CrossTalk: Revolt in the West

February 23, 2017

The West appears to have entered into a new era – the era of the political upsets, growing anger, and increased disillusionment with ruling elites. It is not a question of leftwing – rightwing politics. It is all about a failing status quo.

CrossTalking with Stephen Haseler, Marcus Papadopoulos, and Joaquin Flores.

America – Europe: Divide to conquer حديث اليوم | اميركا – اوروبا : فرق تسد

ترامب وأفول العولمة الأميركية

يناير 25, 2017

صفية سعاده

تقهقر الاقتصاد الأميركي

أحد الأسباب الرئيسة لفوز ترامب في الانتخابات الرئاسية على منافسته هيلاري كلينتون، هو الانهيار الاقتصادي الحاصل في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية. ولطالما كان الاقتصاد هو المحرك الفعلي في ترجيح كفة أصوات الأميركيين، إذ إنهم يعيشون في جزيرة قارة ضخمة، وبالتالي لا يأبهون كثيراً لمجريات السياسة الخارجية.

بعد إخفاق رئاسة بوش الابن في تحقيق انتصارات مدوية في افغانستان والعراق، وتوريط الجنود الأميركيين في هذين البلدين، بدأت ملامح فيتنام جديدة تتكوّن مع ما يعني ذلك من تآكل النفوذ الأميركي في مستنقعات آسيا الوسطى والغربية، وتراكم العجز المالي.

وصل باراك أوباما الى سدة الرئاسة، لأنه وعد الناخبين الأميركيين بأنه سينهي الحروب خارج الأراضي الأميركية، وسيعيد الجنود الأميركيين إلى الوطن. وسرعان ما واجهته أزمة سيولة مالية كادت تطيح بالمصارف الكبرى ليس فقط في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية، بل في العالم أجمع.

بسبب هذا الانهيار الذي تلافاه أوباما بحجز أموال المواطنين الأميركيين، أعادت دول العالم النظر في نظام معولم قد يطيح بها من دون أن تكون هي مسؤولة عن أخطاء ارتكبها النظام المالي الأميركي الذي أفلت العنان للمصارف الأميركية التي تتصرّف من دون أيّ ضوابط أو رقابة.

العامل الاول إذاً هو زعزعة ثقة العالم بالنظام المصرفي الأميركي، وبالتالي أخذ الاحتياطات اللازمة لدرء تبعات انهيار هذا النظام، كانت نتيجتها إنشاء نظام مالي بديل تترأسه كلّ من الصين وروسيا ويضمّ دولاً أخرى، يتبادل السلع على أساس عملات محلية غير الدولار، ويقوم بمشاريع إنمائية مستقلة.

بالإضافة الى تحوّل العالم باتجاه التفتيش عن حلول بديلة للنظام المالي الأميركي المعولم، نشأت أزمة اقتصادية كبرى داخل الولايات المتحدة الأميركية من جراء العولمة نفسها التي نادى بها، وشجّعها، ونشرها الرأسماليون الأميركيون في الدرجة الاولى.

لقد أخذ الرأسمال الأميركي يتسرّب خارج أراضي الولايات المتحدة الأميركية، ما يعود بالنفع على أقلية محدودة العدد من كبار الرأسماليين الأميركيين، لكنه يؤدّي الى إغلاق المصانع والمعامل والصناعات في أرجاء الدولة الأميركية. انتقل العمل من داخل هذه الأخيرة الى خارجها، وبشكل خاص الى غريمتها: الصين. فلا دولة تستطيع منافسة اليد العاملة الرخيصة الصينية، وأيّ منافسة للسوق الصينية محتومة بالفشل.

التتمة ص8

انهارت الطبقة الوسطى الأميركية، وأصبحت البطالة عالية، وتبخر الحلم الأميركي بإمكانية الحصول على منزل وسيارة لكلّ عائلة، وتشرّدت ألوف العائلات، خاصة أنّ الولايات المتحدة الأميركية ليست بدولة رعائية، فهي لا تؤمّن ضماناً صحياً مجانياً، ولا ضماناً اجتماعياً كما تفعل دول أوروبا، أو كندا أو اوستراليا، أو حتى دول أميركا اللاتينية، على فقرها، ككوبا مثلاً. هذه الشريحة هي التي صوّتت لدونالد ترامب، لأنّ هيلاري كلينتون أرادت أن تكمل مسيرة العولمة، فلقد وعد ترامب بإعادة تفعيل الاقتصاد والمصانع، وإعطاء الأولوية لرفاهية الشعب الأميركي.

العودة إلى ترسيخ القومية

مسار العولمة الذي خطته أميركا يستوجب الهيمنة الاقتصادية الشاملة على العالم، ومن أجل بلوغ هذا الهدف كان من الضروري إلغاء دور الدول الوطنية/ القومية الأخرى عبر محاربة كلّ أشكال الأنظمة الاشتراكية أو القومية، ودفع دول العالم الثالث خاصة الى خصخصة ممتلكات الدولة، وتخلي الدولة عن لعب أيّ دور ناظم في المجتمع أو الاقتصاد. تحرير السوق أدّى الى القضاء على اقتصاد الدول النامية التي لا تستطيع منافسة الدول الصناعية الكبرى، وحوّلها مراكز استهلاك لا إنتاج.

أهداف العولمة اذاً تتضارب مع وجود الدولة القومية التي تدافع عن مواطنيها وعن حقوقهم المادية والمعنوية. فالعولمة تلغي نهائياً مفهوم الدولة الديمقراطية، حيث يقرّر الشعب مصيره، ويُستبدل ذلك بهيئات ناظمة عابرة للدول، كما حصل في الاتحاد الاوروبي، ومثال هذا الاتحاد هو الأقلّ بشاعة من أمثلة دول أفريقيا والعالم العربي. فلقد وجدت دول الاتحاد الأوروبي الفقيرة كاليونان واسبانيا وإيطاليا أنها خسرت قراراتها المستقلة واصبح البرلمان الاوروبي هو الذي يبادر الى توجيه مسار هذه الدول شاءت أم أبت. وفي وضع من هذا النوع يبدو جلياً أنّ الدول القوية هي التي ستطغى على الدول الضعيفة، وفي حالة الاتحاد الاوروبي، اصبحت المانيا هي القاطرة التي تملي على الجميع ما عليهم فعله. الا ان الاتحاد الاوروبي، بما فيه المانيا، هو بدوره فريسة النفوذ الأميركي.

