Enough
From Oslo-Stan [1] to Oslo-Man
Adel Samara
(Arab Cultural Forum-Ramallah, Occupied Palestine)
When any writer, intellectual, politician or even citizen of any country comments or interferes or even suggests something for a crisis in another country, he,
- have the right for that
- BUT he must be knowledgeable about the country in crisis;
- And he must decide if he supports or not the politics of his government country towards the country in crisis.
- and he must decide where to stand towards his country’s position and policies towards the country in problem so as to have some credibility in the eyes and minds of the people of the country in crisis, i.e. to confirm that his attitude is not a colonial one especially in an area which is fed up of various forms of colonialism including a settler colonial one, i.e. the Ashkenazi Zionist Regime ZAR – Israel.
Mr. Galtung is not an exception regarding the above mentioned simple points and or conditions.
We might have the right to expect Mr. Galtung criticism of Norway’s aggression against Libya as part of the western capitalist core countries which under the cover of Humanitarian Intervention (HI) killed nearly 160,000 innocent Arab Libyans and wounded 400,000 other innocents in addition to the destruction of the country’s infrastructure. What form if HI!
What is more important is the attitude of Norwegian society towards the NATO crimes in Libya. We did not hear of a protest by Norwegian Civil Society! Does Mr. Galtung still believe that there is a civil society in Norway! Unfortunately, this moral obligation never appeared in Galtung’s suggested solution especially since he supports the division of Syria into five little colonies to fight each based on sectarian and religious division. As long as his suggestions lacks moral obligation, it means that his ideas are not unique, i.e. many people can write them.
Accordingly, I will not go into details of Galtung’s suggestion, but I will refer to the most important points which Galtung plan lacks or deliberately ignore in the Syrian crisis:
First: The reform demands of Syrian people has been directly hijacked by the Counter-Revolution (CR), first by an armed local gangs who were prepared and armed since last year and who shoot civilians to pretend that they shot by police [2], a step which is designed to justify CR coalition’s intervention in Syria, a coalition between neo-liberal imperialism covered by neo-conservatism, renter Gulf rulers covered by Wahhabi ideology and the ZAR.
Second: Galtung ignores the mere existence of Syrian regime as if it is not there and talk about all parties in an equal manner! This is a western colonial way of thinking.
Third: his big dilemma is that he ignores the main factor of the Syrian society, the Arab factor and dealt with the crisis from a sectarian point view, i.e. he firmly and absolutely follows the British/French colonial discourse and policies of the region as if it is still their colony.
Fourth: Galtung ‘decides’ on the fragmentation of Syria in a repetition of what the French colonial general Goro (1920). Then, there is nothing new in Galtung’s plan except the fact that he admires the colonial policy which devoted is against Arab nationalism.
Fifth: Unfortunately and even sadly, Galtung, the old writer in Dependency School, failed to grasp the most important developments in the current world which is:
- The re-emergence of new poles which protect Syria from the imperialists who are dying to solve their internal chronic crisis at the cost of the periphery people’s blood. That is why; the Libyan massacre will not be repeated.
- The Syrian people and army are well aware of the sectarian fragmentation of their homeland.
- And the most important fact which is the sort of conflict in Syria, a contradictory conflict as long as it is mainly not internal but foreign intervention and even war by US, EU, ZAR, Gulf colonies, and Wahabi/Salafi gangs recruited on world scale from Russia until Somalia.
Finally, Galtung in this paper repeats his obsession towards Arab issues. For instance see my comments on his answers to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now Radio published in Kanaanonline Bulletin (see below).
Notes:
[1] Oslo-Stan is the term I gave it to the collusion of PLO leadership which surrendered 78% of Palestine to the ZAR in an exchange for an autonomy in the West Bank & Gaza. These accords were designed by US, EU and ZAR. This shameful agreement called “peace”! while in fact it is peace for capital. In this catastrophic process, Norway was a political/diplomatic watch-dog for the ZAR as a watch-dog for imperialist countries. Since Norway has no previous colonial role in the Arab Homeland, it has been chosen to implement this conspiracy and to play a role of non-governmental government. But, Norway, after its success in serving imperialism in Palestine, it seems that it tastes the Arab blood, that is why it participated in the destruction of Iraq, Libya and now Syria!
[2] This has been confirmed by the Russian former intelligence director Yevgini Primakov. As for Libya, the Russian satellite pictures confirmed that Ghaddifi’s Air force did not strike Benghazi. The question is why these testimony of Eastern Whites never being accepted by Western Whites! How come?
:::::
See Adel Samara, Challenging White Intellectual Manipulation, published on 15 November 2010, http://kanaanonline.org