When Dictators Fall, Who Rises? By Patrick J. Buchanan - VDare.com

The American Jewish Neo-con planned and UK and French Jewish Cameron and Sarkozy executed moves on neo-colonising of Arab nations and regime changes in Iraq, Egypt and Syria have serious consequences for Christian minorities in these Muslim/Arab countries. Naturally, Jewish would like to see post-'regime change' nations, ethnically cleansed of Christian minorities, so as to sow permanent seeds of antagonism between Christians and Muslims.

Patrick J. Buchanan, one time US Presidential aspirant writes out the details of what entails current moves by the Western colonizers.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Khurshid syed <tirmidhi@hotmail.com> wrote:

   

Patrick J. Buchanan Archive Email a Friend... Printer Friendly Version... April 25, 2011 When Dictators Fall, Who Rises? By Patrick J. Buchanan One month before the invasion of Iraq, Riah Abu el-Assal, a Palestinian and the Anglican bishop of Jerusalem at the time, warned Tony Blair, "You will be responsible for emptying Iraq, the homeland of Abraham, of Christians." The bishop proved a prophet. "After almost 2,000 years," writes the Financial Times, "Iraqi Christians now openly contemplate extinction. Some of their prelates even counsel flight."[Middle East: Harder to bear, By David Gardner,  April 22 2011 23:00]

The secular despot Saddam Hussein protected the Christians. But the U.S. liberation brought on their greatest calamity since the time of Christ. Scores of thousands of those Iraqi Christians fleeing terrorism and persecution after 2003 made their way to Syria, where they received sanctuary from President Bashar Assad. Now, as the FT and Washington Post report, the Christians of Syria, whose forebears have lived there since the time of Christ, are facing a pogrom should the Damascus regime fall. Christians are 10 percent of Syria's population, successful and closely allied to the minority Alawite regime of the Assad family. Said one Beirut observer, "Their fear is that if the regime falls to the Sunni majority, they will be put up against the same wall as the Alawites." For decades, notes the Post, the Assad regime "has protected Christian interests by enforcing its strictly secular program and by curbing the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood."[For Syrian Christians, protests are cause for fear, April 23, 2011] Bashar's father, Hafez al-Assad, slaughtered perhaps 20,000 followers of the brotherhood after they began a campaign of bombings and terror and attempted an uprising in Hama in 1982. Hafez al-Assad rolled up his artillery and leveled the city. Observing the toll of dead protesters—more than 100 this past weekend, more than 200 overall, the work of police, snipers and agents of the regime—it is hard to summon up any sympathy for Bashar Assad. And if his regime were to fall, that would eliminate a patron of Hamas and Hezbollah and a close ally of Iran in the Arab world. But before he embraces the Syrian revolution, President Barack Obama ought to consider, as President George W. Bush did not, what happens to Arab Christians when a long-repressed Muslim majority comes to power. In Iraq, liberated Shiites used their newfound freedom to cleanse Baghdad of Sunnis while al-Qaida arrived and went straight after the Christians. In Syria, it would be a Sunni majority rising if Bashar and the Alawites were to fall. What would that mean for Syria's Christians, for peace, for us? Since 1973, even when clashes have occurred and wars have been fought in Lebanon between Israelis and Syria or its proxies, the Assad government has maintained the truce on the Golan Heights. Would a Sunni-dominated Syria do the same? With the fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt have come Islamist attacks on Coptic Christians. How will the Copts fare if the Muslim Brotherhood wins the September election and writes Shariah into Egyptian law? In "The Price of Revolution" a half-century ago, D.W. Brogan inventoried the costs of the revolutions that so often intoxicate secular Western man. The French Revolution led to regicide, the September Massacres, the Terror, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Catholics in the Vendee region of France, and almost two decades of Napoleonic wars. The abdication of Czar Nicholas II led to the dictatorship of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, who would effect the murder of 1,000 times more victims than did the Spanish Inquisition in 300 years. And among the Bolshevik murder victims were the czar, his wife and his five children. Fifteen years after the hated Kaiser, ruler of the Second Reich, abdicated, a proud veteran of his army, Adolf Hitler, established a Third Reich. No altar-and-throne regime ever compiled a record of horror to match those of the French and Russian revolutions—or those of Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and Pol Pot. When the Shah of Iran fell, within a year we had the Ayatollah Khomeini. Americans have welcomed the "Arab Spring." Yet we should be forewarned that among those liberated when dictators fall is the sort of men that Edmund Burke described: "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. ... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." Americans, who incarcerate 2.3 million of their own citizens, 90 percent of them males, are surely aware of the truth Burke spoke. And across the Middle East, there are millions of "intemperate minds" that would use the freedom and power democracy provides to majorities to suppress or eradicate their long-hated rival minorities. If one-man, one-vote democracy across the Maghreb and Middle East is almost certain to strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and to liberate Islamists to persecute Christians, why are we for it? When did this idol of modernity called democracy, in which none of our fathers believed, become a golden calf we all must fall down and worship? COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, reviewed here by Paul Craig Roberts.

Four Decades Of US-UK Attempts To Topple Gadafi - Media Lens

......

Doesn't look right? View it online here

April 28, 2011 If At First You Don't Succeed - Four Decades Of US-UK Attempts To Topple Gadafi Guest Media Alert by Richard Lance Keeble, Professor of Journalism at the University of Lincoln    Behind a wall of silence, the US and UK have been conducting over the last four decades a massive, largely secret war against Libya – often using Chad, the country lying on its southern border, as its base. The current attacks on Col. Gadafi’s troops and attempts to assassinate the Libyan leader with the US deployment of unmanned drones are best seen as part of a wide-ranging and long-standing strategy by the US/UK secret states to dislodge Gadafi. Seizing power in Libya by ousting King Idris in a 1969 coup, [1] Gadafi (who intriguingly had undertaken a military training course in England in 1966) quickly became the target of massive covert operations by the French, US, Israeli and British. Stephen Dorril (2000), in his seminal history of MI6, records how in 1971 a British plan to invade the country, release political prisoners and restore the monarchy ended in a complete flop. Dorril reports: ‘What became known as the “Hilton assignment” was one of MI6’s last attempts at a major special operation designed to overthrow a regime opposed to British interests.’ The plan to bring down Gadafi had originally been a joint MI6/CIA operation but the CIA suddenly withdrew after they concluded that ‘although Gadaffi was anti-West, he was also anti-Soviet, which meant there could be someone a lot worse running Libya. The British disagreed’ (ibid: 736). Easy To Hate In 1980, the head of the French secret service, Col. Alain de Gaigneronde de Marolles, resigned after a French-led plan ended in disaster when a rebellion by Libyan troops in Tobruk was rapidly suppressed (Deacon 1990: 262-264). Throughout the early 1980s Gadafi was demonised in the mainstream US and UK media as a ‘terrorist warlord’ and prime agent of a Soviet-inspired ‘terror network’. According to Noam Chomsky, Reagan’s campaign against ‘international terrorism’ was a natural choice for the propaganda system in furtherance of its basic agenda: ‘expansion of the state sector of the economy; transfer of resources from the poor to the rich and a more “activist” (i.e. terrorist and aggressive) foreign policy’. Such policies needed the public to be frightened into obedience by some ‘terrible enemy’. And Libya fitted the need perfectly (Chomsky 1991: 120). As Chomsky commented: ‘Gadafi is easy to hate, particularly against the backdrop of rampant anti-Arab racism in the United States and the deep commitment of the educated classes, with only the rarest of exceptions, to US-Israeli rejectionism and violence. He has created an ugly and repressive society and is indeed guilty of retail terrorism, primarily against Libyans’ (ibid). In July 1981, a CIA plan to overthrow and possibly kill Gadafi was leaked to the press. At roughly the same time, Libyan hit squads were reported to have entered the United States, though this has since been revealed to have been a piece of Israeli secret service disinformation (Rusbridger 1989: 80). Joe Flynn, the infamous con man, was also able to exploit Fleet Street’s fascination with the Gadafi myth. In September 1981, posing as an Athens-based arms dealer he tricked almost £3,000 out of the News of the World with his story that the Libyan leader was ‘masterminding a secret plot to arm black revolutionary murder squads in Britain’ (Lycett 1995). Then in 1982, away from the glare of the media, Hissène Habré, with the backing of the CIA and Israeli troops (Cockburn and Cockburn 1992: 123), overthrew the Chadian government of Goukouni Wedeye. Human Rights Watch records: ‘Under President Reagan, the United States gave covert CIA paramilitary support to help install Habré in order, according to secretary of state Alexander Haig, to “bloody Gadafi’s nose”.’ Bob Woodward, in his semi-official history of the CIA, reveals that the Chad covert operation was the first undertaken by the new CIA chief William Casey and that throughout the decade Libya ranked almost as high as the Soviet Union as the ‘bête noir’ of the administration (Woodward 1987: 348, 363, 410-11). A report from Amnesty, Chad: The Habré Legacy, [2] recorded massive military and financial support for Habré by the US Congress. It added: ‘None of the documents presented to Congress and consulted by Amnesty International covering the period 1984 to 1989 make any reference to human rights violations.’ US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq (Hunter 1991: 49). According to John Prades (1986: 383), the Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed (Perry 1992: 165). In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused (Martin and Walcott 1988: 265-6). By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan. Thrilled To Blitz Frustrated in its covert attempts to topple Gadafi, the US government’s strategy suddenly shifted. In March 1986, US planes patrolling the Gulf of Sidra were reported to have been attacked by Libyan missiles. But Noam Chomsky suggests this incident was a provocation ‘enabling US forces to sink several Libyan boats, killing more than 50 Libyans and, it was hoped, to incite Gadafi to acts of terror against Americans, as was subsequently claimed’ (Chomsky op cit: 124). In the following month, the US responded with a military strike on key Libyan targets. The attack was widely condemned. James Adams (1987: 372) quotes a British intelligence source: ‘Although we allowed the raid there was a general feeling that America had become uncontrollable and unless we did something Reagan would be even more violent the next time.’ Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was perhaps hoping for an action-replay of the Falklands factor when she gave the US permission to fly F-111 attack jets from bases in East Anglia to bomb Libyan targets. Also, according to Annie Machon, Mrs Thatcher was ‘anxious for revenge’ after the shooting of W.P.C. Fletcher during a demonstration by Libyan oppositionists outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984 (Machon 2005: 104). It was an archetypal move of the secret state: only a select few in her cabinet were involved in the decision. Yet the attack appeared to win little support from the public. Harris, Gallup and MORI all showed substantial majorities opposed. Much of the UK mainstream press, however, responded with jingoistic jubilation. The Sun’s front page screamed: ‘Thrilled to blitz: Bombing Gadaffi was my greatest day, says US airman.’ The Mirror concluded: ‘What was the alternative? In what other way was Colonel Gadafi to be forced to understand that he had a price to pay for his terrorism?’; The Times: ‘The greatest threat to Western freedoms may be the Soviet Union but that does not make the USSR the only threat. The growth of terrorist states must be curbed while it can be curbed. The risks of extension of the conflict must be minimised. And in this case it would appear that it has been.’ The Star’s front page proclaimed: ‘Reagan was right.’ In the Sunday Telegraph, of 1 June, columnist Paul Johnson denounced the ‘distasteful whiff of pure cowardice in the air’ as ‘the wimps’ raised doubts about the US bombing of ‘terrorist bases’ in Libya. But there was an intriguing mediacentric dimension to the mission as the BBC, transformed into the ‘enemy within’ of the vulnerable state, was to come under some considerable attack from the Conservative government over its coverage of the attacks. Though most of the press responded ecstatically to Britain’s role in the bombing, all their contrived jingoism could not hide the fact that the raid failed to capture the imagination of important elements of the elite. Opposition even came from cabinet members. The BBC became the perfect scapegoat. Kate Adie’s on-the-spot reports could not fail to mention the casualties (Sebba 1994: 266-7). Many of the main targets were missed. Four 2,000lb bombs fell on the suburb of Bin Ghashir, causing far more devastation than any ‘terrorist’ bomb could ever achieve. Even so, Norman Tebbitt, chairman of the Conservative Party, engaged in a highly personalised attack on Adie. Yet there was an air of theatre about the whole event. Adie was one of the most trusted BBC correspondents. And both government and BBC could benefit from the spat. The Tory right, on the ascendancy at the time, and ever hasty to criticise the BBC it so desperately wanted privatised as the ‘enemy within’, was satisfied and the BBC, who stuck by their star reporter throughout the attacks, could appear to be courageously defending media freedom. Amidst the many contradictions and complexities of modern-day politics, mediacentric elements are put to many diverse uses by (usually competing) factions in the ruling elites. According to US academic Douglas Kellner, the bombing was a manufactured crisis, staged as a media event and co-ordinated to coincide with the beginning of the 7 pm news in the US (Kellner 1990: 138). Two hours later President Reagan went on network television to justify the raid. Chomsky also argues that the attack was ‘the first bombing in history staged for prime-time television’ (Chomsky op cit: 127). Administration press conferences soon after the raid ensured ‘total domination of the propaganda system during the crucial early hours’. Chomsky continues: ‘One might argue that the administration took a gamble in this transparent public relations operation, since journalists could have asked some difficult questions. But the White House was justly confident that nothing untoward would occur and its faith in the servility of the media proved to be entirely warranted.’ Yet the main purpose of the raid was to kill the Libyan President – dubbed a ‘mad dog’ by Reagan. David Yallop quotes ‘a member of the United States Air Force intelligence unit who took part in the pre-raid briefing’: ‘Nine of 18 F-111s that left from the UK were specifically briefed to bomb Gadafi’s residence inside the barracks where he was living with his family’ (Yallop 1994: 713). In the event, the first bomb to drop on Tripoli hit Gadafi’s home killing Hana, his adopted daughter aged 15 months – while his eight other children and wife Safiya were all hospitalised, some with serious injuries. The president escaped. David Blundy and Andrew Lycett report (1987: 22): The attack on Gadafi’s Aziziya compound was a military failure. Gadafi himself was deep underground. The administration building, where he lives, was missed by two bombs which fell thirty yards away, knocking out the windows but doing no structural damage. The tennis courts received two direct hits and a bomb fell outside the front door of the building where Gadafi’s family lives. Blasts tore through the small bedrooms to the right of the living room, injuring two of Gadafi’s sons and killing his fifteen-month old adopted daughter, Hana. Hana was publicly acknowledged only in death. During interviews only a month before Gadafi had said, sadly, that he had only one daughter, eight-year-old Aisha, and wished that he had more. He did not say that his wife had adopted a baby girl ten months before. Consider the outrage in the Western media if a relative of Reagan had been killed by a Libyan bomb. There was no such outrage over the Libyan deaths. In November, the UN General Assembly passed a motion condemning the raid. Interestingly, Israel was one of the few countries to back the US over the raid. Yet when the Israeli representative came to justify his country’s stance, he used evidence of Gadafi’s alleged commitment to terrorism taken from the German mass-selling newspaper Bild am Sonntag and the London-based Daily Telegraph (Yallop op cit: 695). Following the April 1986 attack, reports of US military action against Libya disappeared from the media. But away from the media glare, the CIA launched by far its most extensive effort yet to spark an anti-Gadafi coup. A secret army was recruited from among the many Libyans captured in border battles with Chad during the 1980s (Perry op cit: 166). And, as concern grew in MI6 over Gadafi’s alleged plans to develop chemical weapons, Britain funded various opposition groups in Libya including the London-based Libyan National Movement. Then in 1990, with the crisis in the Gulf developing, French troops helped oust Habré and install Idriss Déby as the new president in a secret operation. The French government had tired of Habré’s genocidal policies while the Bush administration decided not to frustrate France’s objectives in exchange for their co-operation in the war against Iraq. Yet even under Déby the abuses of civil rights by government forces have continued.[3] Attempts to oust Gadafi also continued. David Shayler, a former MI5 agent, even alleged that MI6 were involved in a plot in 1996 to assassinate the Libyan leader (Hunter op cit). His motorcade was attacked by dissidents with Kalashnikovs and rocket grenades but while Gadafi escaped six bystanders were killed. Shayler claimed MI6 paid the Islamic Fighting group £100,000 to carry out the attack (see Dorril op cit: 793-794; Machon op cit: 172; Jaber 2010). Following Libya’s decision after the 9/11 US terrorist attacks to build closer ties with the West and renounce all efforts to develop nuclear weapons, UN sanctions against the country were lifted in 2003. The demonisation of Col. Gadafi predictably declined and members of the political, financial and academic British elite lined up to welcome the Libyan leader back into the ‘international community’. The recent rising against the authoritarian Gadafi regime has changed all that. And the Western elites (assisted by a compliant mainstream media) are seizing the new opportunities in their increasingly desperate attempts to eliminate the Libyan leader. Notes [1] The role of the CIA in the coup is disputed. Blundy and Lycett (1987: 69) report the former Libyan Prime Minister, Abdul Hamid Bakoush, saying: ‘The Americans had contacts with Gadaffi through the embassy in Tripoli. They encouraged him to take over. There were dozens of CIA operatives in Libya at that time and they knew what was going on. The Americans were frightened of the senior officers and the intelligentsia in Libya because they thought that these people were independent and could not be run as puppets.’ But Blundy and Lycett add (ibid): ‘Bakoush’s refusal to give names that might corroborate his theory does not help his credibility.’ [2] See http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/AFR20/004/2001/fr/2343f1a0-d902-11dd-ad8c-f3d4445c118e/afr200042001en.html, accessed on 1 May 2010 [3] See http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/chad/report-2010, accessed on 1 January 2011 References Adams, James (1987) Secret armies: The full story of SAS, Delta Force and Spetsnaz, London: Hutchinson Blundy, David and Lycett, Andrew (1987) Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson Chomsky, Noam (1991) Pirates and emperors, Montreal/New York: Black Rose Books Cockburn, Alexander and Cockburn, Leslie (1992) Dangerous liaison: The inside story of US-Israeli covert relationship, London: Bodley Head Deacon, Richard (1990) The French secret service, Grafton Books: London Dorril, Stephen (2000) MI6: Fifty years of special operations, London: Fourth Estate Hunter, Jane (1991) Dismantling the war on Libya, Covert Action Information Bulletin, summer pp 47-51 Jaber, Hala (2010) Libyans thwart Fletcher inquiry, Sunday Times, 19 September Kellner, Douglas (1990) Television and the crisis of democracy, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press Lycett, Andrew (1995) I study my targets. I find out what makes them tick, Independent, 22 June Machon, Annie (2005) Spies, lies and whistleblowers, Lewes, East Sussex: The Book Guild Martin, David and Walcott, John (1988) Best laid plans: The inside story of America’s war against terrorism, New York: Harper and Row Perry, Mark (1992) Eclipse: The last days of the CIA, New York: William Morrow and Company Prades, John (1986) President’s secret wars: CIA and Pentagon covert operations from World War II through Iranscan, New York: William Morrow Rusbridger, James (1989) The intelligence game: Illusions and delusions of international espionage, London: Bodley Head Sebba, Anna (1994) Battling for news: The rise of the woman reporter, London: Hodder and Stoughton Woodward, Bob (1987) Veil: The secret wars of the CIA, London: Simon Schuster Yallop, David (1994) To the ends of the earth: The hunt for the Jackal, London: Corgi

Will Islamic banks become the rivals of Rothschild and the banks of USA and EU?

(This article does not necessarily reflect the true nature of Islamic Banking and its inroads in International Investment Banking. All declarations need verifications. Published to encourage discussion of the subject matter. GM)


http://www.profi-forex.us/news/entry4000001372.html

International Investments

Will Islamic banks become the rivals of Rothschild and the banks of USA and EU?

27 April 03:25 PM

Bank news. Recently an interesting article under an intriguing title “Rothschilds against Arab rulers” has appeared on a web-site islam.ru. Although a number of analytics have perceived it as a continuation of the threadbare theme about the world’s behind the scenes, which is interesting only to the old-timer conspiracy theorists that are likely to perceive almost in anything “the long arm” of secret societies, organizations, families, or clans. The present article has irrevocably been referred to the whole regiment of similar creations from the range of “Rothschilds rule the world”, if it had not been for one “but”. It remarks a truly interesting idea that in critical conditions the western banking system has faced a strong rival, represented by Islamic banking. In order to conquer it, the western banking system has started revolutions in Arabic world. Beyond any doubt, this quite interesting hypothesis needs comments.

What is the point of Islam banking?

As the community experts of Islamic countries of Masterforex-V Academy note, the so-called Islamic banks are still one of the most mysterious phenomena in the world’s financial system:

1. Islamic bank is one of the institutions, created on the basis of Muslim right’s concepts, where the most significant place is occupied by a ban on usury. The usurer himself falls into sin as well as the person who benefits from his services.

2. This means that Islamic banks entirely refuse from collection of interest and futures transactions (they are also under a strong ban on the Koran).

3. The major ban in Islamic banking system is the ban on time games. In other words, it is impossible to pledge future time for the present speculative business.

4. Moreover, Islamic banks adhere to the strongest ban on gambling. They cannot participate in lotteries or any other similar actions.

5. All deposits of the population are interest free.

6. Consequently, a ban on collection of interest from loans (riby) and a refusal from intended risk (garara) is the main difference of Islamic banks from western. Therefore, interest crediting and speculative business at fund and currency markets are not practiced.

Islamic bank is an investor-bank.

• As a matter of fact, the present Islamic bank deals with project investment, sharing every possible risk with its clients. It cannot insure its investments. Jointly with borrowers, Islamic banks suffer losses on the projects, in which the funds have been invested.

• It is for this reason that the bank carefully examines its future client, gets acquainted with its business-plan, allows itself to give advice. The bank is interested in the success of a started business not less than the person who addressed the bank for help.

• Consequently, Islamic bank is oriented on real production, but not speculative business.

• Credits for personal needs and credits for business development, received in Islamic banks, have considerable differences. Both of them are interest free, but in the second case the bank and the businessman sign an agreement, according to which profit as well as loss shall be shared.

• Ordinary investors can also sign an agreement with the bank, entitling it to use their funds as investments (mudaraba) or refusing to give such privilege to the bank. In case of agreement, the investor shall receive his share in profit (from a successful transaction) or, vice versa, shall suffer certain losses. However, the particular feature of such transaction is represented by a total acknowledgement of the investor about the sphere, in which his money is involved. He is certain that these funds have not been involved in activities that are banned by Shariat (the production of alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, pork processing and its trade, etc.).

• Despite all the “ingenuity” in their operation, Islamic banks do not become bankrupts and even obtain considerable profit.

How do Islamic banks earn?

This definitely is a very important question. By refusing from the western system, which is based on usury, Islamic banking initially puts itself in a losing condition in comparison to the former. There arises a question: “By which means can there exist a bank that does not collect interest?”

1. Real property resale by installments. Instead of giving a loan to the client for the purchase of housing, the bank buys it and later sells it to the client by installments, but at a higher price. It is not considered to be a collection of interest, but a certain payment for the risk.

2. Participation in the funding of projects for a certain share in profit. Consequently, Islamic banks, unlike western, are aimed not at receiving maximum profit, but at creation of additional value.

3. Islamic banks also practice such transaction as murabaha. In other words, they deal with purchase and sale. According to an agreement with a client, the bank purchases certain goods for sale. In this case the bank can deal with marketing, transportation, storage, the sale itself.

4. Granting of a special credit "sukuk". The bank receives its percentage not from a granted amount but from the profit of an indebted company.

5. Islamic banks also actively deal with security papers, but are represented more like bidders.

6. Many faithful Muslims pay zakiat – tax on wealth. This is demanded not by the state, but by Shariat. Zakiat is a solely voluntary action intended to help the poor. In such a case, the faithful most frequently bring these funds into Islamic banks.

Is Islamic banking conquering the world?

The first Islamic banks appeared in Middle East slightly earlier than 30 years ago:

• At present they are represented in 75 countries of the world (not only Islamic).

• Their mutual resources amount to more than 300 billion dollars.

• According to some assessments, the quantity of Islamic investments in the world’s economies has reached the amount of 400 billion dollars.

• The volume of transactions in the international Islamic banks system undergoes a yearly growth of 15%.

• Islamic banks confidently enter the world’s financial market, where the establish partnership with the world’s largest banks.

• Deutsche bank, Citibank, HSBC open special Islamic departments. Citibank has opened a specialized section. So-called “Islamic windows” operate in many European and American banks. However, in the last case there exists a considerable risk for a faithful Muslim that his money can be mixed with non-halal (impure) money, which is received from criminal.

• Islamic banks have almost not suffered from the world’s financial crises, having demonstrated the highest effectiveness. • Therefore, the present Islamic banking system is making considerable steps towards integration into the world’s financial system. At the same time, the largest western banks do not show hostility towards it (openly at least) and meet its needs in every possible way. The West is bond to take into consideration the billion of Muslims and their values.

Talks about the efforts of the West to “crash” Islamic banking by means of “Arabic revolutions” are no more than exaggerations. The only example with the first Tunisian Islamic bank “Zituna”, which after the revolution has been engulfed by Tunisian Central Bank that is under the control of the Rothschilds, is not very persuasive. At the same time, Americans were doing their best to save the overloaded with Islamic banks Bahrain from revolution. UAE and Saudi Arabia, where only Islamic banks exist, are predominated by peace and stability. However, in “revolutionary” Egypt and Tunisia only several financial establishments of this kind exist. At present, the same can be related to uneasy Yemen and Siria.

For a more objective assessment of the situation, the staff of the magazine "Market Leader" suggests a questionnaire in trader’s forum: in your opinion, for the western world Islamic banking system is:

• an excellent solution of a difficult situation;

• a real threat;

• just an interesting exotica.

You are free to discuss this article here:   forum for traders and investors

At Jaitapur, a long list of concerns By Makrand Gadgil & Aveek Datta -LiveMint.com | Comments by Ghulam Muhammed

The Jaiapur case has quite a few resemblance to the Sangrur incident where West Bengal's Communist government unleashed terror on Muslim villagers, to push the private firm TATA's small car NANO project. Governments have yet to revise their land acquisition policies in line with the free market property rates, that should compensate the villagers to ensure a better future for them and their generations to come, that are most precariously dependent on land and the meager rehabilitation compensation extended by India's state governments, are still living in the old age, where land acquisition was a cherished right of the state, without any reference to the immediate losses to those displaced and dispossessed. The consequences of that folly committed by West Bengal's Communist coalition government, is now poised to end in its ouster from the state, after a continuous rule lasting for 30 years, mostly at the unstinting support of the same Muslim voters, that opted for the so-called secular and non-communal Communists, for they ensure their security. With the acquisition riots, unleashed by Communist party goons, there had to be a massive backlash. All Muslim voters, comprising 25% of the population of the state, got a big shock at the brutal handling by the Brahmins of the Communist leadership. The Chief Minister Buddhadeb has publicly declared that their handling of Sangrur was a big mistake and they are sure to take a beating in the poll on that account.

Not surprisingly, the first victim of the police shooting in Jaitapur protests against the proposed nuclear power plant, was again a Muslim. There are reasons to believe, that the police resorted to shooting mainly because the protesters were Muslims, and the police can tolerate protest from any other citizen of the state, but not by Muslims.

The entire area has substantial Muslim  population, and they are not land owners. Any compensation, however meager compared to going free market rate now prevailing in the progressive Maharashtra state, will not be available to Muslim fishermen, while they are bound to lose their fishing livelihood, if the nuclear plant is based in their area. The state should have followed the Gujarat model and prepared a generous rehabilitation plan for all its citizens, irrespective of whether they had land or not, or if they were Hindus or Muslims, as long as they suffered the consequences of being uprooted from their generations old living habitat.

The unlettered people here are not as alive to environmental losses, as they are to the loss of their immediate and longer term livelihood. Maharashtra's Congress government should have made each and every inhabitant of that area a stakeholder and provided for their livelihood, at the front end, to be fair and sensitive to people's concerns and worries. Instead, the Chief Minister unthinkingly keeps haranguing in the media, about Government's firm decision to go ahead with the project, come what may. This nature of insensitivity, real as well as demonstrative, is the rote that makes people like Anna Hazare relevant to bring in a people's revolution to India.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

-------------


http://www.livemint.com/2011/04/27001746/At-Jaitapur-a-long-list-of-co.html

Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011. 12:20 AM IST

At Jaitapur, a long list of concerns

Resistance to proposed nuclear plant has only intensified after the death of a fisherman in police firing last week

Makarand Gadgil & Aveek Datta

Jaitapur (Maharashtra):Tabrez Sagvekar, a fisherman of Sakhri Nate village near Jaitapur in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra, has assumed the stature of a martyr.


On the afternoon of 18 April, 30-year-old Sagvekar was killed in police firing on people protesting the building of a nuclear power plant in the area.

Though Sagvekar fell to a bullet in the stomach, his death was collateral damage between local resistance to a proposed nuclear power plant and the government’s determination to overcome any hurdles in the process.

“My son’s death had added vigour to our resolve to fight against this project,” says Tabrez’s father, Abdul Latif Sagvekar, his voice choking and with anger in his eyes.

Chain reaction: The site of the proposed nuclear power complex Photographs by Kalpak Pathak/ Mint

 

The sense of gloom in the Sagvekar household is palpable as other family members gather around Abdul Latif. Tabrez’s wife is too traumatized to face outsiders, the family says, and does not step out.

 India proposes to build a 9,900MW nuclear power plant near Jaitapur on the west coast. The plant will be built by state-owned Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd. French multinational Areva SA has been awarded a contract to construct six reactors, each of 1,650MW capacity.

If and when fully commissioned, the Jaitapur plant will be the largest in the world, overtaking the current largest 8,200MW Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Japan.

The scenic village of Sakhri Nate, located barely 100m from the sea on the Konkan coast between the Western Ghats and the Arabian Sea, has around 10,000 residents. Most families earn around Rs. 200 a day, with the fishermen going to sea on boats owned by relatively wealthier people in the area. Abdul Latif doesn’t venture into the waters any more, and his son was the sole breadwinner of the family.

Roadblock

With Sagvekar’s death, the government has hit a roadblock in executing its plan at Jaitapur. Madhukar Gaikwad, district magistrate of Ratnagiri, admitted the firing had led to a breakdown in talks with the locals.

“Right now, our priority is to maintain law and order, but we will like to resume dialogue at the earliest,” Gaikwad said. So far, the district administration has held some 60 meetings with the people of the area, including one held by Maharashtra chief minister Prithviraj Chavan, Gaikwad said.

Samir Sagvekar, Tabrez’s uncle, states that if the nuclear power plant at Jaitapur comes up, it would lead to the creation of a so-called red zone, or a portion of the sea near the plant where fishing would be barred owing to security reasons. “We will then have to go to the open sea for fishing where the catch is substantially less than the creek,” Samir Sagvekar says.
Abdul Gadkari, another fisherman from Sakhri Nate, reasons that the hot water discharged into the sea from the cooling towers at the proposed plant would endanger marine life in the area due to a rise in temperature of the local water.

Even the more influential people of the area such as Majid Solkar, the owner of a couple of fishing boats, do not feel the need for such a project in the area. Sitting in his two-storey house that compares favourably with some of the better constructions in Mumbai, Solkar says he is not aware of the technical arguments against a nuclear power plant, but he is doing well enough without the development in the area that the proposed project promises.

Solkar catches fish worth Rs. 10,000-12,000 every day and has a new Maruti Suzuki Swift parked in the big compound of his house.

Compensation

The government has announced a compensation of Rs. 10 lakh per acre to families whose land has been acquired for the 9,900MW power plant. The fishermen, however, are unlikely to receive any compensation as they do not own any land.
Even those whose land has been acquired are not willing to collect compensation cheques from the government under protest.

Milind Desai, a doctor who practices in Mithigavane village, had to unwillingly part with 53 acres for the project. Desai says that if the government wanted to develop the region, it should promote tourism, and establish cold storage chains and units to process mangoes and cashew.

Ratnagiri is famous for its orchards of Alphonso mangoes, which is exported to various countries. The hilly roads within the district are lined with mango trees and also have extensive cashew plantations.

“Even if we were to believe that the nuclear plant would not pose any direct threat to the mango orchards, do you think developed countries would like to buy mangoes from orchards near a power plant after what has happened in Japan?” Desai asks agitatedly. “We don’t want this kind of development that would endanger the future of our generations to come.”

The need for development in Ratnagiri is imminent. According to the 2010-11 economic survey of Maharashtra, Ratnagiri is ranked 22nd in the human development index among 35 districts in the state. The neighbouring districts of Raigad and Sindhudurg rank much higher at sixth and ninth place.

The latest census data shows a fall of 4.96% in the district’s population, which is attributed to high rates of migration to cities such as Mumbai and Pune.

Local resolution

Manohar Dhuri, the village council head at Niveli village, states that the councils of the villages affected by the project had unanimously passed a resolution and informed the government that it did not want a hazardous project in the area.

“But the government has ignored our plea and this is in violation of the 73rd and 74th amendment to the Constitution that gives gram sabhas (village councils) the right to decide what kind of development they want in their villages,” Dhuri says.

Though resistance to the proposed nuclear energy project at Jaitapur has been there since 2005, when it was first announced, it has magnified due to the accident at Fukushima.

An earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit Japan on 11 March led to damage at the country’s nuclear power plant in Fukushima, which had to be shut down amid threats of radiation leaking into the atmosphere.

Opponents of nuclear power say that not only does the Fukushima incident raise doubts about the viability of a nuclear power plant, it will also make nuclear energy more expensive.
“The per-megawatt cost of nuclear energy is double of what thermal power costs in any case, and will get more expensive as the cost of insurance of such projects will rise in the light of Fukushima, further swelling up project cost,” says Suresh Prabhu, former Union power minister and a critic of nuclear power.

The price of uranium, the major fuel for nuclear power, is also getting dearer as China and India embark on a massive nuclear power capacity addition programme, Prabhu says.

Critics of the proposed project at Jaitapur have also pointed out that the region falls in a seismic zone that poses a moderate risk of an earthquake.

Questions have also been raised about the technology utilized for nuclear reactors to be used at the site as design and cost concerns have emerged in France and Finland, where similar nuclear reactors are being constructed.

There are, however, some natives who are in favour of the project and call the protests motivated.

Raja Patwardhan is a chemical industry consultant based in Mumbai who hails from the Janshi village near Jaitapur. He gave up around 14,000 sq. ft of his land for the project.

Patwardhan says most people at the forefront of the agitation in the area are affluent and whose whose livelihood does not depend on the land they are parting with.

He also claimed that some landowners were more interested in selling their land at a much higher price—than the government compensation—to private companies looking to build hotels and resorts in the area and tap the tourism potential of the Konkan coast.

An attempt to create a consensus over the merits of the project also appears to be under way at Jaitapur. On Saturday afternoon, Bhalchandra Mungekar, a member of Parliament in the Upper House, or Rajya Sabha, and a former Planning Commission member, accompanied three clerics of mosques in the neighbourhood to the proposed plant site to offer a first-hand assessment of the project.

Mungekar later told Mint he would soon submit his assessment of the ground situation to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, environment minister Jairam Ramesh and the chief minister of Maharashtra.

Extreme positions

“I feel that both the government and the protesters need to give up extreme positions on the matter,” Mungekar said. “The government has a responsibility to create an atmosphere which is conducive to dialogue, and make a serious and genuine effort to address all the concerns and apprehensions of the people.”

Only 165 out of 2,365 villagers have so far accepted compensation cheques.

The events surrounding Jaitapur have also provided a battleground for regional politics. The controversial project has given the Shiv Sena, an opposition party in the state, a chance to flex its political muscle.

The road to Jaitapur is lined with large banners put out by the Shiv Sena telling people how the project should be shunned to avoid a Fukushima-like disaster.

The police firing in which Sagvekar was killed occurred nine days after Shiv Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray held a public meeting in the area and pledged to continue the fight against the project.

Mint could not meet the local member of legislative assembly (MLA) from the Shiv Sena, Rajan Salvi, as he had been arrested a few days ago for leading the protest in the area and had not been granted bail till the weekend.

“If an advanced country like Japan, which is always on high alert for earthquakes and tsunamis, could not deal with the crisis effectively, what will we do?” asks Pramod Shere, a Shiv Sena leader based in Ratnagiri town. “This is just the beginning. The protests will intensify.”

Regional politics

Political analysts read the situation as being an attempt by the Shiv Sena to regain its hold in Ratnagiri, which loosened upon the exit of local strongman Narayan Rane from the party.

Rane joined the Congress party and is now the state’s industries minister. He has come out in support of the Jaitapur project. 

After Rane left in 2005, the number of MLAs the Shiv Sena had in the region fell to four in 2009 from 14 in 2004.

“Had Rane not expressed his support, the Sena may have just staged a token protest and left the matter there, but it has become a prestige issue now,” said Kumar Ketkar, a political commentator who tracks Maharashtra politics closely.

The Shiv Sena had supported the Union government in its move to get the India-US civil nuclear deal passed in Parliament and termed the opposition of the Left parties to the deal as being anti-national. “We cannot say goodbye to nuclear plants in the country,” environment minister Ramesh said on Saturday.

On Tuesday, Ramesh said the government would install stand-alone safety systems while building the Jaitapur plant.
On Tuesday, Ramesh said the government would install stand-alone safety systems while building the Jaitapur plant.

makarand.g@livemint.com

Post Comments