التمرّد على العولمة حاصل اليوم في الدول المتقدّمة والتي عملت جاهدة لإرغام الجميع الدخول في شبكتها. تمرّد مواطنوها، من الولايات المتحدة الأميركية إلى بريطانيا، لأنّ شعوبها لا تريد أن تصادَر حرياتها وقراراتها ومصيرها.

ترامب يتكلم باسم هذا المنحى الجديد، وكما يشدّد على أهمية الحفاظ على قومية ومصالح الولايات المتحدة الأميركية، فإنه أيضاً يؤكد بأنه لن يتدخل في أمور الدول الأخرى، وليس في صدد شنّ حروب على دول لتغيير أنظمتها.

هذا الموقف يقود الى النتائج التالية والتي هي معاكسة تماماً للسياسات التي سبقته:

أولاً: الاعتراف بالدول الأخرى وقبول الاختلاف بين نظامه وأنظمتها.

ثانياً: الاعتراف بتعدّد الأقطاب في العالم، بالرغم من هدف ترامب جعل أميركا الأقوى والأفضل بين الدول.

ثالثاً: الالتزام بالقوانين الدولية في فضّ النزاعات بين الدول.

رابعاً: اعتراف ترامب ان لا وجود للدولة الديمقراطية الا في إطار الدولة القومية التي يقرّر شعبها مصيرها، ورفض خزعبلات الـ establishment الأميركي الذي يتظاهر بأنه يريد فرض الديمقراطية على الشعوب الأخرى بحدّ السلاح والدمار.

خامساً: يريد ترامب القضاء على الإرهاب التكفيري الآخذ في التفشي في العالم، وهو يقول صراحة إنه نتاج الإدارات الأميركية السابقة. أما لماذا أرادت هذه الإدارات دعم وتمويل الإرهاب التكفيري المبني على الفكر الوهابي الإلغائي، فلأنّ هدفها كان استعمار العالم ووضعه تحت الهيمنة الأميركية من دون اللجوء الى جنود أميركيين يقومون بهذه المهمة ويُقتلون، فالمواطنون الأميركيون يرفضون الحرب الا في حال الدفاع عن ارضهم القومية. هيمنة الإسلام السياسي الذي أدرجه أوباما تتطابق مع معايير العولمة العابرة للدول القومية، لكنه لا يتماشى البتة مع مفاهيم الدولة القومية العلمانية، وبالتالي يرفضه ترامب.

President Trump: Nationalist Capitalism, An Alternative to Globalization?

Global Research, January 28, 2017
CIA-trump

During his inaugural speech, President Trump clearly and forcefully outlined the strategic political-economic policies he will pursue over the next four years.  Anti-Trump journalist, editorialists, academics and experts, who appear in the Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have repeatedly distorted and lied about the President’s program as well as his critique of existing and past policies.

We will begin by seriously discussing President Trump’s critique of the contemporary political economy and proceed to elaborate on his alternatives and its weaknesses.

President Trump’s Critique of the Ruling Class

The centerpiece of Trump’s critique of the current ruling elite is the negative impact of its form of globalization on US production, trade and fiscal imbalances and on the labor market.  Trump cites the fact that US industrial capitalism has drastically shifted the locus of its investments, innovations and profits overseas as an example of globalization’s negative effects.  For two decades many politicians and pundits have bemoaned the loss of well-paid jobs and stable local industries as part of their campaign rhetoric or in public meetings, but none have taken any effective action against these most harmful aspects of globalization.  Trump denounced them as “all talk and no action” while promising to end the empty speeches and implement major changes.

President Trump targeted importers who bring in cheap products from overseas manufacturers for the American market undermining US producers and workers.  His economic strategy of prioritizing US industries is an implicit critique of the shift from productive capital to financial and speculative capital under the previous four administrations.  His inaugural address attacking the elites who abandon the ‘rust belt’ for Wall Street is matched by his promise to the working class: “Hear these words!  You will never be ignored again.” Trump’s own words portray the ruling class ‘as pigs at the trough’ (Financial Times, 1/23/2017, p. 11)

Trump’s Political-Economic Critique

President Trump emphasizes market negotiations with overseas partners and adversaries.  He has repeatedly criticized the mass media and politicians’ mindless promotion of free markets and aggressive militarism as undermining the nation’s capacity to negotiate profitable deals.

President Trump’s immigration policy is closely related to his strategic ‘America First’ labor policy.  Massive inflows of immigrant labor have been used to undermine US workers’ wages, labor rights and stable employment.  This was first documented in the meat packing industry, followed by textile, poultry and construction industries.  Trump’s proposal is to limit immigration to allow US workers to shift the balance of power between capital and labor and strengthen the power of organized labor to negotiate wages, conditions and benefits.  Trump’s critique of mass immigration is based on the fact that skilled American workers have been available for employment in the same sectors if wages were raised and work conditions were improved to permit dignified, stable living standards for their families.

President Trump’s Political Critique

Trump points to trade agreements, which have led to huge deficits, and concludes that US negotiators have been failures.  He argues that previous US presidents have signed multi-lateral agreements, to secure military alliances and bases, at the expense of negotiating job-creating economic pacts.  His presidency promises to change the equation:  He wants to tear up or renegotiate unfavorable economic treaties while reducing US overseas military commitments and demands NATO allies shoulder more of their own defense budgets.  Immediately upon taking office Trump canceled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and convoked a meeting with Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA.

Trump’s agenda has featured plans for hundred-billion dollar infrastructure projects, including building controversial oil and gas pipelines from Canada to the US Gulf.  It is clear that these pipelines violate existing treaties with indigenous people and threaten ecological mayhem.  However, by prioritizing the use of American-made construction material and insisting on hiring only US workers, his controversial policies will form the basis for developing well-paid American jobs.

The emphasis on investment and jobs in the US is a complete break with the previous Administration, where President Obama focused on waging multiple wars in the Middle East , increasing public debt and the trade deficit.

Trump’s inaugural address issued a stern promise: “The American carnage stops right now and stops right here!”  This resonated with a huge sector of the working class and was spoken before an assemblage of the very architects of four decades of job-destroying globalization.  ‘Carnage’ carried a double meaning:  Widespread carnage resulted from Obama and other administrations’ destruction of domestic jobs resulting in decay and bankruptcy of rural, small town and urban communities.  This domestic carnage was the other side of the coin of their policies of conducting endless overseas wars spreading carnage to three continents.  The last fifteen years of political leadership spread domestic carnage by allowing the epidemic of drug addiction (mostly related to uncontrolled synthetic opiate prescriptions) to kill hundreds of thousands of mostly young American’s and destroy the lives of millions.  Trump promised to finally address this ‘carnage’ of wasted lives.   Unfortunately, he did not hold ‘Big Pharma’ and the medical community responsible for its role in spreading drug addiction into the deepest corners of the economically devastated rural America .  Trump criticized previous elected officials for authorizing huge military subsidies to ‘allies’ while making it clear that his critique did not include US military procurement policies and would not contradict his promise to ‘reinforce old alliances’ (NATO).

Truth and Lies: Garbage Journalists and Arm Chair Militarists

Among the most outrageous example of the mass media’s hysteria about Trump’s New Economy is the systematic and vitriolic series of fabrications designed to obscure the grim national reality that Trump has promised to address.  We will discuss and compare the accounts published by ‘garbage journalists (GJ’s)’ and present a more accurate version of the situation.

The respectable garbage journalists of the Financial Timesclaim that Trump wants to ‘destroy world trade’.  In fact, Trumps has repeatedly stated his intention to increase international trade.  What Trump proposes is to increase US world trade from the inside, rather than from overseas.  He seeks to re-negotiate the terms of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements to secure greater reciprocity with trading partners.  Under Obama, the US was more aggressive in imposing trade tariffs that any other country in the OECD.

Garbage journalists label Trump as a ‘protectionist’,confusing his policies to re-industrialize the economy with autarky.  Trump will promote exports and imports, retain an open economy, while increasing the role of the US as a producer and exporter.. The US will become more selective in its imports.  Trump will favor the growth of manufacturing exporters and increase imports of primary commodities and advanced technology while reducing the import of automobiles, steel and household consumer products.

Trump’s opposition to ‘globalization’ has been conflated by the garbage journalists of the Washington Post as a dire threat to the ‘the post-Second World War economic order’.  In fact, vast changes have already rendered the old order obsolete and attempts to retain it have led to crises, wars and more decay.  Trump has recognized the obsolete nature of the old economic order and stated that change is necessary.

The Obsolete Old Order and the Dubious New Economy

At the end of the Second World War, most of Western Europe and Japan resorted to highly restrictive ‘protectionist’ industrial and monetary policies to rebuild their economies.  Only after a period of prolonged recovery did Germany and Japan carefully and selectively liberalize their economic policies.

In recent decades, Russia was drastically transformed from a powerful collectivist economy to a capitalist vassal-gangster oligarchy and more recently to a reconstituted mixed economy and strong central state.  China has been transformed from a collectivist economy, isolated from world trade, into the world’s second most powerful economy, displacing the US as Asia and Latin America ’s largest trading partner.

Once controlling 50% of world trade, the US share is now less than 20%.  This decline is partly due to the dismantling of its industrial economy when its manufacturers moved their factories abroad.

Despite the transformation of the world order, recent US presidents have failed to recognize the need to re-organize the American political economy.  Instead of recognizing, adapting and accepting shifts in power and market relations, they sought to intensify previous patterns of dominance through war, military intervention and bloody destructive ‘regime changes’ – thus devastating, rather than creating markets for US goods. Instead of recognizing China’s immense economic power and seek to re-negotiate trade and co-operative agreements, they have stupidly excluded China from regional and international trade pacts, to the extent of crudely bullying their junior Asian trade partners, and launching a policy of military encirclement and provocation in the South China Seas.  While Trump recognized these changes and the need to renegotiate economic ties, his cabinet appointees seek to extend Obama’s militarist policies of confrontation.

Under the previous administrations, Washington ignored Russia ’s resurrection, recovery and growth as a regional and world power.  When reality finally took root, previous US administrations increased their meddling among the Soviet Union’s former allies and set up military bases and war exercises on Russia ’s borders.  Instead of deepening trade and investment with Russia , Washington spent billions on sanctions and military spending – especially fomenting the violent putchist regime in Ukraine .  Obama’s policies promoting the violent seizure of power in Ukraine, Syria and Libya were motivated by his desire to overthrow governments friendly to Russia – devastating those countries and ultimately strengthening Russia’s will to consolidate and defend its borders and to form new strategic alliances.

Early in his campaign, Trump recognized the new world realities and proposed to change the substance, symbols, rhetoric and relations with adversaries and allies – adding up to a New Economy.

First and foremost, Trump looked at the disastrous wars in the Middle East and recognized the limits of US military power:  The US could not engage in multiple, open-ended wars of conquest and occupation in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia without paying major domestic costs.

Secondly, Trump recognized that Russia was not a strategic military threat to the United States .  Furthermore, the Russian government under Vladimir Putin was willing to cooperate with the US to defeat a mutual enemy – ISIS and its terrorist networks.  Russia was also keen to re-open its markets to the US investors, who were also anxious to return after years of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry imposed sanctions.  Trump, the realist, proposes to end sanctions and restore favorable market relations.

Thirdly, it is clear to Trump that the US wars in the Middle East imposed enormous costs with minimal benefits for the US economy.  He wants to increase market relations with the regional economic and military powers, like Turkey , Israel and the Gulf monarchies.

Trump is not interested in Palestine , Yemen , Syria or the Kurds – which do not offer much investment and trade opportunities.  He ignores the enormous regional economic and military power of Iran ,  Nevertheless Trump has proposed to re-negotiate the recent six-nation agreement with Iran in order to improve the US side of the bargain.  His hostile campaign rhetoricagainst Tehran may have been designed to placate Israel and its powerful domestic ‘Israel-Firsters’ fifth column.  This certainly came into conflict with his ‘America First’ pronouncements.  It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will retain a ‘show’ of submission to the Zionist project of an expansionist Israel while proceeding to include Iran as a part of his regional market agenda.

The Garbage Journalists claim that Trump has adopted a new bellicose stance toward China and threatens to launch a ‘protectionist agenda’, which will ultimately push the trans-Pacific countries closer to Beijing .  On the contrary, Trump appears intent on renegotiating and increasing trade via bilateral agreements.

Trump will most probably maintain, but not expand, Obama’s military encirclement of China ’s maritime boundaries which threaten its vital shipping routes.  Nevertheless, unlike Obama, Trump will re-negotiate economic and trade relations with Beijing – viewing China as a major economic power and not a developing nation intent on protecting its ‘infant industries’.  Trump’s realism reflect the new economic order:  China is a mature, highly competitive, world economic power, which has been out-competing the US , in part by retaining its own state subsidies and incentives from its earlier economic phase.  This has led to significant imbalances.  Trump, the realist, recognizes that China offers great opportunities for trade and investment if the US can secure reciprocal agreements, which lead to a more favorable balance of trade.

Trump does not want to launch a ‘trade war’ with China , but he needs to restore the US as a major ‘exporter’ nation in order to implement his domestic economic agenda.  The negotiations with the Chinese will be very difficult because the US importer-elite are against the Trump agenda and side with the Beijing ’s formidable export-oriented ruling class.

Moreover, because Wall Street’s banking elite is pleading with Beijing to enter China ’s financial markets, the financial sector is an unwilling and unstable ally to Trump’s pro-industrial policies.

Conclusion

Trump is not a ‘protectionist’, nor is he opposed to ‘free-trade’.  These charges by the garbage journalists are baseless.  Trump does not oppose US economic imperialist policies abroad.  However, Trump is a market realist who recognizes that military conquest is costly and, in the contemporary world context, a losing economic proposition for the US .  He recognizes that the US must turn from a predominant finance and import economy to a manufacturing and export economy.

Trump views Russia as a potential economic partner and military ally in ending the wars in Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan and Ukraine , and especially in defeating the terrorist threat of ISIS .  He sees China as a powerful economic competitor, which has been taking advantage of outmoded trade privileges and wants to re-negotiate trade pacts in line with the current balance of economic power.

Trump is a capitalist-nationalist, a market-imperialist and political realist, who is willing to trample on women’s rights, climate change legislation, indigenous treaties and immigrant rights.  His cabinet appointments and his Republican colleagues in Congress are motivated by a militarist ideology closer to the Obama-Clinton doctrine than to Trumps new ‘America First’ agenda.  He has surrounded his Cabinet with military imperialists, territorial expansionists and delusional fanatics.

Who will win out in the short or long term remains to be seen.  What is clear is that the liberals, Democratic Party hacks and advocates of Little Mussolini black shirted street thugs will be on the side of the imperialists and will find plenty of allies among and around the Trump regime.

 

مشروع “دستور بريمر” الروسي ينسف هوية سورية العربية والإسلامية ويمنع جيشها من أي دور في فلسطين

 

JANUARY 27, 2017

مشروع “دستور بريمر” الروسي ينسف هوية سورية العربية والإسلامية ويمنع جيشها من أي دور في فلسطين.. ولهذا يجب تعديلة جذريا.. المحاصصة الطائفية “فتنة” دمرت العراق ولا نريدها ان تجهز على سورية.. واليكم قراءة مختلفة

atwan ok

عبد الباري عطوان

يعيد الروس، بطرحهم مسودة دستور جديدة لسورية، تجربة بول بريمر الحاكم العسكري الأمريكي للعراق، التي بذرت بذور الطائفية في البلد، وقسمته الى أقاليم، في اطار صيغة الفيدرالية، واسست لحكم ذاتي كردي بصلاحيات رئاسية توفر كل أسس وركائز “الاستقلال” والانفصال لاحقا.

السيدة ماريا زاخاروفا، الناطقة باسم زارة الخارجية الروسية، نفت هذا “الربط” او “المقارنة” في لقائها الصحافي الأسبوعي، وأكدت ان بلادها لا تحاول فرض شروط التسوية، او دستور على السوريين، انما الهدف من هذه الخطوة تحفيز الحوار السياسي في اطار قرار مجلس الامن الدولي رقم 2254.

من الطبيعي ان تردد السيدة زاخاروفا هذا الكلام، ولكن واقع الحال مخالف لاقوالها تماما، فإختيار مؤتمر الاستانة لتوزيع مشروع الدستور على الوفود المشاركة وباللغة العربية، يوحي بأن موسكو جادة في طرحه، وسيكون العمود الفقري للتسوية وتحديد ملامح “سورية الجديدة”، ونظامها السياسي، ولا مانع من ادخال بعض تعديلات على بعض المواد، لكنها من المرجح ان تكون تعديلات هامشية.

***

كان لافتا ان المعارضة السورية المسلحة، كانت البادئة برفض هذه المسودة الروسية بشراسة، حيث اكد السيد يحيى العريضي المتحدث باسمها “ان تجربة بول بريمر في العراق واضحة”، محذرا الكرملين من تكرار الغلطة نفسها، “فالشعب السوري هو الوحيد الذي يملك حق كتابة الدستور، وأثبتت تجربة العراق بأنه عندما تعد دولة خارجية الدستور فان فرص نجاحه معدومة”، وربما تتجنب الحكومة السورية الصدام مع حليفها الروسي علانية، وفضلت ادخال تعديلات جوهرية على هذه المسودة، جرى تسريبها لبعض الصحف، واكتفت بذلك حتى الآن على الأقل.

اخطر ما في هذه المسودة، التي نؤمن بأنها “بالون اختبار” لقياس ردود الفعل، واغراق طرفي الازمة السورية في جدل وخلافات سياسية، حتى لكأنهم بحاجة الى خلافات جديدة، هو تحويل سورية الى دولة “غير عربية” إرضاء للاقلية الكردية، وإقامة حكم ذاتي للاشقاء الاكراد في شمال البلاد، على غرار نظيره في العراق، واعتماد اللغة الكردية كلغة رسمية الى جانب شقيقتها العربية، وإدخال نظام الأقاليم او اللامركزية، وتكريس المحاصصة الطائفية في المناصب العليا، والنص على ذلك صراحة في الدستور المقترح.

اذكر انني شاركت في برنامج يحمل اسم “مناظرة” يحظى بتمويل غربي في شهر حزيران (يونيو) الماضي في تونس، وكان البرنامج النقاشي يتناول النص على حقوق الأقليات في الدستور، ورفضت ذلك بشدة، وقلت ان هذا يعني التمييز ضدها، وجعل هويتها الوطنية منقوصة، وطالبت بالنص صراحة على المساواة الكاملة في الدستور لكل أطياف الشعب الطائفية والدينية والعرقية في الدستور والقوانين معا في اطار التعايش والدولة المدنية، وفاز هذا الطرح عندما جرى طرحه على الحضور للتصويت بأغلبية كبيرة، رغم انه جرى اختياره بعناية فائقة للتصويت لصلح الطرح الآخر.

اعترف انني ذهلت عندما قرأت معظم فقرات مشروع الدستور الروسي المقترح لسورية، وادركت ان عملية التمهيد له بدأت مبكرا، وفي اطار منظومة من الفعاليات السياسية والإعلامية في بعض ارجاء الوطن العربي، وها هو يتبلور تدريجيا.

الأقليات الطائفية والعرقية والدينية كانت، وما زالت، تتعرض للظلم والاضطهاد من الأغلبية الحاكمة، في بعض الدول العربية، وهذا طرح ينطوي على الكثير من الصحة، ولكن هذا الاضطهاد يأتي في ظل أنظمة ديكتاتورية، ومن المفترض ان ينتهي عندما تترسخ الديمقراطية، فالدستور الأمريكي، ومعظم الدساتير الغربية، ان لم يكن كلها، لا تنص على حقوق حصرية للاقليات، وعلى المحاصصة العرقية والدينية والمذهبية، انما على المساواة في المواطنة والحقوق والواجبات، وتحتكم الى الإعلان العالمي لحقوق الانسان كمرجعية أساسية في هذا الصدد.

روسيا تريد تطبيق نظامها اللامركزي على سورية دون النظر الى الفوارق الكبيرة في المساحة، والخريطتين الديمغرافية والجغرافية، فسورية بلد صغير، بالمقارنة الى الاتحاد الروسي العملاق، وتجربتها مختلفة، وتقع في جوار إقليمي غير الجوار الاقليمي الروسي، وعليها التزامات دينية ووطنية وقومية لا يمكن شطبها “بجرة دستور”، والا لما عادت سورية التاريخية التي نعرفها وتمتد جذورها لاكثر من ثمانية آلاف عام.

وقد يجادل البعض ان هذه المسودة للدستور التي تحرم رئيس الجمهورية، أي رئيس جمهورية سوري، من معظم صلاحياته، وتحوله الى “وسيط”، وتمنع أي دور للجيش السوري خارج حدوده، وتشطب هوية البلاد العربية، وتسقط بند الشريعة الإسلامية كأساس للتشريع، هذه البنود تأتي، ويا للمفارقة، في وقت يسيطر فيه الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين على كل الصلاحيات، ويعدل الرئيس التركي رجب طيب اردوغان دستور بلاده بحيث يصبح رئيسا مطلقا بصلاحيات كاملة، والشيء نفسه يقال عن دونالد ترامب في أمريكا أيضا، والامثلة عديدة.

 ***

لسنا مع الديكتاتورية، وحصر الصلاحيات في يد الرئيس، ونعارض أي دور للجيش، أي جيش في قمع شعبه، ونطالب، وسنظل، بالفصل الكامل بين السلطات، والحقوق غير المنقوصة للمواطن، سواء كان ينتمي الى الأغلبية او الأقلية، وفي اطار سيادة القانون، ولكننا لا نريد تكرار تجربة العراق واليمن وليبيا في سورية، او أي بلد عربي آخر، مثلما لا نريد ان تتحول بلادنا الى حقل تجارب للتفتيت والحروب الاهلية والطائفية والعرقية.

الملامح الأولية لهذا الدستور تؤشر الى محاولة لعزل سورية عن محيطها العربي، ومنع أي دور لها في التصدي للاحتلال الإسرائيلي لاراضيها أولا، وفلسطين التاريخية ثانيا، ولا نعتقد ان السلطة السورية، او المعارضة الشريفة يمكن ان تقل به.

سورية الجديدة التي يجب ان تنهض من وسط هذا الدمار الذي الحقته بها المؤامرة الخارجية، بهوية عربية إسلامية اكثر تجذرا وصلابة، واذا كان هيمنة الأكثرية على الأقلية وحرمانها ابسط حقوقها خطأ لا يغتفر، فأن محاولة تغيير هوية البلاد الوطنية والتاريخية، ومن اجل إرضاء الأقلية خطيئة اكبر، ومشروع فتنة، وعدم استقرار وحروب مستقبلية.

للمرة المليون نؤكد اننا مع المساواة والتعايش ونبذ الطائفية والعنصرية، ونرجوكم اعطونا دستورا مثل الدساتير المحترمة، والمعمول بها في الغرب والشرق، التي توحد ولا تفرق، وتحترم الهوية الجامعة، والكرامة الوطنية.

Related Videos

Renouncing Jewishness: Shlomo Sand and Gilad Atzmon

July 31, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

GA: A very interesting piece of writing by Eric Walberg. Along the years I have learned a lot from Walberg, one of the very few creative thinkers left within the Left.

Source: http://ericwalberg.com/

Renouncing Jewishness: Shlomo Sand and Gilad Atzmon

By Eric Walberg

For years now, I’ve known there was something wrong when my well-meaning anti-Zionist Jewish friends found it necessary to join Jewish anti-Zionist groups opposing Israel. In the US, Jewish Voice for Peace, in Canada, Not in Our Name; in Britain, Jews Against Zionism — every country has its group, usually more than one. “I am a Jewish witness against Israel,” I would be told. Sounds good, even brave. Sand’s latest deconstruction of Jewishness and Israel, How I Stopped Being a Jew (2014), makes it clear why my suspicions were well founded.

Barely 100 pages, it is a page-turner, a precis of his earlier more scholarly works, arguing that the romantic, heroic age of Jewish nationalism, as embodied in the creation of a Jewish state, is coming to an end. Israel will not disappear, but it is an anachronism, an embarrassment in the postmodern age. A reminder of the horrors of Nazism, but not as the Zionist crafters of the “holocaust industry”, or “holocaust religion”, would have it. The Zionist project is exposed by Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and many more Jewish critics as reenacting the same policies of yesteryear. A flawed answer that is doomed, “an insidious form of racism“.

For the Israeli Sand, the Jewish “national” identity is a fraud (an Israeli identity is fine); the only viable Jewish identity is a religious one, and as a nonbeliever, he logically concludes,  “Cogito, ergo non sum.”

Gilad Atzmon takes Sand’s logic further. He tore up his Israeli passport, becoming an ex-Israeli as well as an ex-Jew. 

What’s so wrong with a secular, ethnic Jewish identity? Well, it can be based on only one of two things: persecution (being “forced” into being a Jew whether one likes it or not, as in the Nazi’s racial laws) or being “born” into the Jewish people. The former is no longer an issue and the latter is full of holes, and based on a dangerous myth.

When was the Jewish People invented?

Sand’s answer is simple:

“At a certain stage in the 19th century, intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people ‘retrospectively’, out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people.”

For Jews, this required a homeland, and the westernized Jewish elite were able to provide this. As the West suffered one mortal blow after another (WWI&II), Zionism took on a new meaning. Voila! Israel.

But the exile legend is a myth. Sand is a historian and couldn’t find any texts supporting it. The Romans did not exile peoples.

“Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled.”

Jews continued to live in the Holy Land through thick and thin, freer under Muslim rule than Christian, but even the latter never “ethnically cleansed” them. Most converted to Christianity or Islam. Voila! The (Christian, Muslim) Palestinians. However, a tiny core stuck stubbornly to the original monotheism, nurtured by the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC (the only bona fide exile–from which they returned, the earlier Egyptian exile legend being crafted much later, when the Torah was written down and collected in the 3rd century BC).

Jews are not a race but rather a collective of many ethnic groups who were hijacked by a late 19th century ‘national’ movement. There is no racial or ethnic basis for being Jewish any more than there is for being Christian or Muslim. The great majority of those who today consider themselves Jewish are descended from converts in Central Asia, eastern Europe and north Africa, not from ancient Hebrews expelled from the Holy Land by the Romans. They are not ethnic “Semites”, of near eastern origin, or ethnic anything else.

Atzmon is a noted jazz musician, and deconstructs a popular 1970s Israeli pop song by Shlomo Artzi: All of a sudden a man wakes up in the morning. He feels he is people and to

Scene from Shoval’s ‘Youth’ (2016)

everyone he comes across he says shalom.Artzi’s youth suggests Jews suddenly became “people” thanks to the state of Israel, conflating being Jewish with being Israeli, suggesting only Israelis can really feel free as Jews. What Artzi ignores is that feeling proud to be an Israeli is only for those Israelis who have “Jew” stamped in their passport, and, among them, only those who are blind to the bloody colonial basis for this privilege. Hardly a recipe for a healthy feeling.

Can a liar tell the truth?

Israel is a “democratic and Jewish state” according to Israeli law. The “Jewish” nature was first defined in the Declaration of Independence of 1948. The “democratic” character was added by the Knesset in 1985. This is a contradiction in terms, as Jewish by definition determines the state according to race, making it undemocratic for those in the state not Jewish. In cartesian lingo, both ‘A’ and ‘not A’ are true.

This flawed logic now lies at the heart of what it means to call oneself a secular Jew, either Israeli or ‘diaspora’. Sand joins other ex-Jews, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, and Will Self, who have renounced Jewishness, either as secularists, or as converts to Christianity, shedding a contradictory, now empty, signifier.  Given what Israel has become, “democratic” and “Jewish” are no longer compatible. Sand rejects the faux Jewish nationalism served up by Zionism, which excludes non-Jews from the narrative, and is left with nothing except himself, his books, his sense of right and wrong. A lonely world.

Atzmon takes Sand’s attack on identity politics a step further, arguing in The Wandering Who that secular Jewish anti-Zionism feeds into the Zionist narrative, the do-gooder counterpoint to the more sinister role of the diaspora, taking Sand’s concerns to an even more uncomfortable conclusion: The Jewish Diaspora is there to mobilize lobbies by recruiting international support. The Neocons transform the American army into an Israeli mission force. Anti-Zionists of Jewish descent (and this may even include proud self-haters such as myself) are there to portray an image of ideological plurality and ethical concern.*

Sand dismisses both religion and nationalism as the basis for his identity. Atzmon argues both are legitimate, though they both are perverted in the case of the Israeli state. Nationalism is an authentic “bond with one’s soil, heritage, culture, language”, a cathartic experience, not at all “empty” as a signifier.  Though nationalism may well be an invention, it is still “an intrinsically authentic fulfilling experience”. It can be misused, is often suicidal, but nonetheless, “it sometimes manages to integrate man, soil and sacrifice into a state of spiritual unification.”

What is especially moving about ex-Jews like Sand, and ex-Israel ex-Jews like Atzmon, is that they are trapped by their own Israeli heritage, whether or not they emigrate. Reading Sand’s book in Hebrew, writes Atzmon,

“is for me, an ex-Jew and ex-Israeli, a truly authentic experience that brings me closer to my roots, my forgotten homeland and its fading landscape, my mother tongue or shall I simply say my Being.”

He is confronted not by some “‘identity’ or politics but rather the Israeliness, that concrete nationalist discourse that matured into Hebraic poetry, patriotism, ideology, jargon, a dream and a tragedy to follow.” Israel’s present state has “robbed him of that Israeliness which was once to him a home.”

Hollow identity

Most still yearn to keep a diaspora Jewish identity alive. Judith Butler’s Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism (2013) is by a liberal-leaning Jew who feels she must salvage her Jewishness from Israel’s nationalism and occupation policies. “A new Jewish identity might emerge that connects Tel Aviv with New York’s Upper West Side, Berlin, Paris, London and Buenos Aires — and all of them on an equal footing,” writes Carlo Strener in hisreview.

For Sand and Atzmon, there is no “new Jewish identity” possible, because there is no diaspora. French Jews are French. Canadian ones are Canadian. It’s fine to be a believing ‘person of the Book’, and even an Israeli, speaking Israeli (really a new language) and being a citizen of a well-behaved multi-ethnic nation state, based on universal norms, like France or Canada. But everyone eats matzo balls already.

Assimilation is not like extermination, despite Golda Meir’s cries of “Wolf!” Non-religious Jewishness will continue to evaporate, along with Christian and Muslim identities for those who abandon their faith. There is no shame in calling oneself an ex-Christian or ex-Muslim. 

Occam’s Razor: less is more

Anti-Zionists “rightly see [Zionist] policies as threatening the renewal of Judeophobia” that identifies all Jews as a “certain race-people, and confuses them with Zionists.”** Yes, but, as Atzmon argues, this “confusion” is part of the agenda, pushing Jews outside of Israel to support Israel unthinkingly and accept the resultant resentment they experience as “anti-Semitism”.

And even if they protest–as Jews–they inadvertently support the “Zionist world conspiracy”:

If those who call themselves anti-Zionist Jews without having lived in Israel, and without knowing its language or having experienced its culture, claim a particular right, different from that of non-Jews, to make accusations against Israel, how can one criticize overt pro-Zionists for granting themselves the privilege of actively intervening in decisions regarding

Codepink’s Medea Benjamin

the future and fate of Israel?* 

The Jewish signifier undermines the anti-Zionist one. Slots muddy things. Medea Benjamin, a “one percenter, a nice little Jewish girl” founded the now legendary peace group Codepink. QAIA (Queers against Israeli apartheid) folded when its organizers realized by highlighting their ‘gay’ signifier, they were doing more harm than good. The queers don’t have the luxury of renouncing their queerness, but thoughtful Jews like Benjamin similarly downplay their own tribalism, and Sand and Atzmon have renounced it, as the honorable way out of their Catch-22.

xxx

* Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who?, Zero Books, 2011, p70.
** Shlomo Sand, How I Stopped being a Jew, Verso, 2014, p94–95.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: A genocidal campaign – part 2: The rise of Wahhabism and the formation of a bastion of terror.

July 14, 2016

by Aram Mirzaei

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: A genocidal campaign – part 2: The rise of Wahhabism and the formation of a bastion of terror.

In the previous article, we examined the history of the concept of Takfir, Muslims who engage in excommunication of other Muslims. We also examined the history of the first great split within Islam.

In this part we will examine the second surge of Takfir, one that originated in the Arabian Peninsula during the 18th century. Before we examine this surge closer, a short introduction to Islamic jurisprudence, also known as Fiqh is needed.

Fiqh

Islamic Jurisprudence the human understanding or rather interpretation of Sharia, the divine law. Sharia is developed through interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of Prophet Muhammad) by Islamic jurists (Ulema). As the Islamic community went through several Fitna’s (divisions) several schools of jurisprudence (madhab) developed with different understandings of the concept of Sharia. Among the Sunni schools of thought, four main branches have gained prominence among the Sunni community. These branches are: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali schools of thought.

The Hanbali school of thought stands out as it is not only the smallest of the four main schools but also the most extreme one. Founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780-855) who was a disciple of Al-Shafi’i (founder of the Shafi’i school), he was deeply concerned with “reinterpretations” of the doctrines of the Quran and the Hadiths. Ibn Hanbal was a strong advocate of a return to the literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadiths, rejecting several religious rulings which he considered to be mere speculations. As he gained followers (Hanbalites), the relations with the Abbasid Caliphate became more and more strained as Ibn Hanbal’s successors such as Al-Hasan ibn Ali Al-Barbahari advocated violence against those deemed to be sinners. Soon, armed mobs were formed, attacking Shiites and fellow Sunnis who were suspected of sinful behaviour.

As chaos began to spread in the Caliphate, Caliphh Ar-Radi publicly condemned the Hanbali school and ended its patronage by state religious bodies. Thus, the Hanbali school had been marginalized.

 

18th century: The rise of Wahhabism

Wahhabism, is named after the 18th century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd-Al Wahhab who started what he saw as a revivalist ideology in the Arabian region of Najd, today part of Saudi Arabia. His ideology advocated a purging of practices he considered to be idolatry (shirk) and the “cult of saints”, referring to the visitation of shrines and tombs of important figures in Islam, something he considered to be impurities and innovations. Thus, his main mission became to spread what he believed to be a call for restoration of true monotheistic worship.

Abd Al-Wahhab began to attract followers, including the ruler of Uyayna (a village in the Najd region) Uthman ibn Muammar. Abd Al- Wahhab came to an agreement with Ibn Muammar to support Ibn Muammars political ambitions of expanding his rule over Najd and beyond, in exchange for Ibn Muammars support for Abd Al-Wahhabs religious teachings. Abd Al-Wahhab began to implement his ideas in the region, forbidding what he considered grave worshipping, organizing stoning of women who were accused of adultery and destroying the grave of Zayd ibn al-Khattab, a companion of Prophet Muhammad.

These actions were however not left without attention from other influential rules in the Najd region, one of them being Suleiman ibn Muhammad ibn Ghurayr who threatened ibn Muammar with denying him the ability to collect taxes in the Najd region if he did not kill or exile Abd Al-Wahhab. Thus, Ibn Muammar forced Abd Al-Wahhab to leave Najd.

Abd Al-Wahhab did not stop his quest there, instead he was invited by a ruler of a nearby town in Diriyah, Muhammad ibn Saud.

In 1744 they met and engaged in a pact where Ibn Saud would protect and propagate the doctrines of Abd Al-Wahhab while he in turn would champion Ibn Saud’s claim to rule the entire Arabian Peninsula. This agreement was confirmed with a mutual oath of loyalty (bayah) and that same year marked the emergence of the first Saudi state, the Emirate of Diriyah.

 

Wahhabist doctrine and the Salafist movement

The Wahhabi movement can be said to have been inspired by the writings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, founder of the Hanbali school of thought. Although this question is much of for debate as the Wahhabis do not consider themselves to be part of any school of thought. Wahhabis have always rejected all jurisprudence that in their opinion did not adhere strictly to the letter of the Quran and the Hadiths, still despite this claim, they follow the Hanbali methodology of extreme conservativism in applying Sharia law.

The Salafist movement

The Salafi movement is an ultra-conservative movement within the Sunni branch of Islam. The doctrine of Salafism is one that takes a fundamentalist approach to Islam, focusing on emulating the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers the Al-Salaf Al Salih (Pious forefathers). Much like Wahhabism and the Hanbali school, they reject innovations and support a strict implementation of Sharia law. Although it shares many similarities with the Wahhabi doctrine, Salafists still reject the term Wahhabi as derogatory. Still, modern Salafists tend to consider Abd Al-Wahhab as a Salafist, and his book Kitab al-Tawhid is still read and cited frequently by Salafi followers and scholars. Although they share a different past since Wahhabism originated in the Arabian Peninsula and Salafism originated in Egypt, they share the same doctrine of purging practices deemed by them to be idolatry such as shrine and tomb visitation and other “impurities”.

One could break down the Wahhabi doctrine into these defining aspects:

  1. Strict adherence to the Quran, and the prophetic traditions. This means a literal interpretation of the Quran and opposition to Tawil, meaning metaphorical interpretations.
  2. Strict opposition to the act of Tawassul through other than Allah, meaning to ask Allah for things by the means of using a deceased saint or pious man as an intermediary. This part refers to their opposition to tomb visiting and a “cult of saints” belief. This act is viewed by the Wahhabis as Shirk(Polytheism).
  3. Embracing the ideas of Ibn Tayyima, which allows a self-professed Muslim who do not follow Islamic law to be declared non-Muslim— in order for the “true muslim” to justify their warring and conquering of those deemed to be non-Muslims.

 

The Wahhabi Mission

When Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab applied to the rulers of Dar’iyya with the view of disseminating his heresies easily through them, they willingly cooperated with him with the hope of extending their territories and increasing their power. They strove with all their might to disseminate his ideas everywhere.

They declared war against those who refused joining the army of Muhammad ibn Saud when it was said that it is halal to plunder and kill non-Wahhabis. Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab reached the conclusion, that those who wouldn’t accept Wahhabism were kafirs and mushriks (Polytheists) and it was halal to kill them and confiscate their possessions, publicly announcing this declaration seven years later.

This unholy alliance between the Wahhabi ideology and the Al-Saud family has endured for more than two and half centuries, surviving both defeat and collapse. The two families (that of Abd-Al Wahhab and Al-Saud) have intermarried multiple times over generations and it is no coincidence that in modern Saudi Arabia, the minister of religion is always a member of the Al-Sheikh family, descendents of Ibn Abd-al Wahhab.

One of the most notable and cruel attacks by the Wahhabis, was on Karbala in 1802. There, they entered the city and killed the majority of its population in the markets and their homes. They destroyed the dome placed over the grave of Imam Hussein, the third infallible Imam in the Shia faith, and looted the grave completely. This act was and still is considered to be one of the most heinous crimes committed against the city of Karbala and the Shia population as a whole. It is also noteworthy that this act was legitimized by the Wahhabi aggressors since they did not consider the Karbala population to be Muslims at all. This crime was followed up by several other heinous assaults around the region, including the attack on Taif, in the Hejaz region in the Arabian Peninsula where they massacred the entire male population and enslaved the women and children of the city in 1803.

Al-Saud managed to establish his rule over southwestern Syria between 1803 and 1812 before being driven out by Egyptian forces acting under the Ottoman Empire, led by Ibrahim Pasha. In 1818 they defeated Al-Saud, levelling the capital Diriyah and executed the Al-Saud emir. However, they failed to destroy the political and religious leadership of the House of Saud and the Wahhabi ideology. A second Saudi state soon rose from its ashes (Emirate of Najd) and lasted from 1819 to 1891. Since it was isolated within the region of Najd, a desolate place lacking any resources and with limited communication and transportation at the time, the Ottomans were not prompted to conduct further campaigns in the region, and so the Wahhabi ideology survived, albeit severely weakened.

But this would all change with the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War One as the British administrators would look for divisive collaborators in the Arab World, just as they had on the Indian Subcontinent in previous years. They found the perfect collaborators with the sectarian Wahhabi doctrine. The Saudis horrified and fascinated the British at the same time with Winston Churchill writing that the Wahhabis

“hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all those who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the street”. [1]

Churchill nevertheless also expressed admiration for Ibn Saud for his “unfailing loyalty” to the British. A British government memo from the mid-1940s noted that

“Ibn Saud’s influence in the Middle East is very great, and it has been used consistently for a number of years in support for our policy”. [2]

Syrian President Shukry El Kuwatly (left) and Egyptian Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser shake hands, as Saudi Arabia's King Saud looks on smilingly after the signing of the joint communique. The declaration, which climaxed a series of meetings of the Arab States' 'Big Three' here, announced that the three had agreed on a plan to safeguard Arab security and defend the Arab world against 'the danger of Zionist aggression and foreign domination.'

Syrian President Shukry El Kuwatly (left) and Egyptian Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser shake hands, as Saudi Arabia’s King Saud looks on smilingly after the signing of the joint communique. The declaration, which climaxed a series of meetings of the Arab States’ ‘Big Three’ here, announced that the three had agreed on a plan to safeguard Arab security and defend the Arab world against ‘the danger of Zionist aggression and foreign domination.’

With the rise of Egyptian President Jamal Abdul Nasser, a hero of Arab nationalism, the US also began to take an interest in the house of Saud.

US President Eisenhower was also looking for a plan to split the Arabs and defeat the aims of their enemies (the Soviet Union), by building up the Saudi king as a counterweight to Nasser. This close US-Saudi relationship was highly successful during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, where the Saudis and the US closely cooperated in arming, supporting, training and promoting jihadism against the “infidel Soviets”. This relationship is as Professor Tim Anderson describes it

“not just a relation between a global power and an oil supplier, but rather that of the great power with a principal political collaborator in the region, and one with a long record of sectarianism”. [3]

This alliance still stands today and in the next part of this article series, we will explore their collaboration in the Syrian conflict and the project that is called “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”.

  1. Tim Anderson, The Dirty War on Syria, Chapter 5, Page 42
  2. Ibid
  3. Ibid

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: