up to 2 million lives, as a result of the ensuing upheaval and violence. India and Pakistan have since fought three wars over disputed territory of Kashmir in 1947, 1965, and 1999.

In 1947, Kashmir was handed over from an unpopular ruler without the legitimacy of popular vote to the Indian state, and has been under occupation of India that has wretchedly attempted to market the occupation of Kashmir as a ‘fight against terrorism’.
The number of civilians that have died under Indian occupation of Kashmir is unknown, to the extent that human rights groups have only been documenting the crimes of the Indian state for the past 3 decades, some of which have stated that over 100,000 deaths have been documented since just 1989.

The tactics of occupation and humiliation employed by the Indian army include fake encounters and killings; widespread use of torture; summary executions; disappearances; with the current estimated number of disappearances to be over eight thousand, last seen in government detention and are believed to be dumped in thousands of mass graves across Kashmir; sexual violence, where according to a report by Human Rights Watch in 1993, the security forces use rape as a method of retaliation against Kashmiri civilians during reprisal attacks after further militant ambushes, amongst many more crimes, all of which are documented by Human rights NGOs.

It is imperative we understand that without the legacy of Britain in dividing and conquering the Asian subcontinent, we wouldn’t even be facing this issue today. Britain holds a historic and moral responsibility for what is going on in Kashmir today and has the responsibility to partake in solving the problem, as people and history will never forgive and forget. 

The least Britain can do today, as a nation with a powerful standing on the international platform and a core member of the UN, is to ensure the passing of the UN resolution against the violence ensuing within Kashmir by the Indian forces and rein-stating Article 370 within the Indian parliament, which has allowed the illegal and unconstitutional accession towards occupying the land of Kashmir. 

Every law and ethical book condemns such steps because this is a mere injustice to those who truly own the land. Abolishing Article 370 and Article 35A has suffocated the voices of the Kashmiries by force, their denial of the basic entitlements guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of freedom, security and self-determination is illegal and a threat to the world justice system, not just the justice of the 7 million Kashmiries.

Recent examples of the Indian government annexing the land by force includes: sending heavy armed forces as at present there is 1 soldier for every 10 people in Kashmir. This ratio of army to civilians is unprecedented in human history. Cutting sources of communication and adopting slogans such as 'if anyone speaks against us - we will shoot or kill them'. Medical facilities and doctors are denied to the civilians, including pregnant woman and children in critical states.

Despite all this, India is heralded as a beacon of democracy. In India If you're not part of the Hindutva national identity, you should be worried about living in the world's largest democracy. This rule by force, violence, and oppression is unacceptable by all standards. 
This recent act hasn't included the majority representatives within the parliament as the opposition and many Indians have spoken against this decision as well and held their protests within India. This decision had been planned secretly and enforced forcefully hence, it doesn’t in any shape represent the whole India.

We demand the UN intervenes and makes it mandatory for India to allow the International media, International Red Cross and Human Rights Watch free access to Kashmir. India must allow international investigation of human rights violations in Kashmir, as requested by Human Rights Watch and it is imperative the UN and world powers are held accountable for all the lives lost in this massacre and occupation by force.

The silence of the UN and its lack of action against the illegal conduct of the Indian government has given the oppressors their power and we need to hold them to account. For occupation is never accepted, injustice is never accepted, abuse is never accepted.
Every moral and ethical value based British Citizen must demand our British government intervenes now in between India and Pakistan to solve the matter of Kashmir and to correct what has been committed as a grave mistake by Britain. 

Tanker Tensions in the Persian Gulf

Zafar Bangash 

Tiny poverty-stricken Britain pompously calls itself “great” Britain. It often tries to punch above its weight in global politics. Its latest foray on the world stage occurred on July 4 when it illegally seized the Iranian oil tanker, Grace 1, as it was entering the Mediterranean Sea. Britain claimed it acted at the request of Gibraltar, a tiny island with a total population of 300,000. Britain’s illegal occupation of the island is contested by Spain.

Naturally, Iran was upset at what it described as Britain’s “maritime piracy.” It demanded the tanker, which was carrying two million barrels of oil, be immediately released. Britain alleged the oil cargo was destined to Syria that is under unilateral European Union (EU) sanctions. Tehran dismissed the allegation saying the Syrian port of Baniyas cannot accommodate a tanker of this size. Even Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister pointed out that since Iran is not a member of the EU, it is not obliged to abide by EU sanctions. Britain is trying to enforce extraterritorial jurisdiction on another country.

Iran not only demanded the immediate release of its oil tanker but also warned that should Britain persist in its belligerent act, undertaken at Washington’s behest, Tehran would be forced to take retaliatory steps.

This is what happened on July 19 when Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) impounded the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran said it took the action because the British vessel was violating international maritime rules. It had turned its transponder off as it sailed through the exit and not the designated entry point of the Strait of Hormuz. Both are illegal acts since they pose serious risk to maritime shipping. It “collided with a fishing boat on its route and, according to law, after an accident it is necessary that the causes are investigated,” said Allah-Morad Afifipoor, head of Ports and Maritime Organization in Iran’s southern Hormozgan Province.

Despite the fishing boat contacting the British vessel it did not receive any response. So the boat crew informed the Hormozgan maritime organization “according to legal procedures.” When IRGC naval units arrived, they also discovered the British tanker was spilling oil residues in the Persian Gulf waters, causing environmental pollution.

Such illegal conduct is all too common among Western regimes that dump their pollutants in other countries’ waters or poison their soil by dumping depleted uranium. But dumping toxic waste is only one aspect of the West’s atrocious conduct. Britain, which has been acting at the behest of its US master, is trying to box in Iran in its own neighborhood. And the US in turn is under total Zionist domination. The Arabian statelets of the Persian Gulf are too insignificant to matter — although they fork out hundreds of billions of dollars to the US and Britain as protection money for security guarantees.

The tanker crisis in the Persian Gulf is the direct result of US aggression against Iran. While never on good terms since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, tension escalated further since Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. The US has also imposed illegal sanctions on Iran in complete violation of all international norms. Donald Trump and his minions have vowed to bring Iran’s oil exports to zero. In other words, they want to force Iran to surrender.

Iran is not prepared to do so. It has made clear that if it cannot export oil, nobody else would be allowed to either. Iran completely controls the Strait of Hormuz. Based on maritime law, Iran allows passage to friendly vessels that pose no threat to its interests. Neither British nor American vessels can be considered friendly. Their hostility threatens Iran’s very survival. Under such circumstances, the Islamic Republic is left with no choice but to defend its interests by whatever means necessary.

Iran occupies the entire length of the Persian Gulf’s east coast. Security and stability are of vital importance to Tehran. British and American intrusion in the region, coming from thousands of miles away, is a source of great instability. It is further aggravated by the Western sale of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to illegitimate Arabian regimes.

The situation in the Persian Gulf is fraught with grave danger. If it escalates to a shooting war, the US, Britain, and their allies would be entirely responsible. As several Iranian officials have warned, “the US may start a war, it will be Iran that will end it.” And it cannot be ruled out that the entire region will go up in flames with such illegitimate regimes as the Wahhabis in Arabia and the Zionists in Colonized Palestine being consigned to the dustbin of history.

American warmongers, beware!

Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT).

 

Zafar Bangash

Iranian Foreign Minister Calls for Global Unity Against US Radical Unilateralism

Iranian Foreign Minister Calls for Global Unity Against US Radical Unilateralism

by Stephen Lendman

US rage to control other nations, their resources and populations is the greatest threat to world peace, stability and security.

Its imperial agenda threatens everyone everywhere, risking potential destruction of planet earth to own it, all life forms endangered by its rage.

Bipartisan US ruling authorities, including congressional war party leaders, want pro-Western puppet regimes installed everywhere, sovereign independence of all nations eliminated.

They want ruler-serf societies everywhere they control, US-dominated NATO transformed into a global military on every continent - enforcing US interests, along with official narrative mind control, alternative views eliminated.

They want global societies unfit and unsafe to live in, US-headquartered masters of the universe enforcing the will of Wall Street; the military, industrial, security, controlled media complex; and other corporate predators.

Orwell's 1984 no longer is fiction. Big Brother watches everyone. Endless wars rage against invented enemies, planned new ones on the drawing board to be launched at the whim of the US ruling class.

The nation I grew up in long ago no longer exists. The American dream members of my generation enjoyed is gone. You have to be asleep to believe otherwise, the late George Carlin explained.

An increasingly totalitarian/tyrannical oligarchic plutocracy replaced the US of my youth - intolerant of democratic values and the rule of law everywhere, especially not at home.

Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif is participating in the July 20-21 Ministerial Meeting of the Coordination Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), taking place in Caracas - Venezuela the host country, enhancing the Bolivarian Republic's sovereign independence and prestige on the world stage.

Some 120 nations comprise the NAM, two-thirds of UN member states.

The organization was established in 1961, an initiative of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito.

In his 1979 Havana Declaration, Fidel Castro defined the organization's purpose, saying the following.

It's to insure "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security of non-aligned countries (in their) struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony, as well as against great power and bloc politics."

NAM's founding Declaration said "(p)eace cannot achieved with separation, but with the aspiration towards collective security in global terms and expansion of freedom, as well as terminating the domination of one country over another."

The movement's five principles include:

Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Mutual non-aggression.

Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs.

Equality and mutual benefit.

Peaceful co-existence.

All of the above are contrary to the imperial aims of US-dominated NATO and partners.

NAM member state ministers are discussing international law principles, the right of sovereign independence for all nations, decolonization processes, Venezuelan and Iranian resistance against US aggression, along with other relevant topics.

Iran's Foreign Minister Zarif sounded the alarm about what he called a "new wave of US radical unilateralism," the world community of nations threatened by its rage for global dominance - pursued by economic, financial, trade, sanctions, and preemptive hot wars.

"This challenge is weakening the rule of law in the world and is threatening global peace and stability," Zarif stressed, adding:

"Even many US allies are being exposed to the unprecedented US interference in their internal affairs."

Zarif called for NAM member states to "resist this new (US) wave and push it back." He hailed Iran's "pioneering in resisting (US) economic terrorism."

"Our sincere efforts to respond to unfounded concerns about our peaceful nuclear program is one of the many victims of the new unilateralism," he stressed. 

He slammed the Trump regime's aim "to push the nuclear deal to the brink of collapse despite the world's investment in" preserving it, adding:

"Not only did the US violate the UNSC resolution, but also has sanctioned the countries that wanted to stick to the agreement" - namely Iran, Russia and China.

Zarif expressed solidarity with Venezuela's democratically elected and reelected President Maduro.

He denounced Trump and Netanyahu regime aims to deny Palestinians their universally recognized right of self-determination.

The US "brings insecurity and instability to anywhere it sets foot. Today it has taken insecurity to the Persian Gulf, Middle East, as well as South and Latin America by its presence," he stressed, adding:

"We don't know anywhere in the world to which US presence has brought stability. Anywhere they have set foot, they caused extremism and terrorism and put people under pressure."

While in Latin America, Zarif will also visit Nicaragua and Bolivia to express solidarity with their sovereign independence and leadership.

He warned Trump regime hardliners against "playing with Iran. We always respond...We say you may start a war, but you won't be the ones who end it" - adding loud and clear:

"We will survive. We will prosper long after...Trump is gone. Our time slots are in millennia."

‘US economic terrorism will backfire’: Iranian foreign minister calls for unity in Nicaragua

In Nicaragua, Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal asked Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif about US sanctions, Europe’s role in the nuclear deal, the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Venezuela, and seizures of oil tankers.

Video by Ben Norton

The Grayzone reports from Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, which just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution that ousted a US-backed dictatorship.

Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has just arrived here from Caracas, Venezuela, where he was attending the international summit of the new Non-Aligned Movement, where Iran, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, among other nations, were discussing ways to get around crippling US sanctions that are being imposed on all of these countries.

We asked Minister Zarif several questions about the US economic warfare and the recent seizure of several oil tankers.

Transcript

Ben Norton: Over a year ago now, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA. In your meetings with European diplomats, do you get the sense that they’re actually committed to saving the deal? They say they are, but thus far they have not actually taken serious economic steps to try to work around US sanctions.

You also, minister, have just come from Caracas, where you were meeting with the Non-Aligned Movement. Are countries in the world that are suffering under unilateral US sanctions working to try to create new forms, new economic mechanisms to get around this unilateral economic warfare? And do you think that European countries are willing to be part of that, or have they subordinated their foreign policy to the United States?

Javad Zarif: I think the excessive use of economic power by the United States, and the excessive use of the dollar as a weapon in US economic terrorism against other countries, will backfire, sooner or later.

Countries are deciding to get away from the US dollar as a means of doing international transactions. Of course this will not happen tomorrow, but this will be a long-term process.

The INSTEX that the Europeans have created in order to conduct business with Iran may not have the desired impact for Iran, but it is in fact a very important alarm for the United States that people are getting away from focusing and using primarily the US dollars in their international transactions.

The same is happening between even US allies and US friends in our region and beyond our region.

Last year we did 35 percent of our bilateral transactions with Turkey in our own currencies. And this is happening between us and China, between us and India, between us and Russia, and between us and the countries in the region.

So it is important that we, who are subjects of US economic terrorism, so-called sanctions, understand the realities and understand our potential.

And we started yesterday in Caracas discussing these. And we are discussing the same with our Nicaraguan friends, in many areas. And I think the future is ours.

I think we want to live based on international law, the rule of law, the charter of the United Nations. And I think those who are running against these measures, those who want to revive the unilateralist measures of 20th and 19th century, are doomed to fail.

On European preparedness, I think the Europeans want to preserve JCPOA; I think the Europeans understand that they need to preserve JCPOA; I think the Europeans have realized that they cannot allow the United States to bully them.

But whether they are prepared to make the necessary investment in order to to achieve this goal is a different matter.

I have said time and again that you cannot swim without getting wet. The Europeans must be ready to invest for their own future. Not for us; we’re not asking anybody to invest for us.

If the Europeans want to be able to have a voice in international relations, then they need to invest in having that voice.

Max Blumenthal: It’s been widely reported, and the Spanish foreign minister has said, that the UK seized an Iranian oil tanker on orders from the United States, specifically from John Bolton. Does Iran’s retaliatory measures, seizing a British tanker which apparently entered Iranian waters, signal a lack of faith in the UK, which is a signatory of the Iran deal?

And of Europe in general, that it will not honor the Iran deal, and that it is being led by what you call the B Team, of Bolton, Bibi, bin Zayed, and bin Salman? And what does this mean for the future of Iranian and European relations?

Javad Zarif: When unfortunately it was very clear from the beginning that the excuses that the United Kingdom and the Gibraltar authorities provided for the confiscation of the ship that was carrying Iranian oil — it wasn’t an Iranian ship but it was a ship carrying Iranian oil — was clearly unfounded.

The EU does not apply its rules to third parties as a matter of principle. And the United Kingdom, on its way out of the EU, is becoming holier than the Pope, in doing things that the EU itself would not do, and has said publicly that it would not do.

So it was clear from the very beginning that the United Kingdom was doing the bidding for the Trump administration. This is not the first time that the United Kingdom started doing bidding for the United States administration.

As soon as President Trump got elected, and before he entered into office, the United Kingdom prevented implementation of agreements that we had reached with the previous government of the United States on behalf of President Trump. And the Iranian people have not forgotten that.

However, the measures that we took in the Strait of Hormuz against the US ship was not in retaliation, but was an implementation of international law.

What the Brits did, and what the Gibraltar authorities did, in the Strait of Gibraltar was a violation of international law, was piracy.

What we did was in order to implement the provisions of international law on safe passage. The UK ship had turned off its signalling for more than the time that it was allowed to do so; was passing through the wrong channels; endangering the safety and security of shipping and navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, for which we are responsible.

We have 1,500 miles of coastline in the Persian Gulf. We are responsible for the security and freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf. That is our lifeline.

And it is much, much better for the United Kingdom not to be engaged in implementing the ploys of the B Team.

The B Team is losing ground in the United States, and now they are turning their attention to the United Kingdom.

I guess the same policies that failed in the US will fail in the United Kingdom.

Ben Norton

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebelspodcast, which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal.