“Instead of being a king in a foreign land, be a cobbler in your motherland.” – Old Uighur Proverb

As the Chinese put on perhaps the most charismatic opening ceremonies in the history of the Olympic Games, there was a definite overcompensating quality about the excessive opulence and almost provocative aggressiveness with which the performance was delivered.  It was almost as if China was sending a message to the international community, “We are here and we are here to stay”.  More importantly, for a moment the celebration of Chinese civilization overshadowed the long-standing Tibetan struggle.  In a way, China was also telling its dissidents that they would no longer be allowed use the Olympics to further their own political agenda.  Although the Tibetan movement can always rely on the West to adopt the initiative, the Uighur Muslims of China lack this luxury and remain an unknown entity.

In the run-up to the Olympics, Tibetan activists were mauling torchbearers, and “Free Tibet” fever was gripping Western audiences who so willingly embrace the Tibetan cause perhaps due to its commercial Buddhist appeal.  Granted, China’s human rights record is deplorable and its treatment of Tibetans is unjustified, but why do we ignore the fact the CIA has been involved in Tibet trying to stir up anti-Chinese sentiment since the 1950’s? Why do we ignore the fact that the mainstream media could easily shift public discourse and proclaim the Dalai Lama a terrorist if his cause was not aligned with American interests?  Why do we ignore the fact that Chinese Uighur Muslims have also been victims of a cultural genocide at the hands of Hans Chinese for decades?

Perhaps Bush’s failing “War on Terror” has dented our psyche to such an extent that we have subconsciously accepted that Muslim minorities, whether it’s the Uighurs of China, the Chechen’s of Russia, or the Muslims of the Philippines are aggressors by default.  Hence, popular opinion holds that when Tibetans kill Chinese soldiers, they are exercising their right to freedom, and when Uighurs recently attacked Chinese police, it was an act of terror.  The flawed “War on Terror” philosophy has allowed states to suppress their Muslim minorities with impunity and without fear of international condemnation.

The Chinese oppression of the Uighurs is noted in an illuminating article from Globe and Mail Beijing Correspondent Geoffrey York:

“Here in the heartland of China’s Muslims, mosques are usually pad-locked. In the brief time they are open, worshippers must obey a strict set of rules: no criticism of the authorities, no unregistered guests, no contact with foreign organizations, no visitors under 18, no encouragement of veils and mandatory reporting of people’s prayers”

“Government policies are tilted to favour the new arrivals. The best jobs and university opportunities are reserved for those who speak Chinese, leaving the Uighurs largely on the outside. Most university classes are taught in the Chinese language. Even in Kashgar, an overwhelmingly Uighur city, most street signs and shop signs are written in large Chinese characters, while the Uighur signs are smaller or non-existent.”

“Medieval streets nearby have been demolished, ancient tombs dug up and moved, and hundreds of Muslims forced to relocate to make room for a 55,000-square-metre shopping plaza with almost 3,000 new shops.”

The Uighurs continue to live as cobblers’, although their motherland apparently sees them as nothing more than separatist nomadic terrorists. Amid the burst of Olympic fire-works and the periodic unfurling of the Tibetan flag, it is important that we as a society do not forget the plight of the Uighur Muslims of China.

Let me be the first to proclaim: “Free Xinjiang!”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Free-Xinjiang-by-Aurangzeb-Qureshi-080813-752.html

by Aurangzeb Qureshi

Attempting to disarm Iran’s nuclear enrichment program diplomatically has proven futile. Even with the noose tightening around its neck through sanctions, and joint American-Israeli military exercises combined with covert CIA operations being conducted close to its border, Iran still has the sheer audacity to tell America that it will defend itself in the case of an invasion. How dare this 3000-year-old civilization threaten the world’s declining 60-year hegemonic superpower? How dare this country stand up for itself after watching America slaughter thousands in neighboring Iraq? It is time to bomb these people into oblivion so the West can once again overthrow its regime and replace it with one that will conform, abide by, and slave to its master. It’s time these people got with the times. It is upon America and the rest of the “civilized world” to prevent another 9/11.

I say Bomb Eye-ran!

The inherently evil Ahmadinejad brought it upon himself by demanding oil compensation in euros. Oil has always been bought and sold in American currency. So what if the dollar is at rock-bottom due to America’s colonial misadventures? So what if the Iranians want full compensation for a resource that they own? So what if the Iranians want to circumvent American restrictions on banks that engage in business with Iran? These greedy Iranians have to understand that only America can act in its best interest and everybody else has to act in the best interests of America. As long as Iran exists, so does the potential for another 9/11.

I say Bomb Eye-ran!

What are these Iranians thinking by enriching uranium? Everyone knows that only the U.S. and Israel can have weapons of mass destruction, because they have the God-given right to do so. Any other state that even attempts to acquire such technology, even for peaceful purposes, is doing so because it wants to destroy western civilization. Sure, Iran is constantly threatened by Israel, shares a border with nuclear Pakistan and is surrounded by two American client regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that does not matter. If Iran cooperated, did not nationalize its oil industry in 1953, and did not overthrow a brutal US-installed dictator in 1979, then it would not be where it is today. Iran does not have a right to meddle in its own affairs, only Britain, America, and Israel do. If this magnanimous, righteous, and noble trio does not take matters into their own hands, these evil-doers will unleash another attack like 9/11.

I say Bomb Eye-ran!

Ahmadinejad stated that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map so the only logical course of action is that the U.S. and Israel destroy Iran first. In reality he may have said he wanted to “wipe Zionism from the page of history,” but those devious Iranians just like to mask their threats in colorful language. Iran’s constant meddling in Iraq, support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, and combative rhetoric of self-defense is highly disconcerting. If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, they will invade neighboring states and try to spread their Shiite revolution across the Muslim world and into Europe. Maybe present-day Iran has not invaded a foreign state since the Greco-Persian wars before the birth of Christ, and perhaps the US and Israel have a more profound history of invasion and occupation. However, that is all irrelevant because the U.S. and Israel are believers in democracy and freedom. Those who committed the heinous acts of 9/11 despised democracy and freedom.

I say Bomb Eye-ran!

America and Israel can easily target Iran’s nuclear reactors that are spread throughout the country. Iran will not see this as an act of aggression because the strikes will be “strategic” and this will minimize any “collateral damage” just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their threat to target American interests and to further destabilize the Middle East is hogwash. Their threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30 per cent of the world’s oil passes, is baseless and tantamount to political suicide. If Iran does become that desperate, oil may rise to $500 dollars a barrel and the people may suffer, but it will definitely make the American oligarchy much happier. In the end that is all that matters.

And most important of all, nobody will have the gall to execute another 9/11, because the concept of “blowback” does not really exist.

I say Bomb Eye-ran and let freedom ring.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/qureshi.php?articleid=13159

The Conservative government’s most recent attempt at trying to mimic American style legislation borders on sheer lunacy.  One can understand that curbing copyright infringement in the new era of peer to peer file sharing, illegal downloading, and new-age piracy tactics is necessary.  However, the amendment to outlaw over-riding digital locks on legally purchased media for the purposes of format shifting is not only impractical, it is also a violation of consumer rights.  Therefore, although Bill C-61 does maintain that format shifting and time shifting certain media is allowed, the anti-circumvention provision simply counters those exceptions and renders them meaningless. 

Furthermore, if the government suspects a certain user is breaking the law, it can force the Internet Service Provider to disclose that user’s private information and that person can face a fine of up to $20,000.  According to a White Paper issued by a coalition of Canadian consumer groups, “the American Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) has created many problems - anti-competitive abuses, stifling criticism, repressing security research, undermining security, and after a decade under the DMCA, infringement of movies over file-sharing networks in the US is at an all-time high.”  This fact alone should deter the government from passing any legislation containing anti-circumvention measures.

Related to this topic is another controversial bill that the government is trying to pass without public consultation called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).  This bill would allow border guards to inspect ipods and laptops for infringing content, which is a total invasion of privacy and perhaps the beginning of the dissolution of democracy in this country.

The Liberals took our money and paid for it in the last election.  However, the Conservatives are threatening to take away our freedoms, which is far worse.

Being the first coloured presidential nominee in the history of American politics is certainly a proud accomplishment not only for the Obama camp but for America as a nation.  This obviously does not and should not absolve the heinous atrocities of slavery, or somehow indicate that racism is a thing of the past.  Obama’s victory is, however, a step in the right direction and one that history will remember regardless of the final outcome.

Much has been made about Obama’s incessant catering to AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) and Israel in recent weeks.  Some have been critical of his comments regarding an “undivided Jerusalem” and his hard stance on Iran, whether illusory or real.  Since when did we start believing that politicians actually mean what they say?  The critics must also remember that Obama has been vocal about peace in the Middle East and has offered to talk to Iran, much to the distaste of right-wing neoconservatives and evangelicals. 

Anyone running for any public office, let alone the most powerful public office in the world, has to cater to the people that matter.  In a democratic system run by special interest groups, AIPAC is probably the group that matters and Obama knows he has to tell them what they want to hear. 

And let’s not forget that Obama was never the ideal choice for president to begin with.  Like other successful candidates, his campaign was funded by the corporate sector and powerful interest groups as well.  When it comes down to it, Obama is the lesser of all evils.  Many, including myself, would have preferred to see Democrat Dennis Kucinich or even Republican Ron Paul as the worthy candidates but that would have been a pipe-dream.  Neither candidate got the media coverage they deserved and were relegated to fringe status. 

Are we so naive to believe that Obama’s clamour for change is going to have a sudden effect on American foreign policy, or somehow result in a massive overhaul in health care?  Absolutely not, however giving these topics due consideration is a start.  As I mentioned in a previous article, the corporate elite and the military-industrial complex play a huge role in American politics and attempting to circumvent or ignore any of these factors is unrealistic.  At the same time we cannot allow these obstacles, or Obama’s need to gratify these obstacles, as a means to discredit the concept of change. 

Criticism and dissent result in change and encompass the true essence behind democracy, but cynicism merely maintains the status quo.  Change will come whether it takes five years, 50 years, or 500 years, but it will come only if we truly believe it will.

We talk about the suffering of Palestinians over a donair at a local Arab restaurant. We talk of American brutality in Iraq while casually sipping a Tim Horton’s iced cappuccino. At work we talk in hushed voices about the torture of innocent Afghanis perpetrated by Canadian-backed Afghan soldiers. In the thicket of shisha smoke, we talk about the plight of innocent Chechens who’ve lost their homes.

We talk, and we’re pretty darn good at it.

We complain about the torture in America’s offshore gulags, but we complain even louder when told to exercise our democratic right by marching through the streets in solidarity against it. We complain when journalistic integrity takes a dive to attack Islam, but we complain with ferocity when told to write a rebuttal -  our pens conveniently run out of ink. We complain when we hear of imperial designs against the Third World, but we complain when unity beckons because we cannot work with “those people”.

We complain, and we’re pretty darn good at it.

Instead of lobbying for those who would serve our needs, our local Muslim organizations pander to conservative politicians giving credence to the phrase “if you can’t beat’em join ‘em”. We embrace conservative ideology excusing our actions by claiming that we’re trying to change the system from within’ when in reality we just want to bank in on the lenient tax policies put in place at the expense of the poor. We see Muslims who support the existing power structure becoming prey to capitalistic greed, yet they are seen as gifts to the community. Similarly, we see Muslim’s in Darfur committing heinous atrocities, but we excuse their actions because of their faith.

We make excuses, and we’re pretty darn good at it.

We pretend to side with Malcolm, Chomsky, Said, Sheehan, and Finkelstein but fail to follow their example. We pretend to care for those ravaged by war but our large donations are only a means to boast of our status in the community. We pretend to be tolerant towards other races and ethnicities, but in some Muslim cultures the conception of beauty does not extend beyond fair skin and blue eyes.

We pretend, and we’re pretty darn good at it.

We must change ourselves before we think of altering the status quo. We must reflect, ponder, and innovate. We must think, question, and elevate. We must progress, debate, and articulate. We must activate our inactive mental state.

And we better become pretty darn good at it.

A Fruitful Beginning?

Amidst the virulent power vacuum that seeks to suck the life-blood of a nation already wrought with corruption, nepotism, and ethnic strife, the results of the general election will only serve to worsen the already chaotic situation. 

Since the inception of the Muslim state in 1947, Pakistan is the state equivalent of a drug addict constantly in and out of relapse.  With successive failed democracies, the military has continually had to come in to save the nation from inevitable collapse, and, in the process, consolidated so much power that it has controlled every facet of public life, sometimes to the detriment of the nation itself. 

After nine years of military rule, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is again flirting with democracy, except this time it is doing it with the same tried and tested failures that almost destroyed the nation.  With the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (N) (PML N) winning most of the seats, the new government could be a repulsive partnership between Asif “Mr. 10 per cent” Zardari and former exile Nawaz Sharif - both who should be in jail for corruption, extortion, and murder charges.  The Pakistan Muslim League (Q) (PML Q) was predictably the big loser which probably suggests that Musharraf did not utilize rigging tactics that were as aggressive as those employed by all the other parties, perhaps to avoid escaping a third assassination attempt.  In regards to the PPP, Fatima Bhutto, a journalist and the niece of the late Benazir Bhutto, said in an interview on Democracy Now:

...“There is incomplete voter lists that were being used at every polling station with, you know, five to six hundred names with the name, a birth date and a father’s name, but no national identity card number. Now, for that vote to be legally cast, the voter would have to bring in a birth certificate, which of course didn’t happen.

There are also irregularities concerning the numbers. There has been an extremely low turnout across Pakistan, but notably thin because of fears of violence. And, you know, the government is claiming that 40 percent of the population voted, which is a gross exaggeration. PPP candidates are claiming wins of 80,000 and 70,000 votes. It just doesn’t add up.” (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/19/pakistan) 

The mainstream media’s constant praise for the elections as some sort of second coming for the state is a damn joke.

The Other Players

Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaaf (Movement for Justice Party) boycotted the elections under the guise of opposing the military, but in reality he knows that his small party has no chance against the two larger and long-standing rivals.  He needs more time to establish a base, garner further support from the younger masses, and build a party brand that is essential in a climate where personality politics reigns supreme.

Irrelevant from a national perspective, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) swept urban Sindh through a combination of vote rigging and sympathy votes by Karachiites who’s feeling of isolation has not subsided since the introduction of the quota system and the carnage that was the 1990’s.  No other party needs an overhaul and a different leader more than this one. 

Perhaps the only good news of the elections was the convincing defeat of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a coalition of religious parties primarily based in the Northwest Frontier Province who were elected only because of the emotions associated with the attack on Afghanistan after 9/11.  The people of that region felt that their voices were not being heard and they acted on it.

And then you have Musharraf, an overly agreeable dictator turned tyrant who’s popularity plummeted after the Chief Justice fiasco, the State of Emergency, and the Lal Masjid debacle, and who continues to wage war on his own people in order to take pressure off NATO troops that are foolishly battling the Pashtun population in Southern Afghanistan. 

What’s Next?

Pakistan’s pathetic display of democratic wannabe’s is a sign of inevitable despair and this experiment too will fail.  Not mentioned is the fact that Pakistan continues to be a hotbed for proxies from Iran, Afghanistan, India, and remains a sphere of influence for the United States.

With no alternatives, what Pakistan needs is a benevolent, strong dictator that will act in the best interests of the state and its people.  Someone with the industrial fortitude of a Joseph Stalin and the nationalistic fervour of a Mohammad Mossedeq would qualify although such a figure is probably unlikely.  Unfortunately, even the military is now under American wraps with the recent introduction of General Ashfaq Kiyani as the new army chief.

The future looks bleak, but if there is any hope for the nation, it is that Pakistan has been through much worse and has survived. 

The drug addict has not overdosed yet.

Even with CNN’s torturous, continuous, and unrelenting election coverage, the artificial sensationalism of Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room, and the limited coverage of worthy presidential candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (who should have ran as independents), one cannot still help but focus their attention on the screen when Barack Obama articulates his views in his own charismatic fashion.  If it is a battle of personality politics, Obama is the clear-cut winner.

Fueled by the mantra “Change we can Believe in” and “Yes we can”, Obama’s largest voter base primarily consists of young professionals who want a refreshing new alternative to the old dinosaur neo-con fascist mentality of the Bush regime.  Obama’s critics argue that his inexperience in the political arena is a cause for concern, however inexperience does not always translate into incompetence.  The American public has already witnessed enough incompetence over the past eight years and has absolutely nothing to lose. 

The fact that the two remaining democratic nominees include an African American and a woman definitely strengthens the party’s image, but can also be its biggest handicap.  How would either of them fare against the experienced, patriotic war hero, alpha-male in Senator John McCain?  How much as the United States progressed as a nation in terms of race and gender issues?  Are Americans still prone to the fear propaganda and false hysteria that led the country into two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?  A great deal still depends on how much the electorate has learned from the past.

Obama is unique in that his climb to the forefront is relevant in today’s political climate.  Partly raised in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim state, Obama may have an understanding of the Muslim world his counterparts lack.  With ever-increasing anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, Obama could serve to bridge tensions, thereby creating a mutually workable solution.  The Muslim world may also identify more with a visible minority leader who has overcome all odds.  However, his tacit association with Islam and his foreign-sounding name could very well facilitate xenophobia and divert voters to Hillary instead.

Even if Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, how would he deal with the military industrial complex and the variety of corporate and special interest groups that do not always act in the best interests of the state?  Is his rhetoric of unilaterally going inside Pakistan to round up Taliban an attempt to attract Republican votes, or is it something he really intends to do? 

Regardless of who wins, you will still have corporate media deflecting the real issues, A U.S. Congress beholden to right-wing lobby groups, and corporations ready to sponsor wars in the Third World.
I for one will only believe in the change when I see it.