People who quote Churchill, NEED TO KNOW THESE FACTS

Winston Churchill: Britain’s “Greatest Briton” Left a Legacy of Global Conflict and Crimes Against Humanity

By Garikai Chengu

Global Research, January 23, 2016

Region: EuropeMiddle East & North Africa

Theme: Culture, Society & History

Sunday January 24th 2016 marks the anniversary of the death of one of the most lionized leaders in the Western world: Sir Winston Churchill.

The current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has called Churchill “the greatest ever Prime Minister”, and Britons have recently voted him as the greatest Briton to have ever lived.

The story that British schoolbooks tell children about Churchill is of a British Bulldog, with unprecedented moral bravery and patriotism. He, who defeated the Nazis during World War II and spread civilisation to indigenous people from all corners of the globe. Historically, nothing could be further from the truth.


To the vast majority of the world, where the sun once never set on the British empire, Winston Churchill remains a great symbol of racist Western imperialist tyranny, who stood on the wrong side of history.

The myth of Churchill is Britain’s greatest propaganda tool because it rewrites Churchill’s true history in order to whitewash Britain’s past imperialist crimes against humanity. The Churchill myth also perpetuates Britain’s ongoing neo-colonial and neo-liberal policies, that still, to the is day, hurt the very people around the world that Churchill was alleged to have helped civilise.

The same man whose image is polished and placed on British mantelpieces as a symbol of all that is Great about Britain was an unapologetic racist and white supremacist. “I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion”, he once bellowed. As Churchill put it, Palestinians were simply “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung.”

In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission:

“I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

It is unsurprising that when Barack Obama became President, he returned to Britain a bust of Churchill which he found on his desk in the Oval office. According to historian Johann Hari, Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill’s watch, for daring to resist Churchill’s empire.

Apart from being an unrepentant racist, Churchill was also a staunch proponent of the use of terrorism as a weapon of war.

During the Kurdish rebellion against the British dictatorship in 1920, Churchill remarked that he simply did not understand the “squeamishness” surrounding the use of gas by civilized Great Britain as a weapon of terror. “I am strongly in favour of using gas against uncivilised tribes, it would spread a lively terror,” he remarked.

In the same year, as Secretary of State for War, Churchill sent the infamous Black and Tans to Ireland to fight the IRA. The group became known for vicious terrorist attacks on civilians which Churchill condoned and encouraged.

While today Britons celebrate Churchill’s legacy, much of the world outside the West mourns the legacy of a man who insisted that it was the solemn duty of Great Britain to invade and loot foreign lands because in Churchill’s own words Britain’s “Aryan stock is bound to triumph”.

Churchill’s legacy in the Far East, Middle East, South Asia and Africa is certainly not one of an affable British Lionheart, intent on spreading civilization amongst the natives of the world. To people of these regions the imperialism, racism, and fascism of a man like Winston Churchill can be blamed for much of the world’s ongoing conflicts and instability.
As Churchill himself boasted, he “created Jordan with a stroke of a pen one Sunday afternoon,” thereby placing many Jordanians under the brutal thumb of a throneless Hashemite prince, Abdullah. Historian Michael R. Burch recalls how the huge zigzag in Jordan’s eastern border with Saudi Arabia has been called “Winston’s Hiccup” or “Churchill’s Sneeze” because Churchill carelessly drew the expansive boundary after a generous lunch.

Churchill also invented Iraq. After giving Jordan to Prince Abdullah, Churchill, the great believer in democracy that he was, gave Prince Abdullah’s brother Faisal an arbitrary patch of desert that became Iraq. Faisal and Abdullah were war buddies of Churchill’s friend T. E. Lawrence, the famous “Lawrence of Arabia”.

Much like the clumsy actions in Iraq of today’s great Empire, Churchill’s imperial foreign policy caused decades of instability in Iraq by arbitrarily locking together three warring ethnic groups that have been bleeding heavily ever since. In Iraq, Churchill bundled together the three Ottoman vilayets of Basra that was predominantly Shiite, Baghdad that was Sunni, and Mosul that was mainly Kurd.


Ask almost anyone outside of Iraq who is responsible for the unstable mess that Iraq is in today and they are likely to say one word, either “Bush” or “America”. However, if you asked anyone within Iraq who is mainly responsible for Iraq’s problems over the last half century and they are likely to simply say “Churchill”.

Winston Churchill convened the 1912 Conference in Cairo to determine the boundaries of the British Middle Eastern mandate and T.E. Lawrence was the most influential delegate. Churchill did not invite a single Arab to the conference, which is shocking but hardly surprising since in his memoirs Churchill said that he never consulted the Arabs about his plans for them.

The arbitrary lines drawn in Middle Eastern sand by Churchillian imperialism were never going to withstand the test of time. To this day, Churchill’s actions have denied Jordanians, Iraqis, Kurds and Palestinians anything resembling true democracy and national stability.

The intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict can also be traced directly back to Churchill’s door at number 10 Downing Street and his decision to hand over the “Promised Land” to both Arabs and Jews. Churchill gave practical effect to the Balfour declaration of 1917, which expressed Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish homeland, resulting in the biggest single error of British foreign policy in the Middle East.

Churchill’s legacy in Sub-Saharan Africa and Kenya in particular is also one of deep physical and physiological scars that endure to this day.

Of greater consequence to truth and history should be a man’s actions, not merely his words. Whilst Churchill has become one of the most extensively quoted men in the English speaking world, particularly on issues of democracy and freedom, true history speaks of a man whose actions revolved around, in Churchill’s own words, “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples”.

One such war was when Kikuyu Kenyans rebelled for their freedom only to have Churchill call them “brutish savage children” and force 150,000 of them into “Britain’s Gulag”.

Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Professor Caroline Elkins, highlights Churchill’s many crimes in Kenya in her book Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. Professor Elkins explains how Churchill’s soldiers “whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects”, all in the name of British “civilization”. It is said that President Obama’s grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama never truly recovered from the torture he endured from Churchill’s men.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved how in Bengal in 1943 Churchill engineered one of the worst famines in human history for profit.

Over three million civilians starved to death whilst Churchill refused to send food aid to India. Instead, Churchill trumpeted that “the famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” Churchill intentionally hoarded grain to sell for profit on the open market after the Second World War instead of diverting it to starving inhabitants of a nation controlled by Britain. Churchill’s actions in India unquestionably constituted a crime against humanity.

Churchill was also one of the greatest advocates of Britain’s disastrous divide-and-rule foreign policy.

Churchill’s administration deliberately created and exacerbated sectarian fissures within India’s independence movement, between Indian Hindus and Muslims that have had devastating effects on the region ever since.

Prior to India’s independence from Britain, Churchill was eager to see bloodshed erupt in India, so as to prove that Britain was the benevolent “glue holding the nation together”. For Churchill, bloodshed also had the added strategic advantage that it would also lead to the partition of India and Pakistan. Churchill’s hope was this partition would result in Pakistan remaining within Britain’s sphere of influence. This, in turn, would enable the Great Game against the Soviet empire to continue, no matter the cost to innocent Indian and Pakistanis. The partition of India with Pakistan caused the death of about 2.5 million people and displaced some 12.5 million others.

According to writer, Ishaan Tharoor, Churchill’s own Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery,  compared his boss’s understanding of India’s problems to King George III’s apathy for the Americas. In his private diaries Amery vented that “on the subject of India, Churchill is not quite sane” and that he didn’t “see much difference between Churchill’s outlook and Hitler’s.”

Churchill shared far more ideologically in common with Hitler than most British historians care to admit. For instance, Churchill was a keen supporter of eugenics, something he shared in common with Germany’s Nazi leadership, who were estimated estimated to have killed 200,000 disabled people and forcibly sterilised twice that number. Churchill drafted a highly controversial piece of legislation, which mandated that the mentally ill be forcibly sterilized. In a memo to the Prime Minister in 1910, Winston Churchill cautioned, “the multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race”. He also helped organise the International Eugenics Conference of 1912, which was the largest meeting of proponents of eugenics in history.

Churchill had a long standing belief in racial hierarchies and eugenics. In Churchill’s view, white protestant Christians were at the very top of the pyramid, above white Catholics, while Jews and Indians were only slightly higher than Africans.

Historian, Mr. Hari, rightfully points out, “the fact that we now live in a world where a free and independent India is a superpower eclipsing Britain, and a grandson of the Kikuyu ‘savages’ is the most powerful man in the world, is a repudiation of Churchill at his ugliest – and a sweet, ironic victory for Churchill at his best.”

Amid today’s Churchillian parades and celebratory speeches, British media and schoolbooks may choose to only remember Churchill’s opposition to dictatorship in Europe, but the rest of the world cannot choose to forget Churchill’s imposition of dictatorship on darker skinned people outside of Europe. Far from being the Lionheart of Britain, who stood on the ramparts of civilisation, Winston Churchill, all too often, simply stood on the wrong side of history.

Churchill is indeed the Greatest Briton to have ever lived, because for decades, the myth of Churchill has served as Britain’s greatest propaganda tool to bolster national white pride and glorify British imperial culture.

Garikai Chengu is a scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Garikai Chengu, Global Research, 2016


Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

5 of the worst atrocities carried out by the British Empire

5 of the worst atrocities carried out by the British Empire

A YouGov poll found 43 per cent of Brits thought the British Empire was a good thing, while 44 per cent were proud of Britain’s history of colonialism

A new YouGov poll has found the British public are generally proud of the British Empire and its colonial past.

YouGov found 44 per cent were proud of Britain’s history of colonialism, with 21 per cent regretting it happened and 23 per cent holding neither view.

The same poll also found 43 per cent believed the British Empire was a good thing, 19 per cent said it was bad and 25 per cent said it was “neither”.

At its height in 1922, the British empire governed a fifth of the world’s population and a quarter of the world’s total land area.

Although the proponents of Empire say it brought various economic developments to parts of the world it controlled, critics point to massacres, famines and the use of concentration camps by the British Empire.

1. Boer concentration camps

Armed Afrikaners on the veldt near Ladysmith during the second Boer War, circa 1900

During the Second Boer War (1899-1902), the British rounded up around a sixth of the Boer population – mainly women and children – and detained them in camps, which wereovercrowded and prone to outbreaks of disease, with scant food rations.

Of the 107,000 people interned in the camps, 27,927 Boers died, along with an unknown number of black Africans.

2. Amritsar massacre

A young visitor looks at a painting depicting the Amritsar Massare at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar

When peaceful protesters defied a government order and demonstrated against British colonial rule in Amritsar, India, on 13 April 1919, they were blocked inside the walled Jallianwala Gardens and fired upon by Gurkha soldiers.

The soldiers, under the orders of Brigadier Reginald Dyer, kept firing until they ran out of ammunition, killing between 379 and 1,000 protesters and injuring another 1,100 within 10 minutes.

Brigadier Dyer was later lauded a hero by the British public, who raised £26,000 for him as a thank you.

3. Partitioning of India

British lawyer and law lord Cyril Radcliffe, 1st Viscount Radcliffe (1899 – 1977) at the Colonial Office, London, July 1956

In 1947, Cyril Radcliffe was tasked with drawing the border between India and the newly created state of Pakistan over the course of a single lunch.

After Cyril Radcliffe split the subcontinent along religious lines, uprooting over 10 million people, Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India were forced to escape their homes as the situation quickly descended into violence.

Some estimates suggest up to one million people lost their lives in sectarian killings.

4. Mau Mau Uprising

Mau Mau suspects at one of the prison camps in 1953

Thousands of elderly Kenyans, who claim British colonial forcesmistreated, raped and tortured them during the Mau Mau Uprising (1951-1960), have launched a £200m damages claim against the UK Government.

Members of the Kikuyu tribe were detained in camps, since described as “Britain’s gulags” or concentration camps, where they allege they were systematically tortured and suffered serious sexual assault.

Estimates of the deaths vary widely: historian David Anderson estimates there were 20,000, whereas Caroline Elkins believes up to 100,000 could have died.

5. Famines in India

Starving children in India, 1945

Between 12 and 29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were exported to Britain as famine raged in India.

In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal.

Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”


Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Admission in Arizona state university

Dear Student,

ASU is #1 innovation university of USA and Walter Cronkite school of  journalism and Mass Communication is also a  wonderful media institute. All practical facilities for PR & Advertising, Electronic media (web, radio, TV) are available. And the most important thing is, that class size is not more than 20 or 25.

If anyone is interested to have admission in MSc or PhD please contact Cassandra Nicholson. She is outreach coordinator, i will request her to provide you all necessary information.

Her email address is


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dear Replica Students

Plz focus on these topics for your midterm exams

Concept of nation

Tow nation theory

Quaid i Azam’s speech to the constitutional assembly on 11th August, 1947

Objective resolution

Indus river treaty

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The way Saudi sheikhs were treated by Britishers

By: Jafar al-Bakli

Published Wednesday, October 29, 2014

The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British High Commissioner in Percy Cox’s Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started begging with humiliation: “Your grace are my father and you are my mother. I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand, you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my kingdom, if your grace commands me!”

This is all that Sultan Abdelaziz al-Saud could say in response to the reprimands from a British officer during their meeting at al-Aqeer conference, which began on November 21, 1922, and in which the borders between the Sultanate of Najd, the Kingdom of Iraq, and the Sheikhdom of Kuwait were drawn. The British reprimand came after Ibn Saud objected to General Cox’s decision to slice off parts of the Samwah desert and attach it to Iraqi territory, ignoring Ibn Saud’s claims to the areas.

The minutes of that meeting are contained in official documents drafted by the British political officer in Bahrain at the time Colonel Harold Richard Patrick Dickson (H.R.P. Dickson), which he dispatched to the British Foreign Office in London on October 26, 1922.

Four decades later, Dickson wrote his memoirs about the years in which he served as his government’s envoy in Arabian Gulf countries, published in London in the 1951 book Kuwait and Her Neighbours. The book retells the incident at al-Aqeer in details, as Dickson was present there in his capacity as Percy Cox’s aide and interpreter. Dickson wrote,

“On the sixth day Sir Percy … lost all patience over what he called the childish attitude of Ibn Saud in his tribal boundary idea [between Iraq and Najd]. It was astonishing to see the Sultan of Najd being reprimanded like a naughty schoolboy by H. M. High Commissioner, and being told sharply that he, Sir Perry Cox, would himself decide on the type and general line of the frontier. This ended the impasse. Ibn Saud almost broke down and pathetically remarked that Sir Percy was his father and brother, who had made him and raised him from nothing to the position he held, and that he would surrender half his kingdom, nay the whole, if Sir Percy ordered…Sir Percy took a red pencil and very carefully drew in on the map of Arabia a boundary line from the Persian Gulf to Jabal Anaizan, close to the Transjordan frontier.” [1]

Dickson continues,

“Ibn Saud asked to see Sir Perry Cox alone. Sir Percy took me with him. Ibn Saud was by himself, standing in the centre of his great reception tent. He seemed terribly upset. My friend; he moaned, ‘you have deprived me of half my kingdom. Better take it all and let me go into retirement.’ Still standing, this great strong man, magnificent in his grief, suddenly burst into sobs.” [2]

The House of Saud and Britain

The relationship between Abdelaziz al-Saud and the British colonial authorities has always been marred by a lot of ambiguity and exaggeration, where facts mixed with misinformation.The relationship between Abdelaziz al-Saud and the British colonial authorities has always been marred by a lot of ambiguity and exaggeration, where facts mixed with misinformation. The official Saudi narrative, for example, downplays or avoids the British role in the founding of the Saudi entity. For their part, the narratives of the opposition against the House of Saud exaggerated this role, suggesting at times it was an intricate plot, and at others linking it to the alleged Jewish roots of the Saudi royal family. One may consider the bookThe History of the House of Saud by Nasir Saeed as a case in point for this propagandistic approach.

However, British documents – particularly those contained in the historical part of the Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman, and Central Arabia, the official guide authored by John Gordon Lorimer in the first two decades of the 20th century at the behest of the British India government – give us access to a more objective, logical, consistent, and fair account of the British role in the making of Abdelziz al-Saud’s kingdom. The correspondence included in the Gazetteer between British diplomats in the Gulf and their superiors in New Delhi completely invalidate the narrative that holds that the House of Saud’s third return to power in the early 20th century was an elaborate British plot.

The Gazetteer – which the successive British governments classed as secret/official business only for around 70 years – includes a series of correspondence that began in 1902, between Abdelaziz al-Saud and his father Abdel-Rahman, and the British political officer in Bahrain and the British political officer in Bushire. The goal of the letters was to woo the British and offer services to them. However, all Saudi overtures were ignored by Britain’s agents in the region. For an entire decade, the political officer in Bushire (none other than Major Percy Cox at the time) did not bother to respond or task any of his aides in the Gulf protectorates to respond to Ibn Saud’s letters, in which he offered to include his emirate in Riyadh with the sheikhdoms of the Trucial States protected by the British crown, which handled their foreign affairs. Abdelaziz even offered to accept a British political officer in Riyadh, just like the ones in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Muscat, who would have the power to dictate or veto policy.[3]

It seems that the House of Saud learned many lessons from when they lived under the protection of Sheikh Mubarak al-Sabah their exile in Kuwait. One of the most notable of these lessons was that an emir could not hold on to power in the Arabian Peninsula without the legitimacy and protection granted by the British Empire. Abdelaziz saw with his own eyes how one British warship, HMS Perseus, singlehandedly repelled the invasion of Kuwait by the army of Ibn Rashid, who was on the verge of taking Kuwait after defeating Sheikh Mubarak several months earlier in the Battle of Sarif in 1901.

What Ibn Saud did not realize, however, was that British calculations in protecting Ibn Sabah did not apply to him. Indeed, Kuwait had the most important natural harbor in the Gulf, while Riyadh was of no interest whatsoever to the British, being a remote village in the heart of the desert. Moreover, by extending its protection to Sheikh Mubarak, Britain wanted him to extend his sheikhdom northwards with the support of British warships, and deprive Ottoman Iraq at the time from having access to the sea under Kuwait’s new borders. This would have rendered the Gulf, with both its Persian and Arabian shores, a closed British lake.

The British aversion to the Saudis reached such an extent that when Abdel-Rahman al-Saud, father of Abdelaziz the new emir of Riyadh, was going to visit Kuwait in early 1905, orders were given to the British agent in Kuwait, Captain Knox, to avoid meeting the “Saudi imam.” In other words, there was a time when the British considered any direct contact with a Saudi prince anathema.

[T]he system of British protectorates in the Gulf, which Abdelaziz wanted to be included in, deserves pause in order to understand the extent of submissiveness of the Arabian sheikhs vis-à-vis their British colonial master.However, the system of British protectorates in the Gulf, which Abdelaziz wanted to be included in, deserves pause in order to understand the extent of submissiveness of the Arabian sheikhs vis-à-vis their British colonial master. English-language sources preserved for our benefit many meaningful anecdotes. One such story takes place in Bahrain, on November 26, 1903, when the Viceroy of India, Lord George Nathaniel Curzon, arrived to the small Arab archipelago on board the HMS Hardinge, escorted by eight other British warships, to meet with Sheikh Isa bin Ali bin Khalifa.

Manama was the penultimate stop in Lord Curzon’s tour of the Gulf, which included Muscat, Sharjah, Bandar Abbas, and Kuwait. The ports of the small Arabian sheikhdoms were not equipped to receive Britain’s huge warships, so the visitors usually disembarked and headed to shore via small boats. The slaves belonging to the sheikhs would receive the boats with horses brought into the water, so that the European guests would not soil their shoes with the feces littering the beach. When the officers of the British navy descended from their ships, they would light cigarettes to mask the bad odors coming from the shore.

Lord Curzon and his senior officers had their own glorious reception from the sheikhs of al-Khalifa. What happened was that Sheikh Isa ordered his children to carry the white men on their own shoulders. But the Lord refused for anyone to touch him or carry him, and the sheikhs of al-Khalifa had no choice but to carry the lord over his throne made from gold and silver, which Curzon brought especially from India. [4]

Lovers’ quarrels

There are three reasons as to why Britain avoided relying on Ibn Saud in Najd initially, in the early 20th century. First of all, the Saudis had gained a bad reputation from a century earlier, as a rogue and extremist religious group that had fueled unrest, riots, and troubles as a result of their intolerance, ruthlessness, and appetite for expansion. The Wahhabi background also raised real doubts regarding Saudi ambitions that could threaten British possessions in the sheikhdoms of the Trucial Coast, if Ibn Saud prevailed in Najd.

The second reason was the need for Britain to appease Turkey at the time, which had a claim over Najd, as it wasn’t in Britain’s interest to further antagonize Istanbul by backing a Bedouin leader rebelling against it. British foreign policy calculated that the Ottomans were still in control of the Dardanelles, a key sea-lane to Russia.

Thirdly, Britain was averse to Abdelaziz because his adventurous bid to restore his ancestor’s kingdom and take it back from the hands of Ibn Rashid, the ally of the Ottomans, was more likely to fail at the time given the huge disparities between the two rivals. On September 3, 1904, the British political agent in Kuwait wrote to the British resident in Bushire saying that it was extremely unlikely for Ibn Saud to gain the upper hand without external help. He thus concluded that Ibn Saud was likely to be defeated, after which he would have no one else but Mubarak to help him as had happened in the past. The British agent then explained how Mubarak sent Riyadh weekly shipments of weapons, ammunition, and other supplies.[5]

Interestingly, however, the government of British India diverged with the Foreign Office in London in its Arabian Gulf policy sometimes. This was evident when the British Indian government turned a blind eye to Mubarak Al Sabah’s support for the new emir of Riyadh, Abdelaziz. The ambitions of the sheikh of Kuwait were no secret to New Delhi, and the fact that he had long been preparing to become the new master of Najd by manipulating the House of Saud. Mubarak thought that Abdelaziz was a puppet that he could move as he pleased.

In correspondence with the British resident in Bushire on June 24, 1904, the government in India decided that it was not in its interests to bar weapons from Ibn Saud, the rival of Ottoman-backed Ibn Rashid.[6] The indirect encouragement from the government of British India to Ibn Saud and direct encouragement of Ibn Sabah to fight Ibn Rashid, was compatible with traditional British policy of trying to create small rival tribal entities all under Britain’s control in the Arab sheikhdoms.

The contrast between the policies of London and New Delhi vis-à-vis Ibn Saud continued until just before the First World War, when the debate was settled in favor of the government of British India.The contrast between the policies of London and New Delhi vis-à-vis Ibn Saud continued until just before the First World War, when the debate was settled in favor of the government of British India, as Turkey joined the axis of London’s enemies in the war. In September 1914, Britain finally understood that the Saudi Bedouin leader, who for 12 years never stopped writing letters of flattery to the British, deserved some attention. Thus the British Foreign Office decided to send former political agent in Kuwait Captain William Henry Irvine Shakespear – the only British official who had previously met with Abdelaziz – to negotiate a treaty whereby London recognized him as the ruler of Najd, Ahsa, Qatif, and Jubail and its moorings on the Persian Gulf, and pledge to protect him and his possessions, in return for Ibn Saud pledging never to violate an order related to foreign or economic policy without Britain’s consent, and to follow British guidance without reservation. [7]

Britain’s real goal was for Ibn Saud to harass its Ottoman enemy and their allies the House of Rashid in Ha’il, and for his forces to be a proxy army through which Britain would fight the Ottomans in southern Iraq until British forces arrive from India.

The British also had another demand, which was for Wahhabi clerics to issue a fatwa prohibiting Arab soldiers from serving in the Ottoman army, and calling on them to defect. Recall that Arabs were a majority in the Ottoman army in Iraq and the Levant. And indeed, the Wahhabi mufti found a pretext for such a fatwa, saying that Turkey had forged an alliance with the German infidels in the war, which is prohibited in the Quran. The fatwa helped immensely in Britain’s propaganda.

Accordingly, Sir Percy Cox decided to knight Emir Abdelaziz bin Saud on behalf of the British king, making him “Sir Abdelaziz bin Saud,” a title used in British official documents for a few years thereafter. However, Abdelaziz himself never used the title, and wore the medal for one day so that the British may take a picture, and never wore it again after that.

The conquests of the House of Saud and the British

Britain’s bid to enlist Abdelaziz al-Saud and his faction coincided if not predated the attempts of British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon (between July 1915 and January 1916), to recruit the Hashemites led by the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali. However, the efforts with Abdelaziz faltered because of his humiliating defeat at the hands of the Shammar tribes in the Battle of Jarab on January 17, 1915, and his even bigger defeat six months later at the hands of the Ajman tribes in the Battle of Kanzan in which Abdelaziz was injured and his younger brother Saad was killed.

Abdelaziz became a lame duck, and he could not be counted upon in local matters, let alone global politics. The tribe of Ajman rebelled against him in northern Najd, and al-Murra tribe in southern Najd. All of Ahsa slipped out of his control, with the exception of Hofuf and Qatif, and his nascent sultanate began to unravel. However, Britain, fortunately for Abdelaziz, made true on the promises it had made to him when he signed the Treaty of Darin in Qatif, on January 26, 1915, and supplied him with 300 Turkish muskets and 10,000 rupees in 1915, and then an additional thousand muskets, 200,000 bullets, and 20,000 British pounds in 1916 (the amount rose to 60,000 pounds in the early 1920s.

No doubt, had it not been for that generous British support, the “King of the Sands” would not have been able to stand back on his feet and face his foes.No doubt, had it not been for that generous British support, the “King of the Sands” would not have been able to stand back on his feet and face his foes. He would not have been able to subdue the Ajman, retake Ahsa, or retake the Eastern Region of the Arabian Peninsula. The history of the Middle East in the 20th century could have been dramatically different, or written without any role for the House of Saud in it.

For thirty years after the Treaty of Darin signed between Ibn Saud and Percy Cox in 1915, that is until 1945, when the Saudi king signed a new treaty with US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on board the USS Quincy, Abdelaziz was a faithful servant of the British Empire. The incident at al-Aqeer that Harold Dickson described, when the king sobbed and begged the British master, was therefore nothing odd.


[1] H.R.P. Dickson, Kuwait and her neighbours, part 1, p.281
[2] Ibid, p.282.
[3]John Gordon Lorimer, The Gazetteer, Historical Section, Part 3, p.1721.
[4]Lorimer mentioned in the Gazetteer additional details about the visits made by Lord Curzon to the Arabian sheikhdoms in the last week of November 1903, but British writer Robert Lacey mentions more amusing details in his book The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud
[5]Khaled Mahmoud al-Saadoun, Relations Between Najd and Kuwait (1902-1922 A.D.), p. 100.
[6] John Gordon Lorimer, The Gazetteer, Historical Section, Part 6, pp.3770-3776.
[7]Alexei Vassiliev, The History of Saudi Arabia, p.238
It is worth noting that Captain Shakespear was killed in January 17, 1917 in the Battle of Jarab between the Saudis and the House of Rashid. Shakespear had eagerly offered to assist the Saudis with his experience in operating canons, but the Saudis were defeated and the Englishman was killed. The soldiers of the Shammar tribe severed his head and sent it to the Turks, who paraded it t the public, before they hung the helmet of the British officer on the gate of the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, to expose the House of Saud’s collaboration with the English infidels.

Jafar al-Bakli is an Arab writer

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.


Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

نا خدا ملا نہ وصال صنم

نا خدا ملا نہ وصال صنم

آج کےتاریخِ اسلام اور  یونیورسٹی کے طالب  علم کے لیےیہ حقیقت شاید حیرت سے کم نا ہو کہ ہزارہ دوم کے مجدد و برصغیر میں مذہب کی تجدید کے سرخُیل اول مولانا مجدد الف ثانی اور تاج محل کے چیف انجینیر ہم جماعت تھے۔برصغیر میں اسلام کی سیاسی تاریخ جس کو ۱۸۵۷  کی جنگ آزادی  کے بعد نا صرف انگریز حکمرانوں نے مسخ کیا بلکہ اس کے اجرا اور پھیلاو  کے لیے سسٹم بنا کے اس امر کی   بھرپور کوشش کی کہ  یہاں کا نوجوان اپنے سنہرے اور شاندار ماضی سے کٹ جائے۔  تاریخ سے کٹنے اور لا تعلق رہنے کا یہ سلسلہ ہے کہ ۱۹۴۷ کی آزادی کے بعد بھی تھمنے کا نام نہیں لیتا۔برصغیر پاک و ہند جو کہ سونے کی چڑیا کے نام سے مشہور تھا دراصل اسی تعلیمی نظام کی پیداوار تھا جس نے یہاں کے انسانوں کو  نا صرف امن دیا بلکہ ان کو  سماجی، سیاسی، معاشی و مذہبی حوالے سے ایک بہترین معاشرے میں تبدیل کر دیا۔


تعلیم کے ماہرین اس بارے میں کوئی دو رائے نہیں رکھتے کہ کامیاب طالب علم دراصل عکاس ہوتا ہے اُس بہترین تعلیمی و تربیتی نظام کا جس کا حصہ رہنے کی وجہ سے وہ معاشرے میں ممتاز حیثیت ومقام حاصل کرتا ہے۔اور اس حقیقت سے بھی ہر زی شعور واقف ہے کہ تعلیمی نظام ہمیشہ سے حکمرانوں کی سوچ اور نظریہ کا ترجماں ہوا  کرتاہے۔اور ہر دور کے حکمران نا صرف تعلیمی نطام کے زریعے معاشرے کو ایک خاص نظریہ  سے روشناس کراتے ہیں بلکہ اگلے دور کی معاشی، سیاسی اور سماجی ضروریات کو بھی اسی تعلیمی نظام کےزریعے پورا کرنے کا انتظام کرتے ہیں۔
برصغیر پاک و ہند اپنی ثقافتی نیرنگی کی وجہ سے تاریخ میں ایک نمایاں مقام رکھتاہے۔ مسلمان حکمرانوں نے جب یہاں نظام حکومت سنھبالا تو دنیا جانتی ہے کہ یہ خطہ کسی مرکزی حکومت کے طابع نہ تھا۔ مسلمانوں نے برصغیر پاک و ہندکو سیاسی مرکزیت سے روشناس کرایا اور ایک مضبوط سیاسی نظام کے سا تھ ساتھ  یہاں کے باشندوں کے لیے مساوات کی بنیاد پر سماجی و معاشی نظام کی داغ بیل ڈالی۔ مسلمان حکمرانوں نے شروع سے ہی تعلیم  کو معاشرے میں سدھار لانے کا زریعہ بنایا۔  تعلیم و تربیت کا یہ نظام حکومت کی سرپرستی میں تو کام کرتا ہی تھا اس کے ساتھ ساتھ اولیا اللہ کی محنت و تربیت کا نظام بھی غیر رسمی تعلیم کا ایک بہت اہم اور مستقل زریعہ تھا۔ مسلمان حکمرانوں کی یہ علم دوستی ہی تھی کہ  مقریزی کتاب الخلط میں لکھتا ہے کہ “بزمانہ محمد تغلق صرف دہلی میں ایک ہزار مدارس تھے۔ میکس مولر بھی اسی طرح کی حقیقت کا اعتراف کرتا ہے اور لکھتا ہے کہ انگریزی عمل داری سے قبل بنگال میں ۸۰ ہزار مدارس تھے یعنی ہر  چار سو لوگوں کے آبادی کے لیے ایک مدرسہ ہوتا تھا۔ یہ مسلمانوں کی علم دوستی ہی تھی کہ اورنگ زیب عالمگیر کے دور حکومت میں جب تعلیمی حالت کا جائزہ پیش کیا جاتا ہے تو الگزنڈر ہملٹن لکھتا ہے کہ صرف شہر ٹھٹھ (سندھ) میں چار سو کالج (مدارس) قائم تھے جو مختلف علوم سکھاتے تھے۔
اس نظام تعلیم کا بنیادی مقصد یہاں کے باسیوں کو بلا تفریق رنگ، نسل، مذہب تعلیم سے روشناس کرانا تھا۔ اور ریاست اس نظریے و تعلیمی نظام کی سرپرستی دل کھول کر کرتی تھی۔ یہ حقیقت کسی سے پوشیدہ نہیں ہے کہ یہاں انگریزوں کے غاصبانہ قبضہ سے پہلے تک کے حکمران طبقےخاص طور پر  تعلیمی اداروں کے لیے زمین وقف کرنا اور ایسے اداروں کی مالی مدد کرنااپنا فرض سمجھتے تھے۔ ان کے اسی جذبہ کے بارے میں حیاتِ حافظ رحمت میں لکھا ہے کہ دہلی کی مرکزی حکومت ٹوٹ جانے کے بعد بھی صرف روہیل کھنڈ کے اضلاع جو دہلی سے قریب تر تھے ان میں پانچ ہزار علما درس و تدریس کے شعبے سے وابستہ تھے اور حافظ الملک کی ریاست سے تنخواہیں حاصل کرتے تھے۔
ان مدارس کی دوسری بڑی خصوصیت جن کو آج کے وور میں سکول یا کالج کہا جا سکتاہے یہ تھی کہ ان میں دینی ودنیاوی تعلیم یکجا تھی۔ یعنی ایک ہی چھت تلے مذہبی و دنیاوی علوم و فنون کی تدریس کا انتظام کیا جاتا تھا۔  شروع میں جن دو ہونہار ہم جماعتوں کی مثال دی گئی ہے وہ اس امر کا واضح ثبوت ہے کہ وہ سنہری دور مختلف المزاج اور صلاحتیں رکھنے والے طلبا کی تعلیم و تربیت کا بھرپور انتظام کرتا تھا۔ اسی لیے ایک ہم جماعت نے مذہب کے میدان میں قدم رکھا تو مجددِ وقت ٹھہرا اور دوسرے ہم جماعت نے اگر سول انجنیرنگ کے میدان میں قدم رکھا تو تاج محل جیسا شہکار و عجوبہ تخلیق کر ڈالا۔جس کو دیکھ کردنیا آج بھی ماضی میں تخلیق و فن کی بلندیوں کا اندازہ لگانے کی کو شش کرتی ہے اور  انگشت بادندان ہے کہ کیسے ماہر فنِ تعمیر تھے  وہ لوگ جنہوں نے اس  منصوبے کو سوچا اور پایا تکمیل کو  پہنچایا۔
برصغیر کا یہ تعلیمی نظام اپنے اندر ایسے ثقافتی و سماجی اقدار کو سموے ہوے تھاجس نے بھای چارے، قومی احساس، انسان دوستی، سچ اور دیانت داری کا معاشرہ پیدا کرنے میں اہم اور کلیدی کردار ادا کیا۔ اور اس قومی معاشرے کے قیام کااصل سہرا  اس وقت کے مدارس، اساتذہ اور حکومت کے سر ہے۔دورِ غلامی کی سب سے بڑی سازش دراصل اسی تعلیمی نظام کو توڑنا اور مغربی ثقافت کی ترویج و ترقی کے لیے ایک نیا جداگانہ نظام تعلیم بنانا تھا۔ جیسا کہ لارڈ میکالے نے اپنی رپورٹ میں لکھا تھا کہ “اگر ہم اس قوم پر حکو مت کرنا چاہتے ہیں تو پھر ہمیں اس کے تعلیمی نظام کو بدلنااور یہاں کی ثقافت و روایات کو تبدیل کرنا ہو گا”۔

1857کے بعد انگریز نے اسی حکمت عملی پر عمل کرتے ہوے یہاں دینی تعلیم کے ادارے و مدارس کا انتخاب کرنے کے بعد ان کو فرقہ واریت اور قوم کو تقسیم و منتشر کرنے کے لیے استعمال کیا۔ ووسرا ظلم  یہ ہوا کہ ان  مذہبی تعلیمی اداروں کے فارغ التحصیل طلبا کے لیے کسی قسم کی کوئی ملازمت موجود نہ تھی۔ انگریز کی یہ بڑی گہر ی سازش تھی کہ اس نے اس طرح سے  مذہبی طبقہ کی ایک بڑی اکثریت کو معاشرے پر اپنے گزر بسر کے لیے انحصار کرنے پر مجبور کر دیا۔نتیجتاً عملی طور پر معاشی زندگی میں کوئی کردار نہ ہونے کی وجہ سے یہ مدارس صرف کچھ مذہبی معلومات و رسومات کی تعلیم دینے تک محدود ہو گے اور اس طرح انگریز کا منصوبہ کامیاب ہوا۔ اس کا نتیجہ یہ نکلا کہ مذہب کی کچھ رسومات و معلومات تو اگلی نسل کو منتقل ہو گئیں لیکن مدارس سے فارغ التحصیل طلبا عملی سماجی زندگی سے کٹ گے۔ اس  کا نقصان یہ ہوا کہ ان طلبا نے  معاشی و سیاسی زندگی میں عدم دلچسپی کا مظاہرہ کیا اور اسی کا برا  اثر یہ ہوا کہ ان کی اکثریت کے ہاں انسانیت عامہ  اور اس کے سیاسی  مفاد کی سوچ نا  پید ہوتی گئی۔ یہاں یہ حقیقت قابل ذکر اور قابل تعریف ہے  کہ اس سارے انگریزی سیلاب میں صر ف شاہ ولی اللہ کے فلسفے پر عمل کرنے والے حضرات و خانقاہیں ہی بچ سکیں باقی یا تو صرف چند مذہبی تصورات کو ہی سب کچھ سمجھتے رہے یا پھر دانستہ و نا دانستہ طور پر انگریز کے سیاسی و معاشی مقاصد کے لیے استعمال ہو گئے۔
انگریزی نظام تعلیم نے دوسری طرف کالجز کے نظام کے زریعے یہاں کی زبان، ثقافت، تاریخ، کلچر و روایات کو نا صرف بدلا  بلکہ یہاں کے نوجوان کے دل سے اس دھرتی کی محبت تک کو سلیبس کی تیز و چمکدار چھری سے کھرچ ڈالا۔ اس تعلیمی نظام کی برکت ہے کہ آج یہاں کا طالب علم خود تو  وطن کی زبان، ثقافت و روایات سے نفرت کرتا ہی ہے لیکن اگر اس کے سامنے کوئی دوسرا بھی اگر ان روایات کی پاسداری کرنے لگے تو یہ اس کی و پینڈو اور بیک ورڈ  کے القاب سے تواضع  کرتا ہے۔

اسی انگریزی نظام کےاثرات پر مبنی ایک واقعہ جو میرے ایک  شعبہ تدریس کے دوست کے ساتھ پیش آیا  ہےآپ کی خدمت میں پیش کرتا ہوں۔آپ سے بھی گذارش ہے کہ اس واقعے کی طرز پرآپ بھی کوئی زاتی تجربہ کریں اور ساتھ ہی  میری یہ دعا  بھی ہے کہ آپ کایہ  تجربہ میرے اس مخلص دوست سے مختلف ہو۔ میرے یہ معزز دوست لاہور کے مختلف اداروں سے وابستہ ہیں انہوں نے جو کچھ بتایا وہ حیران کن تو تھا ہی لیکن اس سے زیادہ یہ تکلیف دہ تھا۔موصوف  کہتے ہیں کہ،  پچھلے دنوں انہوں نے اپنی کلاسز میں طلبا سے پوچھا کہ” اسلامی تاریخ میں خلفاے راشدین کی تعداد و ترتیب کیا ہے؟۔جب اس سوال کے جواب میں چند طلبا نے ہاتھ اٹھایا تو وہ یہ جان کر ششدر رہ گے کہ عموماً    پچاس کی کلاس میں مشکل سے پانچ طلبا خلفائے راشدین کے  ناموں سے واقف تھے اور ان کی ترتیب  بتانے کے معاملے میں  تو یہ تناسب اور بھی کم تھا۔ دوسرا سوال میرے دوست نے یہ فرض کرتے ہوے پوچھا کہ شاید یہ طلبا دنیاوی تعلیم اور معلومات میں زیادہ دلچسپی رکھتے ہوں لیکن کیا کیجئے کہ صیح جواب دینے والوں کا  تناسب اب بھی لگ بھگ دس  فی صد ہی تھا۔ اور اس دفعہ جو سوال اٹھایا گیا وہ  تھا کہ” پنجاب کے گورنر کا نام کیا ہے؟ کہاں یہ کہ سادہ لیکن جامع تعلیمی نظام نے برصغیر جیسے خطے کو سونے کی چڑیا بنا دیا اور کہاں یہ لارڈ میکالے کا نظام کہ جس نے اس قوم کو اپنوں سے اور گردو پیش سے ہی کاٹ دیا۔
یہ اسی انگریز  ی نظام تعلیم کا نتیجہ ہے  آج نہ  مذہب باقی رہا ، نہ قومی سوچ نہ انسانیت عامہ کے مفاد کی سوچ اور نہ ہی دنیاوی ، سیاسی، معاشی اور سماجی معاملات میں دلچسپی۔ تعلیم حاصل کرنے کا مقصد نوکری ٹھہرا اور وہ بھی نایاب ٹھہری۔ اور رہی خداشناسی و خود شناسی اور علم دوستی تو وہ اس نظام تعلیم کا سرے سے مقصد ہے ہی نہیں۔ آ ج پاکستان کا ہر نوجوان اپنی ڈگری مکمل ہونے کو بعد اسی دیارِ مغرب کو کوچ کرنا چاہتاہے کہ جس کے تعلیمی و نظریاتی نظام کے تحت وہ تعلیم حاصل کرتاہے۔ سوال یہ پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ انگریز تو چلا گیا پھر ہمارا تعلیمی نظام وقت کی ضرورتوں کو مد نظر رکھتے ہوے ضروری تبدیلیوں کے ساتھ  کیوں بحال نہیں ہوا ۔ کہیں ایسا تو نہیں کہ انگریز  آج بھی اس تعلیمی نطام کے زریعے ہم پر حکومت کر رہا ہے؟ اور نتیجتاً ہم اپنی قوم سے زیادہ اغیار  کے خیر خواہ و وفادار  ہیں۔  (محمد اکرم سومرو)

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

National & International Fellows

Dear Students of National and Internatioanl Affairs course please look at this article. It is taken from rt website.

Yalta, Potsdam, Helsinki, Belgrade. How can we build a more secure world order?

Neil Clark
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66
Yalta Conference in February 1945 with (from left to right) Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.  © Wikipedia
The ongoing war in Syria. The rise of Islamic State. Terror attacks in Sinai, Paris, Lebanon, Iraq and Tunisia. The shooting down of a Russian jet by NATO member Turkey.

This was the backdrop of events to last week’s major international conference on peace, security and co-operation in Belgrade, Serbia.

Speakers from over 20 countries – myself included- addressed the key question: how can we build a more secure world order, where countries – large and small- respect national sovereignty and international law and where dialogue and diplomacy replaces war and the threat of war?

The International Public and Scientific Conference, held in the same Sava Centre building in Belgrade where the Non-Aligned movement was founded in 1961, commemorated three significant anniversaries. The 70th anniversaries of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, (between the leaders of the USSR, US and Britain), and the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords, which established the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.  The conference preceded the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting that will be held in Belgrade in December.

Valery Giscard d’Estaing is the last surviving leader of those who signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975, and so it was fitting that proceedings began with a video address from the former French President.  D’Estaing shared his recollections of Helsinki, which marked the high point of post-war détente between East and West. He reminded the audience that the countries agreed to non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states – which included ideological pressure. The former French president said that while the UN had undoubtedly served the cause of peace it had not done as much as it could have done.  He concluded by calling for a lifting of European sanctions on Russia and said that relations between Europe and Russia must be “warm and friendly”.

James Bissett, the former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, said that the message from Yalta and Helsinki was “simple and clear”“sovereignty cannot be violated without UN Security Council approval.”

He went on “Now, seventy years after Yalta it is alarmingly clear that world peace and security are under serious threat and that the principles and obligations of the UN Charter and the spirit and intentions of the Helsinki final Act are being either ignored or criminally violated.  The responsibility with this rests primarily with the United States.”

Ambassador Bissett read out a list of countries around the globe where there has been US military intervention. “The use of military force for so-called ’humanitarian’ reasons to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign states has proven disastrous; causing untold death and destruction in the countries concerned.”  Bissett warned that there was “an urgent need” for a reaffirmation of Yalta and Helsinki “because time may be running out”.

The current OSCE chairman, Ivica Dacic, the first Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia, said that the Helsinki accords were an example of collaboration replacing confrontation.

He said that unfortunately now there were “no principles, only political interests.” He gave as an example, US double standards on Kosovo and Palestine. When Palestine applied to join UNESCO, the US opposed the move, but they supported Kosovo joining. We must return to a situation where principles are applied consistently, Dacic said.

Andrey Kelin, from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that while NATO was meant to protect peace, it had in fact become the biggest threat to world peace and was a major destabilizing force in the world today.  He pointed out that NATO’s illegal bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 – which took place without UNSC approval, was not only a breach of international law, but a clear violation of the Helsinki accords.

Vladimir I. Yakunin, the founding President of the World Public Forum, gave a powerful speech listing the failings of the current neoliberal world order- where endless war and increasing inequality have become the norms.

Youth unemployment figures in Europe – sometimes as high as 60 percent – were an absolute scandal. The social state which existed at the time of Helsinki had been replaced by a“corporatocracy”. We needed to move back to the more equitable and stable model we had in the post-war world, a call which was reiterated by other speakers.

From Germany, Willy Wimmer, veteran CDU politician and former Vice-Chair of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, talked of how US strategy was to separate Europe from Russia. He said it was important that Russia’s attempts to bring peace to Syria succeeded.

Belgian author and activist Michel Collon warned that we should not fall for the “clash of civilizations” narrative being pushed by Western neocons. What we have been witnessing in the last twenty-five years, Collon said, has nothing to do with religion but is the “re-colonization of the world” by Western elites following the fall of the Soviet Union. These“gangsters” have been following the maxim – what you cannot control, you destroy. But before the destruction come the lies. Collon identified five principles of Western war propaganda. 1 – you hide the economic motives for the ’intervention’. 2 – you hide the history surrounding the target country. 3 – you demonize the enemy and, in particular, the target country’s leader. 4 – you say you are intervening to help the ‘victims’. 5 – you monopolize the debate. This pattern Collon pointed out has been used repeatedly in Western interventions since 1990.

Zivadin Jovanovic, President of the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals and Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the time of the illegal NATO bombing of the country in 1999, highlighted Western double standards in the so-called war on terror, shown by the hidden support for Islamic State by Western allies. ”We must have equal standards – we cannot have a situation of our ‘good’ terrorists.” As Mr. Jovanovic said this I thought of the terrible terrorist atrocities committed by so-called ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria and how Western leaders had failed to condemn them.

In my speech – entitled ‘Back to the Future- towards a new global consensus’ – I described the progressive achievements in Europe- and indeed in many other parts of the world, during the period from Potsdam to Helsinki, i.e. from 1945 to 1975. Economies were restructured to suit the majority. In many countries there was full employment and major extensions of public/social ownership. It was a time of narrowing inequalities: at the time of the Helsinki Accords, the gap between rich and poor in Britain was the lowest in its history. Foreign policy was, not coincidentally, more peaceful at this time: forty years ago, the only foreign ’war’ Britain was involved with was the so-called ‘Cod War’ over fishing limits with Iceland.

Sadly, most of the achievements of the ‘Les Trente Glorieuses’ have been destroyed.

The United Nations flag © Mike Segar

Starting from 1979 in Britain, a new, more aggressive neo-liberal economic order came to the fore, one which was designed to suit minority financial and corporate interests. As states in the West were gradually captured by a sociopathic neocon warmongering elite, so our foreign policies changed. In order to stop the endless warmongering we’ve seen since the fall of the Soviet Union we need to recapture our states so that once again they act in the interests of the majority as they did in the post-WWII period. That means working for fundamental economic and democratic reform. A more egalitarian, democratic world order can only be achieved if we have egalitarianism and genuine democracy at home, too.

The need for deep economic and democratic changes in warmongering Western countries was also stressed in a very thought-provoking speech by Dr. Eva-Maria Follmer-Mueller, head of the association Mut zur Ethik from Switzerland.

Cooperation and not competition was the key. Man was a social being, but in many countries there was increasing atomization and as a result fewer people were able to achieve life fulfillment. We need to increase social connectedness and focus on the personal concept of man. A shift to a more cooperative economy and society, one in which direct democracy operates, is the key to building more peaceful societies – and as a consequence a more peaceful world.

The two day conference had started with us looking at treaties, accords and international law and ended with discussions of economics, psychology, sociology and philosophy.

It was clear that if we are to get the changes in the world order that are urgently needed; the campaign must be fought on several fronts. It was exhilarating to hear so many great speeches from people from different countries and cultures, the speakers all united by their good will and their desire to build a more secure world where once again the human spirit can soar.

At the end of the event, as we bid our farewells, a speaker from the Western Europe said something which I thought was particularly profound – namely that in order to speak their minds freely nowadays, critics of Western foreign policy have to go to somewhere like Serbia – a country which is not in the EU or NATO.

Free speech in the West is threatened as never before due to the odious activities of the Russophobic neocon ‘McCarthyite Thought Police’ and their pro-war faux-left allies, but at least in the Sava Centre in Belgrade we can still speak our minds.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment