Will Ghana be the Next African Regional Hub?

President John Dramani Mahama

By Frank Kie

As Nigeria fights the terrorism of Boko Haram and Cote d’Ivoire attempts to attain a lasting peace within its borders, the stability of historical West African regional hubs remains in question. In this context, Ghana is emerging as the new West African regional leader.

Ghana’s economic and political situation is looking bright and the future seems even brighter for this former British colony. Ghana is experiencing big economic growth to the tune of 14.4% driven mainly by the boom in oil, cocoa, construction, technology and agriculture. In addition to the contributions of these sectors, the high price of gold benefits the Ghanaian economy. This has motivated many of the estimated 800,000 Ghanaians abroad, alongside a growing number of business travelers, to return to or visit Ghana. This trend has helped the hotel and restaurant sector expand by 11% in recent years. According to The Guardian, Ghana is now one of 23 African countries that have reached middle-income status, a dramatic change in fortunes from the economic and political turbulence that followed independence in 1957.

The country holds the eighth spot in a ranking by Slate of Africa’s safest countries, thanks to its relatively low level of unemployment and the absence of conflict in recent years. Furthermore, the banking sector is growing and benefits from what is happening in the broader economy. The majority of Ghanaians who were living abroad but have now returned feel that they have a real capacity to see their career progress upon return. They also express an eagerness to contribute to the development of their country. Furthermore, the country ranks sixth among African countries in the Doing Business 2014 report and is one of the countries with the highest progression over the last five years. This explains why the country is attracting so many foreign investors and private equity funds such as Amethis Finance, which invested $10 million in UT Bank. ENI and Danone are also pursuing expansion on there.

Last but not least, with the construction of Hope City, which began in June 2013, Ghana moves towards its development objectives. This ICT park project, which plans to foster technological growth and attract major players in the global ICT industry, aims high. This $10 billion tech city will create jobs for 50,000 people and will be home to Africa’s tallest building. The project has the support of multinational technology companies such as Microsoft, as well as that of the Ghanaian government, which has big aspirations. Ghana aims to turn technology into one of the country’s main economic drivers. With the city’s smart and futuristic sustainable facilities which will include an assembly plant for various tech products, business offices, an IT university and a hospital it will be the ideal place where ICT players from all over the world can converge to design, make and export software and other products.

It is true, though, that the country is still overly reliant on its raw materials for growth. As such, diversification of the economy appears to be essential. But, with its diaspora coming back to work in the country, things are looking up. Investment in infrastructure goes along with a positive GDP outlook and increasing foreign direct investment to create the conditions for continued improvement. Another positive factor is the peaceful political climate, which is quite rare in the region and is appreciated by foreign investors. If Nigeria and Cote d’Ivoire do not succeed in resolving their security problems and, at the same time, Ghana keeps following this track, what will prevent this country from being the next West African leader?

Editorial

THE PRESIDENT WAS RIGHT

Can anybody imagine what would have happened had the President come to the conclusion that the former Deputy Minister of Communication should stay at post?

Would the same people who are bashing the President for sacking Victoria Hammah not have said that he was weak and condoning corruption?

In any case how could Victoria Hammah herself have stayed on after all the things the people of Ghana know she said.

The Insight firmly believes that the President was right in sacking the Deputy Minister for many reasons including the fact that she was reckless in the extreme.

How can anybody who talks about how ugly her colleague minister is and why some female government officials may end up in bed with their seniors continue to be a Minister?

The Insight Salutes the President for doing what is right and urge him to sack all ministers and appointees who will fall short of acceptable standards.

Map of Africa

The U.S. Army Discovers Africa
By Andrew J. Bacevich

On the list of U.S. military priorities, Africa has always ranked right smack at the bottom. Now that appears to be changing. As Eric Schmitt recently reported in the New York Times, "thousands of soldiers once bound for Iraq or Afghanistan are now gearing up for missions in Africa." Before the gearing up proceeds much further, Americans might want to ask a few questions. Chief among them are these: Why the sudden shift in priorities? What's the aim? Who stands to benefit? What risks does the militarization of U.S. policy in Africa entail?

Among the various services, the U.S. Army in particular finds the prospect of an expanded Africa presence appealing. As Schmitt observed, with U.S. forces out of Iraq and soon scheduled to leave Afghanistan, "the Army is looking for new missions around the world." For Army leaders, Africa spells opportunity, a chance to demonstrate continuing relevance at a time when the nation's appetite for sending U.S. troops to invade and occupy countries has pretty much evaporated.

Thus, we have U.S. Army Africa, or USARAF, the latest in the Pentagon's ever-growing roster of military headquarters. The mission of this command, which describes itself as "America's premier Army team dedicated to positive change in Africa," manages to be at once reassuringly bland and ominously ambitious. On the one hand, USARAF "strengthens the land force capabilities of African states and regional organizations." On the other, it "conducts decisive action in order to establish a secure environment and protect the national security interests of the United States."

One might hope that successfully accomplishing the first half of that mission U.S. troops training and equipping African counterparts will preclude the second. More likely, however, such efforts will pave the way for "decisive action," a euphemism for war.

Let's discard the euphemisms. Here is a classic example of bureaucratic interests displacing strategic calculation, not to mention common sense, as a basis for policy. For the Navy and Air Force, the Obama administration's much-ballyhooed "pivot" toward East Asia has come as something of a godsend. Addressing the putative threat posed by a rising China promises to keep those services busy (and flush with cash) for decades to come. Yet apart from a possible resumption of the long-dormant Korean War, Asian scenarios involving a large-scale commitment of Army forces are difficult to conjure up. So expanding the "global war on terrorism" into the heart of Africa allows the Army to make its own pivot.

Initially, only small contingents of American soldiers will be venturing into Africa, consistent with the Army's recently discovered affinity for what it calls a "light footprint." Although these will be combat troops, their purpose will be not to fight but to coach, helping to create competent and politically reliable local forces. U.S. efforts to upgrade African military capabilities will no doubt create opportunities to market American-manufactured arms, a secondary benefit not lost on U.S. defense contractors.

There are at least a couple of problems here. The first is that when it comes to building foreign forces, the U.S. military's track record is mixed at best.

Take Iraq as an example. After foolishly dismantling Iraq's army in 2003, the Pentagon toiled for years to rebuild it. That effort eventually allowed U.S. forces to quit the country. Yet as indicated by the daily insurgent attacks wreaking havoc in Baghdad and other cities, "our" Iraqi army is manifestly unable to maintain even minimally adequate internal security. If that's success, it's hard to imagine what failure looks like.

Imagine hard enough, however, and you get Egypt. For decades, the United States worked to inculcate in Egypt's army respect for the principle of civilian control. Yet this year when Egyptian senior officers contemplated a democratically elected government behaving in ways not to their liking, they promptly mounted a coup and overthrew it. Egyptian soldiers then brutally suppressed citizens who had the temerity to object. Meanwhile, Pentagon influence on Egyptian generals turned out to be nil.

Perhaps worse from a U.S. perspective, modest troop commitments have a way of morphing into larger ones. When things don't go right, Washington's reflexive inclination is to up the ante. To sustain a few casualties is to create the impression of big stakes, with U.S. credibility ostensibly on the line and hawks insisting that turning things around will require "boots on the ground."

Lest that sound like some hoary reference to the escalatory actions that produced the Vietnam War, consider the words of then-Maj. Gen. Burke Garrett, who was USARAF's commander until 2010. Taken alone, he remarked, USARAF might be small, but "we represent a million-person army active, Guard and reserve  that we can bring to bear in Africa."

Africa has many needs. Whether it needs the United States bringing to bear a million American soldiers is doubtful. If Washington wants to encourage "positive change" in Africa, training a million African schoolteachers or a million doctors might be more useful.

Efforts to build foreign armies are implicitly based on the assumption that "backward" peoples want and will surely benefit from American tutoring. That paternalistic assumption, amounting to little more than a politically correct updating of the white man's burden, deserves critical examination. Indeed, it should be abandoned as both false and pernicious bad for Africans and bad for us. In the meantime, an army looking for new missions just might look closer to home.

General Vo Nguyen Giap: Death of a Vietnamese Hero

General Vo Nguyen Giap

By Samuel Noumoff

Vietnam’s General Vo Nguyen Giap was popularly known as the “Red Napolean”. A pioneer of modern guerrilla warfare, his role in the Vietnamese armed forces’ stellar victories over the colonial militaries of Japan, France and the United States inspired millions in the global South in their own anti-colonial struggles. A tribute.

In the early days of October news came from Vietnam of the death of General Vo Nguyen Giap, at the age of 102. Second in reverence only to Ho Chi Minh, General Giap came to symbolise the success of what has come to be more recently defined as asymmetrical warfare. At the outset of the modern Vietnam independence struggle, the Viet Minh numbered in the hundreds and increased from small-scale guerrilla units to more conventional large-scale battle formations, defeating in turn the French colonial occupation forces and the mighty United States (US) and its neocolonial puppets.

Socialist Rebel

Giap, like many other revolutionary leaders, came from a comfortable landowning family. His father, functioning as a low-level bureaucrat under French colonial administration, was imprisoned in 1919 for nationalist agitation, where he died as did his sister. He attended the same Lycée as Ho Chi Minh, and Ngo Dinh Diem, the latter going on to become president of South Vietnam until he lost US support and was assassinated in 1963. Giap was expelled from the Lycée for nationalist agitation, followed by his arrest in 1930, spending a bit more than a year in prison. He took a BA in Law at the University of Hanoi, but failed the certificate exam due to his time-consuming political activity. His inability to practise law led him to a position as a history teacher, where he became familiar with Napoleon and T E Lawrence. He later came to be known by his adversaries as the “Red Napoleon”.

Prior to leaving for China in 1940 he founded a socialist youth newspaper. He returned to the Viet Bac, the northern six provinces of Vietnam inhabited mostly by minority people, in 1942. When I visited that area in 1973 the commanding generals all expressed pride in it being a secure area whenever the Viet Minh needed an impenetrable refuge. (On the lighter side one of them leaned over at dinner and asked if I wanted the address in Hanoi of Ho Chi Minh’s girlfriend, who was still alive. He was kicked under the table by one of his comrades.) While Giap no doubt gained from his experience in observing the development of the Chinese revolution on the ground, the adversarial challenges he was to face, on any scale, were, no doubt, significantly greater than that faced by Mao. This is no diminution of the latter.

On Christmas day of 1944 Giap was charged with the first military assault on a Vichy French outpost, which he captured. Four months later the Viet Minh force numbered 5,000. Two hundred of them were selected for training and arming by the US special forces in the attempt to drive out the Japanese forces who controlled the country with the cooperation of Vichy France. In August 1945 Giap led his forces into Hanoi, tactically retreating back to the Viet Bac the following year when French forces reoccupied the country. It took another eight years of guerrilla level fighting before the decisive battle of Dien Bien Phu took place. The French fortified the outpost hoping to sever Viet Minh supply lines, believing in their technological superiority.

Nemesis of Empire

Giap developed what I would call the noose strategy, of digging tunnels around the French forces and surrounding them with units fortified by Soviet tanks and artillery. Ironically, the first artillery salvo fired by Giap’s forces was a 105 mm gun which had been captured by North Korean forces during the Korean war, sent by rail across China and installed in the perimeter of Dien Bien Phu. This gun had been kept covered in satin in 1971 in the basement of the war museum in Hanoi. French forces surrendered, and after the US refused to provide critical support, the French announced their withdrawal. Richard Nixon, who was then vice president of the US urged the use of tactical nuclear weapons in support of the French, a proposal which President Eisenhower rejected.

The US incrementally came to replace the French in Vietnam through their domino principle – if Vietnam “falls” to the communists it would be followed by similar liberation wars in South-East Asia and ultimately threaten Australia and New Zealand. In 1968 Vietnam’s Communist Party concluded that a major military offensive would spark a nationwide rebellion. The date was set for the Tet holiday period. There has been some suggestion that Giap was less than enthusiastic, as he left for medical treatment in Hungary, returning to Vietnam after the offensive began. As minister of defence, Giap nonetheless coordinated the attack with horrendous casualties on both sides.

Tet did for the US what Dien Bien Phu did for the French; it precipitated the decision to withdraw. Giap had achieved the political goal. While the anticipated nationwide rebellion failed to materialise, the morale in the south Vietnamese military began to crumble. Five years later, in 1973, I visited the Thac An river which was the front dividing the southern and northern armies, and one officer commented that the commander of the southern forces had informally communicated to the National Liberation Front command that if he received an order to open fire across the river he would fire to miss, as none of his men wanted to be the last soldiers to die in the war. The South Vietnamese government survived for another seven years after Tet before Giap’s tanks broke into the presidential palace in Saigon, capturing the then president, “Big” Minh. Vietnam was again reunited as one country. During this period the Soviet Union provided material military support and the Chinese sent in 3,20,000 troops.

Revered and Respected

In 1980, Giap retired as minister of defence, followed two years later by resigning from the politburo of the communist party. He stayed on as deputy prime minister and central committee member until 1991. Many western commentators have suggested that he was marginalised in the post-1975 period, but have failed to consider that age and health may have been the basis of his withdrawal.

At the age of 99 Giap expressed support for an expert committee report which expressed severe reservation on a major bauxite extraction proposal as damaging to the ecology in the central highlands of Vietnam as well as concern over national security, asking who would invest the $1 billion required for infrastructure modification. A few years earlier I was asked to explore with the Aluminium Company of Canada (ALCAN) if they would be willing to pick up the tab, but was informed that Australia was on top of their list followed by India and, maybe half a century later, Vietnam.

Vo Nguyen Giap was a complex man in complex times, but as we can see from the thousands who rushed to his home on the announcement of his death, he remained a leader to be cherished and revered. Having visited with his father-in-law on two visits to Hanoi, I can testify to how he was respected by both the general population as well as within his family.

Sam Noumoff (sam.noumoff@mcgill.ca) served in the 1970s as director, Centre for East Asian Studies and in the 1980s as director of the Centre for Developing Area Studies before retiring from McGill University, Canada.

Fifty Organizations Seek Ban on Armed Drones

A United States Drone

By David Swanson

Fifty organizations and over 75,000 individuals are asking . . .

·         the United Nations Secretary General to investigate the concerns of Navi Pillay, the U.N.’s top human rights official, that drone attacks violate international law — and to ultimately pursue sanctions against nations using, possessing, or manufacturing weaponized drones;

·         the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to investigate grounds for the criminal prosecution of those responsible for drone attacks;

·         the U.S. Secretary of State, and the ambassadors to the United States from the nations of the world, to support a treaty forbidding the possession or use of weaponized drones;

·         President Barack Obama, to abandon the use of weaponized drones, and to abandon his “kill list” program regardless of the technology employed;

·         the Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, to ban the use or sale of weaponized drones.

·         the governments of each of our nations around the world, to ban the use or sale of weaponized drones.

·         At http://BanWeaponizedDrones.org over 75,000 people have signed a petition, many adding their own statements.

At the United Nations this month, Brazil, China, Venezuela and other nations denounced U.S. drone wars as illegal.

In the countries where the drones strike, popular and elite opinion condemns the entire program as criminal. This is the view of Pakistan’s courts, Yemen’s National Dialogue, Yemen’s Human Rights Ministry and large numbers of well-known figures in Yemen.

Popular movements in both Pakistan and Yemen continue to protest against the killing.

The Geneva-based human rights group Alkarama agrees: “Whether they hit civilians and/or alleged al-Qaeda combatants and associates, the U.S. targeted killings policy in Yemen constitutes a blatant violation of international human rights law.”

Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights agrees: “Any of these attacks are completely illegal. It’s not about who they’re targeting, or whether it’s a civilian or whether it’s a so-called combatant. … These drone attacks are absolutely 100% illegal.”

Sarah Ludford, Member of the European Parliament, agrees: “U.S. drone killings operate in disregard of the long-established international legal framework about when it is lawful to kill people.”

Joy First of Mt. Horeb, Wisconsin, recently told the judge who was trying her for the crime of protesting drone kills at CIA headquarters: “According to the Nuremberg Principles, if we remain silent while our government is engaged in illegal activities, then we are complicit, we are equally guilty of being in violation of international law and of going against our most dearly held values. It is our responsibility as citizens, as taxpayers, as voters to speak out.”

