The New Rogue State?

The Lockerbie Furore

On August 20th 2009, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, better known as the "Lockerbie Bomber", was released from a Scottish prison and returned to Libya on compassionate grounds. The controversial release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was only matched by the "Welcome Home" party he seemed to receive upon returning to his homeland. In Libya he received, what was perceived as, a hero's welcome from a crowd of Libyans, some waving the Scottish flag, and government officials, most notably Gaddafi's son. In the week after al-Megrahi's release, there was widespread speculation that would be a "guest of honour" at the celebrations of Gaddafi's 40th year in power. The release of such a man convicted of killing 270 people, 189 of them were American, was greeted with outrage and disgust, particularly from the American government.

The British government, specifically Gordon Brown, was criticised for not speaking out against the decision of the devolved Scottish Parliament. In the days since the release of al-Megrahi, rumours surfaced of convenient lucrative deals, involving oil and arms, with the Libyan government. There has been talk of a boycott of Scotland by the Americans. Politicians were soon squirming as the attention turned to them and what role they might have played in al-Megrahi's release. Speculation swirled inevitably, when word of Peter Mandelson's meetings with Saif Gaddafi, "got out". Prime Minister Brown eventually commented that he found the release of al-Megrahi "repulsive" and later denied rumours of doubledealing. But it was later confirmed that an oil deal was signed, at the same time that the decision to release al-Megrahi on "compassionate grounds" was made.

Innocence and Guilt

The obvious question that no one is asking and everyone should be, remains largely in the background of the outrage surrounding his return to Libya. The question: is Abdelbaset al-Megrahi innocent or guilty? The questions asked by British journalists didn't stray far from "What if Megrahi lives longer than three months? What will you say to your constituents, then?" The facts remain that al-Megrahi was convicted because of the testimony of Tony Gauci who claimed that al-Megrahi bought clothing from him, the same clothes that were later discovered in the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103. Gauci's testimony is questionable on the grounds that he gave a false description of him in nearly 20 separate statements and didn't even recognise al-Megrahi in the courtroom. And then there was the key witness, who remains annonymous even to this day, who testified that he saw Khalifa Fahimah, al-Megrahi's acquitted co-accused, loading the bomb onto the plane in Frankfurt. This secret witness was exposed by the defence as an informer for the CIA, who would receive $4 million upon the conviction of the accused. It later became apparent in 2007, that Gauci had received $2 million for his "damning" testimony.

At the time of the bombing, December 21st of 1988, Reagan was in the White House and had been for nearly two full terms with George HW Bush as Vice President. In August of that same year the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air Flight 665 over the Persian Gulf. This act killed 290 civilians including 66 children. It was deemed an accident by the American government and Bush Snr later rewarded the ship's captain with the Legion of Merit in 1990. But the Iranian government still maintain that the accident was a deliberate attack by the United States. So when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie there was speculation that it was revenge. American officials, most of which were working at the US Embassy in Moscow, had reserved seats aboard Pan Am Flight 103 from Frankfurt, but cancelled their bookings at the last minute. According to Paul Foot, the American officials had been warned of the plot by UK intelligence. Foot later added that, Margerat Thatcher killed the inquiry into the terrorist attack before it got up and going.

Thatcher later made a call to the White House in January of 1990, the British Prime Minister promised to keep the disaster low key after an intelligence report came out. The report claimed that the attack had been orchestrated by the Iranian government and carried out by a "free-lance" Palestinian group. The motivation: revenge for the 290 people killed by the USS Vincennes. It's likely that the Bush Administration were aiming to distance themselves from a potential scandal. Bush Snr had previously dodged the Iran-Contra affair - in which the US sold guns to Iran in exchange for hostages - that could've cost him the election. It would make sense that he was looking to avoid opening up old wounds and evoking memories which might turn this "accident" into a terrorist atrocity. The White House later looked to Iran for partial support, as President Bush Snr marched onwards to prevent Saddam Hussein from annexing Kuwait. Interestingly, Libya was the only country that did not back the US in the Gulf War - Gaddafi actually backed Iraq - which ended in February of 1991. The British and American press quickly resorted to a campaign of vilification and jingoistic warmongering against Gaddafi's regime. Then in November 1991, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Khalifa Fahimah were indicted for the Lockerbie Bombing.

The Lockerbie Hypocrisy

Despite this Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted in January of 2001, of participating in the terrorist attack which killed 270 people in 1988. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the trial was fair and that al-Megrahi is guilty. Would incarcerating the Lockerbie Bomber mean anything if we did not apply the same standards to individuals like Orlando Bosch? Bosch is wanted for committing numerous terrorist attacks across South and Central America, mostly on the watch of the CIA. Bosch was the leader of CORU - which the FBI described as an "anti-Castro terrorist umbrella organisation". CORU was part of Operation Condor which was orchestrated by several right-wing politicians, in South America, who intended to purge the continent of socialist influences and ideas. He was almost convicted of blowing up Cubana Flight 455, killing 73 people, in 1976. Bosch was held in Venezuela for a decade, before being freed in the US after the charges were dropped. For the US government to at least maintain some degree of consistency on the issue of terrorism, they would have extradited Bosch years ago. But no, Orlando Bosch and his friends remain free.

Would an act of compassion, toward a possibly innocent man, really harm the standing of British justice in the world? The people who claim this, so naively assume that the standing of British justice is paramount in today's world and may be a testament to their own ignorance. This is an especially rash assumption after nearly a decade of lies, renditions, detention camp fiascos and revelations about torture. Just as the British media's running commentary on the "special relationship" is based on the naive assumption that Britain still has an important role to play in the world - as Uncle Sam's sidekick. It is as if this assumption acts "compensatory" for the imperial power Britain lost in the last century. What this "debacle" has done is to clearly demonstrate that no authority in the West cares of the opinions coming from the East. If this were not true all the noise about a stained "special relationship" and a desecrated judicial system would have been coming from very different places indeed. Instead we have white westerners complaining that their reputation and values have been trampled on, while the rest of the world is smart enough to see that this reputation is a figment of our narcissistic imagination.

The "Debate" on Obama-care.

There is an ongoing "debate" in the United States regarding the health care reforms proposed by the Obama Administration. Now I say "debate" because it is more like a series of rants for and against the reforms, these rants come from opposing parts of the power concentrated in "Corporate America". For decades health care has been the leading issue for the American population, but it's only recently that this "debate" has become so lively. The health insurance companies, as well as the pharmaceutical industry, are the dominant force behind the opposition to the reforms. The pharmaceutical industry spent around $400 million on advertising and lobbying Congress in recent months, this was done to protect their interests and for years it worked in their favour. Whereas, the major corporate support for reform comes from the manufacturing industry. Companies like General Motors seem to want reform in order to cut costs and increase profits. Because of the inefficient health care system in America, it costs General Motors over $1,000 more to produce a car in America than it does in Canada. When a major sector of private power contradicts a rival power, the end result is this "debate" we see in the media.

Many conservatives and libertarians in America have been extremely vocal in their opposition to the reforms. A notable incident involved Republican politician Sarah Palin, who made the following comment "The America I love is not one where my parents or baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's death panel." Most individuals seem to have made up their minds already, by speculating on what the consequences of Obama's reforms will be. A large number of American citizens were seen confronting politicians at town halls across the US. Though, there were rumours that many of these crowds represented lobbying groups that favoured private health care. The advocates of universal health care in America claim that objections to the reforms are largely based on misunderstanding. Misunderstanding fuelled by right-wing propaganda designed to feed into the culture of fear that is prevalent in American society. This kind of propaganda is easy to spot, it's marked out by talk of death panels, tax-payer-funded abortions and free health care for illegal immigrants.

But it wasn't until Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan appeared on Fox News and discussed the NHS with Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, that this so-called debate became a transatlantic one. While discussing health with the consummate angry white men of Fox, Daniel Hannan criticised the National Health Service and even went as far as to say that he wouldn't wish the NHS on anyone. Hannan is no stranger to controversy, he was condemned for referring to the NHS as a "60 year mistake". And Fox News doesn't have the best reputation in the world when it comes to presenting a "Fair and Balanced" perspective on world events. In fact, Fox News is viewed by many as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, others view the media outlet as a source of comedy. Hannan has been a darling of Fox News and many right-wingers since he appeared on YouTube, criticising Gordon Brown for his "juggernaut-like" spending. In his talks with Sean Hannity, he claimed that Britain had experienced "ten years of socialism" which is a laughable claim, even for an admirer of Enoch Powell.

Investors Business Daily claimed with confidence that "Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK where the NHS would say his life is essentially worthless." To which Stephen Hawking responded "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS." This kind of glib critique is what mostly emerged from the political right during the transatlantic phase of the ongoing debate. Such criticism has been met with outrage around the United Kingdom, Twitter crashed on the day that Daniel Hannan made his appearance on Fox News. It does seem plausible to conclude that the opposition, let alone the American people, are more than a little misinformed about reform.

The proposed reforms should be a move towards a single-payer health care system, in which all health care is funded by the government but hospitals and doctors may remain private. This is not a system in which the government "runs" health care, as claimed by conservatives. This system has been accused of increasing costs as opposed to decreasing them. It should be noted that the current health care system itself has about twice the costs per head than any many other systems in the world. While the "socialised" aspect of the American system costs a fraction of what the privatised aspect actually costs. Regardless of whether or not such a system would cost more, the massive budget deficit will probably sway the effectiveness of instituting such social programs.

The facts are that the health care system in the United States is far from the best possible health care in the world. According to the latest data provided by the World Health Organisation, the United States health care system is number 37 in the world's health care systems. The United Kingdom is ranked at number 18 . There are around 50 million Americans who don't have insurance and 1 in every 4 insured Americans go without treatment due to the high cost of health care, which is the fault of health insurance companies. These are the reasons that health care has been a major political issue in America for decades. Not because corporations have been preoccupied with the issue, but because health care has remained a major issue for the American people. "Corporate America" has been more than happy to avoid the issue, stifle debate and maintain silence for decades.

Uncle Napoleon's Iran.

Revolution by Reaction.

 

Earlier this year, Iran "celebrated" 30 years of theocracy since the Revolution of 1979, in which Monarch Reza Pahlavi was forced into exile and succeeded by the first Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini. Pahlavi was a brutal dictator who came to power in a coup orchestrated, by the British in collusion with the CIA and by extension the American government, against Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953. The reason? Mossadegh intended to nationalise Iran's oil which was firmly under British control. It didn't matter that he was the first democratically elected Iranian leader and that he had majority support from the Iranian people. For 26 years Reza Pahlavi reigned as the Shah and received unconditional support, from the British government and the US government, throughout his campaigns of torture and suppression against all political opposition. Many saw the Shah as a corrupt puppet for the West, many were happy to see him leave and many thought the end of his regime would bring political and social freedom.

The Islamic Revolution demonstrated that the US policy of backing right-wing dictators, to prevent the spread of communism, did not work. The Shah's military was one of the largest in the world at the time was helpless against such a mobilised and determined people, with Ayatollah Khomeini as their leading ideologue. The revolutionary ideology which Khomeini propagated could be referred to as Islamism, which is often described as a revival of primitive tendencies going back to the origins of Islam. But this is not so, for centuries Shia Islam had been an apolitical and almost totally passive force. The Ayatollahs had once told their followers to endure all hardships in awaiting the coming of the Imam. The Iranian Revolution was in fact driven by Continental philosophy, particularly ideas such as positive liberty. It was thinkers such as Ali Shariati and Sayyid Qutb, who had been heavily influenced by radical thinkers such as Frantz Fanon and Jean-Paul Sartre.

In the aftermath of the Revolution, a referendum was used to establish the new constitution and the new government proposed by Imam Khomeini, the world's first Shi'ite Islamic Republic was the result. By 1980 Khomeini had done away with all potential democratic forces and had declared himself the Supreme Leader of Iran. Under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, the hostage crisis at the American Embassy was prolonged with the intention of humiliating the incumbent Jimmy Carter, who had enraged many by praising Pahlavi's leadership in 1977. In doing so, the Ayatollah effectively cost Carter his second term, leading to the election of Ronald Reagan and a whole new chain of events. Throughout the 1980s, the standard of living declined rapidly in Iran and the country was plagued by economic turmoil for the first 6 years of Khomeini's reign.

The humiliation of President Carter came back to haunt the Ayatollah, as the Reagan Administration, along with Thatcher in Britain and King Fahd in Saudi Arabia, provided Saddam Hussein with advanced weaponry in the war between Iran and Iraq. This vicious war left a million people dead before Khomeini reluctantly accepted defeat in 1988 and left Khomeini with a bruised ego. Thousands of political dissidents that had been captured in the late 1980s were systematically executed. In the final year of his life and reign, the Ayatollah issued a fatwa against the writer Salman Rushdie, for his supposedly blasphemous piece The Satanic Verses, and called for his assassination. Khomeini died at the age 86 in 1989 and was succeeded by Ali Khamenei as the Supreme Leader, who still rules today.

Guided Democracy.

 

Over past weeks, Iran has once again been at the centre of media fascination. This time it is the controversial results of the 2009 Presidential election, which are the subject of protest and crisis. The only candidates permitted, by the clerics and the Supreme Leader, to run for the Presidency were Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mehdi Karroubi, Mohsen Rezai and Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Contrary to popular belief, this isn't all that different from "Western liberal democracy" which is often characterised by two parties taking turns running the country, the winners of political campaigns are often those with the most financial backing. This is particularly true of the US, where Presidents depend upon political contributions to run their campaigns successful. It was clear from the beginning that Ahmadinejad was a conservative, representing Abadgaran, with the support of the Islamic establishment in Iran as well as the Supreme Leader. The most opposition Ahmadinejad faced, in the elections, came from Mousavi, a popular reformist independent from the National Confidence Party. Mousavi's popularity was with young Iranians, particularly women, who favour the disbandment of the Moral Police and greater rights for women. It also looks as though Ahmadinejad may have lost support from rural Iranians to Mousavi. The first election results to be released declared Mousavi the victor. But the second results to be released, by the Interior Ministry, declared Ahmadinejad the winner.

In retrospect it seems likely that, the fundamentalist Islamic establishment were unwilling to even allow the possibility of a reformist victory. The last reformist Presidency of Mohammad Khatami had failed to improve relations between Iran and America, mostly because the White House had been "swept up" in a wave of jingoism following the events of September 11th 2001. It was during the Khatami Presidency that the Islamic Republic was named as part of the "Axis of Evil", along with Iraq and North Korea, declared by the Bushites in Washington. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad succeeded Khatami as President and quickly became a controversial politician who even eclipsed the Supreme Leader, in the media at least. Ahmadinejad's first term was marked by controversy, particularly accusations of electoral fraud, homophobia, funding terrorism and anti-Semitism. As well as an amusing clash with the British Royal Navy and constant debate regarding Iran's apparent "nuclear intentions". Many feared and speculated that the Bushites would invade Iran as part of their "War on Terrorism". Despite much controversy, Ahmadinejad made it through his first term without going to war with the United States. Unfortunately, it looks as though the "change" Obama has brought to America has failed to shift the downward spiral towards an all out war with Iran.

The day after the election results were released the streets of Tehran were filled with demonstrators demanding democracy and challenging the theocrats who had ruled them for three decades. These kind of protests have not been seen in Iran since the 1970s and the run up to the Islamic Revolution, which dethroned the Shah and implemented the current political system. The protests reminded many of the 1999 student demonstrations seen in Iran. Others immediately thought of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, and the subsequent massacres. After the Iranian government "shut down" the ways in which Iranians could communicate, the people of Iran resorted to Twitter and Bebo to communicate and arrange further demonstrations. But their demonstrations were met with the violence and harsh brutality of the state, there have been around 85 confirmed deaths so far and there are rumours of maybe 150 or more deaths. The intellectual community has turned to hunger strikes as a method of protest against the actions of the Iranian government. The hunger strikes were initiated by Akbar Ganji and over 40 individuals participated in them, including Reza Baraheni and Noam Chomsky.

Uncle Napoleon Returns.

As a show of strength, Khomeini's successor, Ali Khamenei gave a speech to an enormous audience at Tehran University, in which he insisted that the elections were transparent and fair. Khamenei argued that the Zionist controlled media was attempting to divide the Iranian people and claimed that the British were behind the demonstrations in Tehran. The Ayatollah's comments were not wise and only served to remind Westerners of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, like the Protocols of Zion, as well as the image of jihadists waving around Qur'ans with their kalashnikovs and chanting "Death to America! Death to Britain!" as some did at the University of Tehran that day. Even though, it is undeniable that there is a common bias in Western media, in the favour of Israel and against any Islamic regime which is not subservient to the American government, such childish remarks are not constructive.

Not only did Khamenei's comments remind us of previous accusations of anti-Semitism against his regime. But he openly criticised the British government, reminding many of the perceived "anti-Western" sentiments among Iranian politicians. The Supreme Leader's paranoia of specifically British interference in the election is reminiscent of My Uncle Napoleon, a satirical coming-of-age novel set in Iran during British occupation in the 1940s. The work is often cited as the most important and well loved work of Iranian fiction since the Second World War. The character Dear Uncle, called Uncle Napoleon by his nieces and nephews, is well known for his deluded paranoia that everything wrong in Iranian society is the fault of the British. The novel was banned by Khamenei's predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, which makes Khamenei's rant more amusing and ironic than threatening.

As the Iranian government descended into the realm of caricature, Iranian dissidents began using religion as part of their protests, specifically the use of the phrase "God is great". On Twitter some urged their fellow protestors to carry copies of the Qu'ran with them during demonstrations. The most famous victim to die during the protests was Neda Agha-Soltan, she has become something of a martyr since her death at the hands of state police. Her death had been filmed on mobile phone and later released via YouTube. The colour green, most oftenly associated with Islam, that the reformists used during the election campaign has also become a way of stating one's support of the demonstrations. The conscious use of such symbolism implies that the people in the street are a greater representation of Islam, than any of the conservative clerics backing Ahmadinejad. Hopefully, the power of the Iranian people will prevail against the state and democracy, in it's most direct and unadulterated form, will flourish in Iran one day.