Joy quoted Robert Jackson, the U.S. chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, who said: “The very essence of the Nuremberg Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state.” And she added: “Your honor, the bottom line is that thousands of innocent people are dying and it is up to all of us to do everything we can to stop the pain and suffering and death being inflicted on these people by our government.”

These organizations back the campaign to ban weaponized drones:

Alaskans For Peace and Justice
Antiwar.com
Arlington Green Party 
Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests
BFUU
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Brave New Foundation
Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases
Christians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East
Code Pink
Drone Free Zone
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
Granny Peace Brigade-NY
Hoosiers for Peace and Justice
Indiana Anti-Drone Project
Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace
Jeannette Rankin Peace Center
KnowDrones.com
LA Laborfest
Montrose Peace Vigil
National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance
Nevada Desert Experience
The Northampton Committee to Stop War
On Earth Peace
Peace of Mind Project
People United for Peace of Santa Cruz County (PUP)
RootsAction.org
Santa Cruz Against Drones (SCAD)
Simple Gifts Inc.
Sitkans for Peace and Justice 
United for Peace and Justice
Veracity Now
Veterans For Peace
Veterans For Peace Chapter 10
Veterans For Peace Chapter 27
Veterans For Peace Chapter 91
Veterans For Peace Chapter 154
Veterans For Peace, Phil Berrigan Memorial Chapter, Baltimore, MD 
Voices for Creative Nonviolence
WarIsACrime.org
War Resisters League
Wasatch Coalition for Peace and Justice 
West Suburban Faith-based Peace Coalition
Women Against Military Madness (WAMM)
Women Standing
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, U.S. Section
World Can’t Wait
Yorkshire Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

The Left's Abandoned Allies in Egypt
By Andrew Doran

In 1932, British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, an eager young Communist, traveled to the Soviet Union to, see the Ideal, even if I am unworthy of it. It was an ideal shared by many intellectuals in the West and was daily reinforced by reports from Russia by Western journalists. What Muggeridge observed in Russia shattered that ideal: Stalin’s troops and secret police terrorizing and starving Soviet citizens; in one instance, peasants with their hands tied behind them being loaded into cattle trucks at gun point and so silent and mysterious and horrible in the half-light, like some macabre ballet.When he submitted articles about what was truly occurring, these were either edited or altogether suppressed.

Muggeridge was outraged by the intellectual cowardice and duplicity of his fellow journalists in particular Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty of the New York Times; Muggeridge wrote that Duranty admired Stalin and the regime precisely because they were so strong and ruthless. Sensing that many of his comrades preferred might over right, Muggeridge began to shift away not only from Communism but liberalism as well though for the remainder of his life he would call himself a man of the left. Of his time in Russia, he would later write, In the beginning was the Lie and the Lie was made news and dwelt among us, graceless and false.

In February 1968, Muggeridge appeared on William F. Buckley’s weekly television program, Firing Line. When Buckley asked him to explain his residual leftism, Muggeridge explained, I am instinctively against authority and on the side, or wish to be, on the weaker side what is good in the left position is precisely that the good side is an instinctive, almost chivalrous feeling that you should be on the side of the weak. Muggeridge would be an advocate for the weak for the remainder of his life, never forgetting the betrayal by the West of those who suffered in the Soviet Union.

There is in Egypt today a sense of betrayal by Western governments and journalists among Egypt’s moderates, liberals, and secularists. On a May trip to Egypt, just before June 30’s popular protests swept the nation and the Muslim Brotherhood from power, I had occasion to meet with one such thoughtful moderate, a natural ally of Western values.

Gehan, a professor of English literature at a women’s university, invited a small group of us into her home in Cairo. Muslim, secular and liberal in worldview (in the Middle Eastern rather than the contemporary Western sense), Gehan had looked on in horror as Mubarak fell, then as Egypt descended into chaos, and then again as Muhammad Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power. Mubarak should have left earlier, she concedes. As the light flickers and dies with yet another power outage, Gehan sighs. This never happened before 2011.

After 2011’s revolution, in which many of her students took part, Gehan began teaching William Golding’s Lord of the Flies and George Orwell’s Animal Farm in an attempt to convey the dangers of revolution, especially of the impulsive, trendy variety. Gehan believes that this year’s June 30 Revolution was, by contrast, a true revolution not a coup as the West believes. As clashes between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood in recent weeks have given way to systematic violence against Egypt’s Christians, Gehan and I resume the conversation from her living room, this time via email. I just don't know what to say, she writes. It is heartbreaking to witness all this violence and killing and blood. Egyptians against Egyptians ... this never happened before in our history. She adds, I cannot believe this is Egypt. Where did all those weapons that ordinary people have come from?

In the Egypt of Gehan’s youth, few women would be seen wearing the hijab. Today, however, most of her students don the headdress, a Wahhabi-Salafi influence prevalent in the Gulf region. One of her students refused to shake hands with a male professor to whom she was introduced. Another, after accompanying her to the ballet, said, It is a sin to dance, let alone if it’s ballet! Gehan replied, To me, dancing made me feel so awed at the beauty God had put in the human body. The student was, Gehan emphasizes, a lovely, kind, smart girl. The male adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood closed-minded, militant, bigoted must get permission to read nonreligious books, and will typically be told to read the Quran instead. When it gets to the point that they ask their leaders if they should get into the bathroom with their left or right foot, then there is something very wrong here, Gehan insists. God never wanted us to be so. True Islam is so free and it is supposed to set you free, not depend on somebody ignorant who is a control freak to ruin your life in the name of religion.

Watching the recent outbreaks of extremist violence in their country, Egyptian moderates are disdainful of the U.S. government and Western media’s conciliatory stance with respect to the Muslim Brotherhood. International silence worse still, support is encouraging the terrorists to continue in their violence. It is violence in the name of religion. Why is this difficult to see? Gehan argues a point believed by many Egyptians, though not conveyed by Western media: Egypt’s soldiers acted with restraint, while the Muslim Brothers were the armed aggressors in the street violence. She says that the government even asked human-rights groups to observe. I really wish you were here to see it all with your eyes. She adds, It is sad that Obama chose the wrong side to support. Of course, he was not alone.

Still, Gehan remains optimistic. I just want to say that as much as it is painful to see all this happen to us, as much as it looks dark, I am hopeful that our future will be better. One can only hope that she is correct. It is difficult to imagine many female professors of English literature at state-funded universities if the future of Egypt were handed over to extremists.

Western governments and media have generally characterized recent upheavals in Egypt in terms most favorable to the Islamist fundamentalists, at the expense of Egypt’s secular institutions. Perhaps, like Muggeridge’s liberal colleagues, they believe that a lie in the service of political objectives is preferable to a truth that undermines them. Why liberals in the West would choose to align themselves with militant theocrats in the first place is deeply troubling, and merits further inquiry. That Egyptians themselves did not hesitate to jettison an increasingly oppressive regime and restore secular government in spite of Western criticism,is a sign that hope is not lost in the Arab world’s most populous country.

John Kerry’s new Iran blame game

US Secretary of State John Kerry

By Kaveh Afrasiabi

Not only that, again in sharp contrast to his upbeat post-meeting press conference where he praised both sides’ “civil” and mutually “respectful” behavior, Kerry has veered in the wrong direction by parroting the French foreign minister’s nonsensical statement about “fool’s game” by stating that “we are not blind.”

Clearly, this reflects the mounting internal and external pressure, some orchestrated by Israeli prime minister, who is now openly lobbying the US Congress against the Obama administration’s diplomatic effort toward Iran. Aspects of the US media, including the right-wing Wall Street Journal and the Fox Network, have dutifully obliged Mr. Netanyahu, in light of a WSJ editorial titled “Viva la France” which praises the French effort to scuttle a “very bad nuclear deal” supposedly endorsed by the Obama administration and other world powers at the table.

Of course, Kerry’s real intention is to maintain the “unity of purpose” with the Western partners, irrespective of the fact that serious divisions among them was manifested at the Geneva talks, to the point that according to the Guardian newspaper, some Western diplomats were “furious” at the French for sabotaging a deal. The problem with the US is that it is below their superpower status to admit that a secondary, and declining, power was allowed to have a disproportionate role in shaping the outcome of these crucial talks and thus undermined US’s suzerainty of the Iran nuclear file.

But, while Kerry is now beginning to contradict himself and showing unsettling signs of appeasing the view points of hawkish opponents of a deal (that includes certain governments in the region), interestingly the French are feeling the heat of a powerful public opinion backlash and trying to cover their tracks, in light of a statement by the French Foreign Ministry expressing hope in the negotiation process. Still, damage to the French credibility is irrefutable and serious questions have been raised in the international community about the hidden (i.e. commercial and financial) motives of France’s spoiler role, which is nominally solely concerned about the purely “proliferation concerns” and, yet, reveals the infection of other concerns and considerations.

Lest we forget, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius’s negative input in Geneva, seeking to distinguish himself from the pack, coincided with the news that French credit rating had been degraded from “AAA” to “AA.,” reflecting a stagnant French economy that is desperate for foreign assistance. Currying favor for Israel and some rich Middle East powers that are weary of a nuclear deal with Iran, Mr. Fabius may have set his eyes on the economic and financial reward of this ‘jeu de proxy.’

In retrospect, none of the objections raised by Fabius to a draft agreement make any sense however, above all with respect to Iran’s heavy water reactor under construction in Arak. Iran has now signed a new agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which allows regular IAEA inspections of this facility, due to go operational in mid-2014. Like dozens of other nations possessing such a facility, Iran’s intention is purely peaceful, Iran has no plutonium separation facility that could be used for weaponization purposes, and the IAEA inspections provide ample and sufficient “objective guarantee” of the Arak facility’s benign purposes.

The real key issue is, and for a long time has been, Iran’s NPT-based right to possess a nuclear fuel cycle. In spite of some US rhetoric in favor of acknowledging Iran’s nuclear rights, the actual US policy is still mired in ambiguity and subject to wild swings that reflect an unhealthy politicization of the issue. Yet, for the talks to culminate in a reasonable breakthrough, the chips must fall down one way or another and the US and its Western allies must show real transparency on where they stand on this key issue?

Without doubt, the unfortunate lack of US’s clarity on this matter has contributed to the nuclear stalemate, causing incoherence at the negotiation table. Also, it has given an opening to the ardent opponents of a negotiated settlement of this dispute to press the US diplomats with their unreasonable and unlawful “maximalist” demands, reflected in the November 11 editorial in the Wall Street Journal that calls for the dismantling of the Arak and Natanz facilities, the destruction of all centrifuges, Iran’s acceptance of very intrusive inspections of both nuclear and non-nuclear facilities, and the like. Clearly, this is a recipe for failure and reflection of a defunct Western-centric bullying mind-set that is immune to sensitivity to other nations’ sovereign rights.

Consequently, unless the Obama administration can sustain its political will and stand up to the ferocious opposition to its new Iran initiative, chances are we are witnessing the erosion of this will and its substitution by the anti-Iran vested interests that dictate a perpetual hostile US approach toward Iran, one that would continue capitalizing on the nuclear standoff for hegemonic purposes. In this scenario, blaming Iran plays a vital role and serves to deflect attention from the flawed Western negotiation strategy that consistently falls short of the principles of justice and proportionality.

The question, then, is what lies ahead? The answer is more impasse and failed negotiations if the present Western pattern of disrespect for Iran’s legitimate and legal rights continues. The other result would be, as Kerry himself admitted in his press conference above-mentioned, that as long as there is no deal, Iran continues all its nuclear activities, including the 20 percent enrichment; the latter is according to the US experts, tantamount to undertaking 90 percent of the effort to “weapons-grade enrichment.” Of course, Iran has absolutely no intention of marching down this path, but for the Western governments that profess a genuine concern about this latent potential, it is indeed ironic that they torpedo the decent chances for a breakthrough agreement that would provide additional valuable guarantees regarding such important issues of concern to them!

Feminist Corruption, and its Contribution to Sexism and Reverse-Sexism

By Peter Baofu, Ph.D.

The recent two controversial cases about the decision of the European Commission to propose the 40% quota for women on company boards by 2020 and about the call by some female tennis players to ask men to lower their level of play from 5 sets to 3 (for gender equality) reveals how far the contemporary campaign for gender equality has gone to the extreme and contributed not only to the perpetuation of "old" sexism against women but also to the creation of "new" sexism against men (or what I called "reverse sexism" in my previous publications), with both oppressive and suppressive impacts on society in the longer term.

Let me consider first the case study about the 40% quota for women on company boards in the EU and then the second case study about the lowering of male tennis for gender equality, in what follows.

(a) First Case Study: At Least 40% Quota for Women on Company Boards in the EU

In November of 2012, the European Commission under justice commissioner Viviane Reding, herself a feminist, approved a plan for "at least 40% of women on company boards by 2020," and Reding's plan also includes aggressive measures like "mentoring and peer-learning programmes" to train women to be leaders and "attracting them...to the workplace" for leadership, but this plan did not offer the same support for men, in a discriminatory way, as reported by Raymond Doherty on November 14, 2012. This is a follow-up to the 50% quota for women in the United Nations (as proposed in 2001).

But major EU members like the UK and Germany have opposed the plan; for example, "Germany opposes the mandatory, EU-wide requirements in favor of having individual nations devise their own strategies to boost the number of women in leadership positions. Family Minister Kristina Schröder and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle have warned against 'overregulation,'" as reported in the March 06, 2013 issue of Spiegel.

In any event, this plan reflects how far the contemporary campaign for gender equality has gone to the extreme and contributed not only to the perpetuation of "old" sexism against women but also to the creation of "new" sexism against men (or what I called "reverse sexism"), for 2 major reasons.

The first reason is that there is no scientific evidence presented by the feminists like Viviane Reding and her supporters that men and women are biologically equal (as implied in the plan). On the contrary, there have been different scientific studies over the decades on the biological differences between men and women, which do affect different talents and abilities between women and men. In my book titled "Beyond Nature and Nurture" or BNN (2006), I already documented different research findings about them (e.g., differences in physical strength, in chromosomes, in intellectual abilities, in mutation rate, etc.).

For instance, "boys  have two  'XY'   chromosomes  (an  'X'   chromosome   from  their mother), whereas girls have an 'X' chromosome from each of their parents, with many different genes in each which make men biologically different from women" (BNN 80). Also, Stephen Edelson (1999) found that "autism is three times more likely to affect males than females....About 10% of autistic individuals have savant skills" which are spatial and mathematical in nature" -- just as British psychopathologist Simon Baron-Cohen "has spent nearly two decades studying the topic" and argued in "The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain" (2003) that "the average female brain is better at empathizing with others, while the average male brain is better at systemizing and predicting outcomes." And Paul Irwing and  Richard  Lynn "confirmed  in  their  research  (published  in The British Journal of Psychology) that men tend to have higher IQ (intellectual intelligence), on average of course, than women, albeit not in EQ (emotional intelligence)" (BNN 80).

It is no wonder that historically, men have been able to outperform (or outcompete) women, on average, in leadership around the world at different historical times. In a recent TV program on NHK (in November of 2013), there was a debate on this every issue, and an European researcher presented some research findings that when some European companies tried to implement the "quota" for gender equality and aggressively recruit women to meet the quota, they could not find sufficient qualified women for the jobs (and had to hire less competent ones), ended up also hiring a few qualified women to hold multiple leadership positions in different companies at the same time (without working full-time in any of them), and, in addition, many of these few successful women were found to behave aggressively like "men" but did not any attractive "female" qualities to "diversify" the workplace. 

In fact, the same can be said in the world of animals, where males (as in elephants, lions, etc.), on average again, often lead in packs. The words "on average" here are important, since there are exceptions to any rules, in that there are exceptional females (e.g., Margaret Thatcher, Aung San Suu Kyi, etc.) who do lead better than the average males, but at the "group" level, men outshine women in this area.

And the second reason is that the feminists like to blame their failures on men, that is, on "social" and "cultural" factors for male overachievement, but "such  factors have not been found to have an effect...that lasts to adulthood" on a permanent basis (BNN 79). This then means that whenever women do not do well in certain areas (like leadership, mathematics, martial arts, construction works, elite commandos, etc.), they do not focus on their own "self-responsibility," quickly use men as the "punching bag," and then go on to beg society for "entitlement" (or "preferential treatment"). But when women do better than men in other areas (like nursing, social counseling, child care, etc.), they take all the credit for their successes. If any man disagrees with them, the feminists would automatically label him as "sexist" without bothering to defend it in a rational debate. And when a man presents scientific evidences to back up his argument, these feminists would simply dismiss them as "socially constructed" while immediately accepting their feminist (often polemic) version of so-called evidences as "true" without any critical question asked.   

In the end, this heavily ideologically charged "quick-fix" solution in Reding's plan (and, for that mater, in the "50/50" quota for women in the United Nations) does not address the deeper problem of biological differences between men and women. As a result, there are two negative consequences here.

First, one negative consequence is that it perpetuates the negative stereotype against women, in that women are not as capable as men in these areas, because they simply cannot do much of anything without receiving "preferential treatment" from society. After all, Reding's plan does not focus on any "self-responsibility" by women when it one-sidedly blames men (as the scapegoat) for the failures of women in certain areas and is thus an insult to all those exceptional women who work their way up and stand on their own (without "preferential treatment"). In other words, it perpetuates the negative stereotype that women are not natural leaders (as men are), as they cannot survive in the competition without "preferential treatment" and other massive "measures" from society to help them out.

And second, another negative consequence is that it creates a new form of sexism against men (or what I called "reverse sexism" in my previous publications), since, when women are given "at least 40% quota," there will be some more competent men who have to be forced out of certain jobs or opportunities only to favor the less capable women because these men are in the "wrong" gender, so this will contribute to a new form of corruption which distorts the natural allocation of human resources and prevent them from their best use for society in the long term. 

(b) Second Case Study: The Lowering of Male Tennis for Gender Equality

And this new form of corruption occurs in the world of sports like tennis, albeit in a different way. As an illustration, recently, some feminists in the tennis world have asked that male tennis players should go down to the lower level of female tennis and play only the best of 3 sets, not the best of 5.

For instance, Martina Navratilova, one of the best female tennis players in history, argued that "tennis matches shouldn't be a physical marathon....People who disagree with women receiving equal pay at the grand slams keep making the argument that women don't play three out of five sets....But maybe the point should be that the men should be playing two out of three," as reported by Mark Hodgkinson for Tennis Space on June 22, 2013. And Victoria Azarenka, the current #2 female tennis player in the world, thus made the same point: "I think there has been a lot of talk about (women playing best-of-five)....I actually think men should play three sets," so "it is the men that should come down to the...level" of women.

Again, this call for playing the best of 3 sets reflects how far the contemporary campaign for gender equality has gone to the extreme and contributed not only to the perpetuation of "old" sexism against women but also to the creation of "new" sexism against men (or what I called "reverse sexism"), for 2 major reasons.

The first reason is that there is a good rationale for the difference in playing the best of 5 sets, because it can challenge human abilities to their limits in grand slams, in terms of physical strength, endurance, power, speed, versatility, etc.. Precisely here, male tennis players outperform female tennis players, who simply cannot compete against men, because of their "weaker" physical abilities, on average. As one tennis player put it, "one of the things separating the top players from the bottom is the physical part of the game. Playing at a high level consistently while also having the stamina to go 5 sets is a big part of the game. It would also take away epic matches, like the Nadal vs Federer Wimbledon classic, and the Nadal vs Djokovic Aussie and French Open classics," as reported by Shane Bacon on October 23, 2013.

It is thus no wonder that many female tennis players are too envious of male overachievement to accept the fact that all the best matches in the history of tennis have been ranked and that they are often played out by men in the best of 5 sets in grand slams, as shown in the following ten most brilliant matches in the history of tennis as reported by Tomas Hegedus on January 30, 2012:

1. Australian Open 2012 Final -- Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal  5-7  6-4  6-2  6-7 (5)  7-5

2. Wimbledon 2008 Final -- Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer  6-4  6-4  6-7 (5)  6-7 (8) 9-7

3. Wimbledon 1980 Final -- Bjorn Borg vs. John McEnroe  1-6  7-5  6-3  6-7 (16)  8-6

4. US Open 2001 Quarterfinals -- Pete Sampras vs. Andre Agassi  6-7 (7)  7-6 (2)  7-6 (2)  7-6 (5)

5. Wimbledon 2001 Final -- Goran Ivanisevic vs. Patrick Rafter  6-3  3-6  6-3  2-6  9-7

6. Australian Open 2005 Quarterfinals -- Marat Safin vs. Roger Federer  5-7  6-4  5-7  7-6 (6)  9-7

7. Roland Garros 1984 Final -- Ivan Lendl vs. John McEnroe  3-6  2-6  6-4  7-5  7-5

8. Australian Open 2003 Quarterfinal -- Andy Roddick vs. Younes Aynaoui  4-6  7-6 (5)  4-6  6-4  21-19

9. Wimbledon 2009 Final -- Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick  5-7  7-6 (6)  7-6 (5)  3-6  16-14

10. Rome Masters 2006 Final -- Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer  6-7 (0)  7-6 (5)  6-4  2-6  7-6 (5)

In fact, as one tennis fan thus reminded us in the article "Why Do Women Play only 3 Sets in Tennis and Men Play Five?" (2008), "physically it is considered inappropriate to do 5 set matches for women. It was tried a few times and wasn't entertaining, so it's now 3 sets only for all matches. Even for men, it's only the Grand Slam events which go to 5 sets." For this reason, Cheri Britton aptly observed that "a best-of-five-sets Slam match would gain the extra respect and gravitas" that these male tennis players deserve, as reported by Jane McManus on September 03, 2012.

And the second reason is that there is the selfish feminist politics for "equal pay" behind the call, since many female tennis players understand that one of the best ways for them to achieve the goal of "equal pay" is to force men to lower their level of play so as to be equal with the lower level of women.

For instance, in 2012, "the French player Gilles Simon provoked the tennis world when he said that female players should earn less than their male counterparts in the Grand Slams, in part because 'male players spent twice as long on court,'" as reported by Jane McManus on September 03, 2012.

In response, Martina Navratilova offered this blunt solution on June 22, 2013: "People who disagree with women receiving equal pay at the grand slams keep making the argument that women don't play three out of five sets....But maybe the point should be that the men should be playing two out of three....I knew the other girl would get tired." as reported by Jane McManus on September 03, 2012.  

One of the often cited myths perpetuated by feminists in tennis (and elsewhere) is the exhibition match tiled "The Battle of the sexes" between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs in 1973's, but this match was "fixed" due to 2 problems. The first problem is that Bobby was already too old at the time to play tennis as a professional, since he was a retired 55 years old man at the time when he played Billie in 1973, who was only 29 and in her prime at the time (#2-ranked). And the second problem is that Bobby accepted the match anyway, not for tennis but for "money" to pay off his debts to the mafia at the time, because "Hal Shaw, who was at the time working as an assistant golf instructor in Tampa, Florida, has come forward to offer new evidence that the match was indeed thrown," because "Frank Ragano, a renowned mob attorney, discuss[ed] the match-fixing plan with the crime bosses Santo Trafficante Jr and Carlos Marcello one night at his golf club." Shaw told ESPN that "Ragano was emphatic. Riggs had assured him that the fix would be in" so "he would go 'in the tank' against King," and "the mobsters made clear Riggs wanted his substantial gambling debts with them paid off in return for throwing the game, which would allow them to confidently place a lucrative bet," as "Ragano says, 'Well, he's going to [get] peanuts compared to what we're going to make out of this, so he has asked for his debt to be erased,'" as reported by Jon Swaine for the Telegraph on August 27, 2013.

Of course, King denied the story but did not offer any evidence to prove it wrong. But Serena Williams, the current #1 female tennis player in the world and one of the greatest female tennis players of all time, had this to confess in 2010: "I honestly think men's and women's tennis are completely opposite. Men are just stronger than ladies. I even have trouble reading my hitting partner and he is not professional, although he would make a good professional player. It really is comparing apples to oranges," as reported by Khalid A-H Ansari on July 06, 2010.

As a tennis fan said it bluntly in the article titled "Can a First Class Woman Tennis Player Beat an Average Man Tennis Player?" (2008), "men are more athletic and just better at sports than women. take the best woman and best man in any sport and the man will ALWAYS WIN. That's just the way things go. Sorry"; this is true, even though a first class woman tennis player can beat an average man tennis player.

For this reason, in tennis (and more generally, in sports), women are often separated from men, because women are the "weaker" gender and cannot compete against men, on average. Should this segregation in sports disappear, women would not win much of anything at all. Both Navratilova and Azarenka understand this female inferiority well and therefore ask men in tennis to go down to the lower level of women instead (for gender equality), but women cannot even compete against men in 3 sets (not alone in 5).

In the end, this feminist politics to lower the level of male tennis play to the best of 3 sets is a "quick-fix" solution which does not address the deeper problem of biological differences between men and women.   As a result, there are two negative consequences here again.

First, one negative consequence is that it perpetuates the negative stereotype against women, in that women are not as capable as men, because the top female tennis players simply cannot beat their male counterparts, unless the men are either too old in their 50s and already retired (like Bobby) or the match is "fixed" (like the myth surrounding "the Battle of the sexes" between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs in 1973).

And second, another negative consequence is that it creates a new form of sexism against men (or what I call "reverse sexism" in my previous publications), since female tennis cannot be favorably compared with male tennis, unless men are forced to lower their level of play for gender equality, because many female tennis players are too envious of male overachievement to accept the fact that all the best matches in the history of tennis have been ranked and that they are often played out by men in the best of 5 sets in grand slams.   

These two cases studies (the first about the 40% quota for women on company boards in the EU and the second about the lowering of male tennis to the best of 3 sets for gender equality) are illustrative, not exhaustive, of course.

But the important point to remember here is that the contemporary campaign for gender equality has degenerated over the decades to the point of contributing not only to the perpetuation of "old" sexism against women (as the "weaker" gender) but also to the creation of "new" sexism against men (or what I called "reverse sexism," as shown in the two tactics by forcing more qualified men out of certain jobs or opportunities in favor of less competent women, or by forcing men to go down to the lower level of women for gender equality). In the end, the results are not only oppressive (as shown in the first case study on 40% quota) but also suppressive (as shown in the second case study on leveling-off).

What separates humans from animals is that the former can come up with new ideas (ideals) to create a whole new world, but all too often in history, in the name of these ideals, both society and culture end up being so messed up to the point that the promised new world becomes so oppressive and suppressive instead, to the indignation of the posterity in future history.

Does anyone still remember "the Cultural Revolution" for equality in China during the 1960s and 1970s, when men and women even dressed alike, to the point that this chapter of Chinese history is now known as "the lost generation"? When ideology goes to the extreme and denies all relevant facts or evidences (as "socially constructed"), people and society will suffer in the longer term -- as reality can only be ignored or dismissed for so long, before it will return with a vengeance in the future.