ISLAMIC INSURGENCY IN THE PHILIPPINES The Islamic insurgency in the Philippines refers to political tensions and open hostilities

which began in 1969[9] between the Jihadist rebel groups and the Government of the Philippines. The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) was established by University of the Philippines professor Nur Misuari to condemn the killings of more than 60 Filipino Muslims and later became an aggressor against the government while the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), a splinter group from the MNLF, was established to seek an Islamic state within the Philippines and is more radical and more aggressive. Conflict dates back to 1899 during the uprising of the Bangsamoro people to resist foreign rule from the United States. Hostilities ignited again starting in the 1960s when the government started to resist upcoming rebellions by killing more than 60 Filipino Muslims and continues up to present. MORO REBELLION Following the Spanish-American War in 1898, another conflict sparked in southern Philippines between the between the revolutionary Muslims in the Philippines and the United States Military that took place between 1899 and 1913. Filipinos opposed foreign rule from the United States that claimed the Philippines as their territory. The United States took over the Philippines on 1899 after defeating Spanish forces. American forces took control over the Spanish government in Jolo on May 18, 1899, and at Zamboanga in December 1899.[10] Brigadier General John C. Bates was sent to negotiate a treaty with the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II. Kiram was disappointed knowing that the American forces would take over since he expected to regain sovereignty after the defeat of Spanish forces in the archipelago. Bates' main goal was to guarantee Moro neutrality in the Philippine-American War, and to establish order in the southern Philippines. After some negotiation, the Bates Treaty was signed which was based on an earlier Spanish treaty. The Bates Treaty did ensure the neutrality of the Muslims in the south but it was actually set up to buy time for the Americans until the war in the north ended. On March 20, 1900, General Bates was replaced by Brigadier General William August Kobb and the District of Mindanao-Jolo was upgraded to a full

department. American forces in Mindanao were reinforced and hostilities with the Moro people lessened although there are reports of Americans and other civilians being attacked and slain by Moros. Insurrection began in 1900 and lasted for a year. The American forces then move push inside the settles of Moro people. Kobb was replaced by George Whitefield Davis as the commander of the Department of Mindanao-Jolo and put up better relationships with the Moro people. It continued for more than three decades which resulted in massive lost of lives.[citation needed] Military governors were appointed by the United States to ensure peace and stability within the region. The conflict ended at the term of Major General John J. Pershing, the third and final military governor of Moro Province, although resistance continued in Bud Dajo and Mount Bagsak in Jolo.

PRELUDE AND THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF MARCOS, AQUINO AND RAMOS (1960-1998) Under President Ferdinand Marcos, 68 Filipino Muslim military trainees were murdered in Corregidor allegedly by soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.[11][12] The trainees were believed to be a part of an upcoming rebellion.[12] By then, University of the Philippines professor Nur Misuari formed the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) to condemn the killings of the 68 Filipino Muslims and to seek the establishment of a Bangsamoro nation through force of arms.[12] In 1969, the MNLF waged armed conflict against the Philippine government.[12] During one of the fierce battles of the insurgency in 1974, Jolo was burned down and news of the tragedy galvanized other Muslims around the world to pay greater attention to the conflict. Two years later, the Philippine government and the MNLF signed the Tripoli Agreement, declaring ceasefire on both sides. Within the agreement provided that Mindanao would remain a part of the Philippines but 13 of its provinces would be under the autonomous government for the Bangsamoro people.[12] President Marcos went against the agreement and violence ensued.

In 1977, Shiekh Salamat Hashim established the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), a splinter group of the MNLF seeking to establish an Islamic state.[13] Conflicts between these rebel groups and the Armed Forces of the Philippines would continue until the end of the regime of President Marcos. Earlier in her term, President Corazon Aquino arranged a meeting with MNLF chairman Nur Misuari and several MNLF rebel groups in Sulu, which paved the way for a series of negotiations. In 1989, the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created under Republic Act No. 6734 or the ARMM Organic Act, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution.[14] In 1991, Abdurajak Janjalani, a former teacher who studied Islam in the Middle East, formed the Abu Sayyaf Group after reportedly meeting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Janjalani recruited former members of the MNLF for the more radical and theocratic Abu Sayyaf.[12] Under the Presidency of Fidel V. Ramos, several negotiations and peace talks[9] were held and the ARMM was solidified and was to have its own geopolitical system.[12] Administrations of Estrada and Arroyo (1998-2010) During his term President Joseph Ejercito Estrada he declared an "all-out war" against the MILF on March 21, 2000 although a series of negotiations for cessation of hostilities were held.[13] Apparently, several conflicts in and around Mindanao erupted and clashes between the Philippine Military and the rebel groups resulted in massive loss of lives. During his term, these rebel groups kidnapped three Italian priests, two were later released and one was shot dead;[15][16] seized the municipal hall of Talayan, Maguindanao and Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte; the bombing during the feast Our Lady of Mediatrix at Ozamiz; and the takeover of Narciso Ramos Highway. All these incidents resulted in massive loss of investments abroad, especially in the area of Mindanao. As a result, the Armed Forces of the Philippines launched a successful campaign against these rebel groups and 43 minor camps, 13 major camps including the MILF headquarters, and Camp Abubakar[17] fell. MILF suffered heavy losses and the head of MILF, Sheikh Salamat Hashim, fled the country and sought

refuge in Malaysia. On October 5, 2000, 609 rebels surrendered in Cagayan de Oro, along with renegade town mayor Mulapandi Cosain Sarip.[18] These was followed by another massive surrender of 855 rebels on December 29, 2000. President Joseph Ejercito Estrada then ordered that the Philippine flag be raised in Mindanao which symbolized victory. It was raised on July 9, 2000 near a Madh'hab and again the next day along with President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, which held a feast inside a classroom just meters away from a mosque.[17] As a result, several Islamic rebel groups retaliated, bombing several key locations within the National Capital Region on December 30, 2000. It resulted in 22 deaths and hundreds of people injured. Saifullah Yunos, one of the perpetrators was arrested in Cagayan de Oro as he was about to board a plane bound to Manila in May 2003.[19] In 2004, two members of the Jemaah Islamiyah were arrested, namely Mamasao Naga and Abdul Pata as they were identified by Fathur Rahman al-Ghozi as responsible for the train bombing.[20] al-Ghozi was also arrested, but was later killed in a firefight when he tried to escape the prison on October 13, 2003. On May 27, 2001, the Abu Sayyaf seized twenty hostages from an upscale resort in Palawan. Four of the hostages managed to escape.[21] The kidnapping group composed of 40 gunmen then seized the Dr. Jose Torres Memorial Hospital and St. Peter's Church compound in the town of Lamitan in Basilan[22] and claimed to have taken captive 200 people although 20 people were confirmed to be taken captive inside the hospital, including the staff and the patients.[23][24] There was a crossfire between the Army and the Abu Sayyaf rebels in Lamitan following the takeover of Dr. Jose Torres Memorial Hospital which resulted in the deaths of 12 soldiers, including the army captain.[24] Up to 22 soldiers were reportedly to have been killed in an effort to rescue the hostages. Five more captives escaped during the battle at Lamitan. Two of the captives were killed prior to the siege in Lamitan, including the beheading of one.[21] The Abu Sayyaf then conducted series of raids, including one at a coconut plantation[25] where the rebel groups hacked the heads of two men using bolo knives. The owners and a security guard was also held captive and the rebel groups burnt down two buildings, including a chapel a week after the battle in Lamitan.[25] Another raid was conducted in August 2, 2001 on Barangay Balobo in Lamitan, Basilan. After three days, the Philippine Army rescued numerous

hostages[26] after they overtook the hideout of the militants where 11 bodies were found beheaded.[27] Other hostages were either released or had escaped.[26] On June 13, 2001, the number of hostages was calculated at around 28 as three more people were found beheaded in Basilan,[28] including that of Guillermo Sobero.[29] They were beheaded since the Philippine Army would not halt the rescue operation.[29] The Burhams were still on the group of 14 still held captive according to three hostages who escaped on October 2001.[29] On June 7, 2002, after a year of being held captive, a rescue mission was conducted and resulted in the deaths of Martin Burnham and a nurse named Ediborah Yap[30] after being caught in the crossfire. Martin was killed by three gunshots in the chest while Gracia was wounded in her right leg. By this time Nur Misuari ordered his supporters to attack government targets to prevent the holding of elections on ARMM on November 2001, ushering his exit as the governor of the region.[12] Misuari would be later arrested in 2007 in Malaysia and was deported back to the Philippines for trial.[12] On July 2004, Gracia Burnham testified at a trial of eight Abu Sayyaf members and identified six of the suspects as being her erstwhile captors, including Alhamzer Limbong, Abdul Azan Diamla, Abu Khari Moctar, Bas Ishmael, Alzen Jandul and Dazid Baize. Fourteen Abu Sayyaf members were sentenced to life imprisonment while four were acquitted. Alhamzer Limbong was later killed in a prison uprising.[31] These rebel groups, especially the Abu Sayyaf conducted several terror attacks, namely the bombings at Zamboanga in October 2002; the bombing of SuperFerry 14 on February 2004; the simultaneous bombings in Central Mindanao on October 2006; the beheadings of several Philippine Marines on July 2007; the Batasang Pambansa bombing on November 2007; and the 2009 bombings in Mindanao. Numerous clashes erupted between the Philippine Army and the rebel groups, such as the clash on June 14, 2009 that killed 10 rebels.[32]

Since 2001, the Philippines and the United States have been on a campaign to battle this insurgency, known as War on Terror. To combat the insurgency, the United States and the Philippines conducted the Operation Enduring Freedom Philippines,[33] a part of the worldwide campaign against terrorism known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Administration of Aquino (2010-present) During the term of President Benigno Aquino III, a series of peace talks for the cessation of hostilities was held, including the meeting of MILF Chair Al Haj Murad Ibrahim in Tokyo, Japan which was lauded on both sides.[12] Norway also joined the International Monitoring Team (IMT) on January 2011, overseeing the ceasefire agreement between the government and MILF on Mindanao. Despite the peace talks, a series of conflicts erupted. on September 10, 2011, Jal Idris, a hardcore member of Abu Sayyaf, was arrested by government forces after a crossfire between the Philippine Army and the rebel group[34] The Armed Forces of the Philippines also killed three Abu Sayyaf militants in a stand-off[35] the following day after the arrest of Jal Idris. Terrorism continued throughout his term, on January 2011, 4 merchants and a guide were killed by the Abu Sayyaf[36] and later, a soldier would be killed in a clash against the rebels.[37] These rebel groups attacked a village in Sulu, killing 7 Marines and taking 7 civilians captive. They later freed 2 of the hostages after a ransom was paid.[38] Also, several areas in Mindanao were bombed on August 2011 and a Filipino businesswoman was abducted on September 2011[39] who was later freed after the three gunmen were gunned down by the Armed Forces of the Philippines.[40] On October 2011, the MILF was blamed for the killings 30 government troops, thereby violating the ceasefire agreement. It produced outrage and so the battle against terrorism in the country wages on.

THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT Ancient history of Israel and Palestine

The ancient Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judea had been successively conquered and subjugated by several foreign empires, when in 135 CE the Roman Empire defeated the third revolt against its rule and consequently expelled the surviving Jews from Jerusalem and its surroundings, selling many of them into slavery. The Roman province was then renamed Palestine.

After the Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century the remaining inhabitants were mostly assimilated into Arab culture and Muslim religion, though Palestine retained Christian and Jewish minorities, the latter especially living in Jerusalem. Apart from two brief periods in which the Crusaders conquered and ruled Palestine (and expelled the Jews and Muslims from Jerusalem), it was ruled by several Arab empires, and it became part of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire in 1516.

The rise of Zionism

In the late 19th century Zionism arose as a nationalist and political movement aimed at restoring the land of Israel as a national home for the Jewish people. Tens of thousands of Jews, mostly from Eastern Europe but also from Yemen, started migrating to Palestine (called Aliyah, going up). Zionism saw national independence as the only answer to anti-Semitism and to the centuries of persecution and oppression of Jews in the Diaspora. The first Zionist congress took place in 1897 in Basel under the guidance of Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl, who in his book The Jewish State had painted a vision of a state for the Jewish people, in which they would be a light unto the nations. Zionism basically was a secular movement, but it referred to the religious and cultural ties with Jerusalem and ancient Israel, which most Jews had maintained throughout the ages. Most orthodox Jews initially believed that only the Messiah could lead them back to the promised land, but ongoing pogroms and the Holocaust made many of them change their minds. Today there are still some anti-Zionist orthodox Jews, like the Satmar and Naturei Karteh groups.

The British Mandate for Palestine

During World War I Great Britain captured part of the Middle East, including Palestine, from the Ottoman Empire. In 1917 the British had promised the Zionists a Jewish national home in the Balfour Declaration, and on this basis they later were assigned a mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations. The mandate of Palestine initially included the area of Transjordan, which was split off in 1922. Jewish immigration and land purchases met with increasing resistance from the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, who started several violent insurrections against the Jews and against British rule in the 1920s and 1930s. During the Great Revolt of 1936-1939 the followers of the radical Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini (a Nazi collaborator who later fled the Nurnberg Tribunal) not only killed hundreds of Jews, but an even larger number of Palestinian Arabs from competing groups. The Zionists in Palestine (called the Yishuv) established selfdefense organizations like the Haganah and the (more radical) Irgun. The latter carried out reprisal attacks on Arabs from 1936 on. Under Arab pressure the British severely limited Jewish immigration to Palestine, after proposals to divide the area had been rejected by the Palestinian Arabs in 1937. Jewish refugees from countries controlled by Nazi Germany now had no place to flee to, since nearly all other countries refused to let them in. In response Jewish organizations organized illegal immigration (Aliya Beth), the Zionist leadership in 1942 demanded an independent state in Palestine to gain control of immigration (the Biltmore conference), and the Irgun committed assaults on British institutions in Palestine.

Despite pressure from the USA, Great Britain refused to let in Jewish immigrants mostly Holocaust survivors even after World War II, and sent back illegal immigrants who were caught or detained them on Cyprus. Increasing protests against this policy, incompatible demands and violence by both the Arabs and the Zionists made the situation untenable for the British. They returned the mandate to the United Nations (successor to the League of Nations), who hoped to solve the conflict with a partition plan for Palestine, which was accepted by

the Jews but rejected by the Palestinians and the Arab countries. The plan proposed a division of the area in seven parts with complicated borders and corridors, and Jerusalem and Bethlehem to be internationalized (see map). The relatively large number of Jews living in Jerusalem would be cut off from the rest of the Jewish state by a large Arab corridor. The Jewish state would have 56% of the territory, with over half comprising of the Negev desert, and the Arabs 43%. There would be an economic union between both states. It soon became clear that the plan could not work due to the mutual antagonism between the two peoples.

History of the establishment of the State of Israel After the proposal was adopted by the UN General Assembly in November 1947, the conflict escalated and Palestinian Arabs started attacking Jewish convoys and communities throughout Palestine and blocked Jerusalem, whereupon the Zionists attacked and destroyed several Palestinian villages. The Arab League had openly declared that it aimed to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state by force, and Al Husseini told the British that he wanted to implement the same solution to the Jewish problem as Hitler had carried out in Europe.

A day after the declaration of the state of Israel (May 14, 1948) Arab troops from the neighboring countries invaded the area. At first they made some advances and conquered parts of the territory allotted to the Jews. Initially they had better weaponry and more troops, but that changed after the first ceasefire, which was used by the Zionists to organize and train their newly established army, the Israeli Defense Forces. Due to better organization, intelligence and motivation the Jews ultimately won their War of Independence.

After the armistice agreements in 1949, Israel controlled 78% of the area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea (see map below), whereas

Jordan had conquered the West Bank (until then generally referred to as Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip. Jerusalem now was divided, with the Old City under Jordanian control and a tiny Jewish enclave (Mount Scopus) in the Jordanian part. In breach of the armistice agreement Jews were not allowed to enter the Old City and go to the Wailing Wall. In 1950 Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a move that was only recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan. A majority of the Palestinian Arabs in the area now under Israeli control had fled or were expelled (estimated by the UN about 711,000) and over 400 of their villages had been destroyed. The Jewish communities in the area under Arab control (i.a. East Jerusalem, Hebron, Gush Etzion) had all been expelled. In the years and decades after the founding of Israel the Jewish minorities in all Arab countries fled or were expelled (approximately 900,000), most of whom went to Israel, the US and France. These Jewish refugees all were relocated in their new home countries. In contrast, the Arab countries refused to permanently house the Palestinian Arab refugees, because they as well as most of the refugees themselves maintained that they had the right to return to Israel. About a million Palestinian refugees still live in refugee camps in miserable circumstances. Israel rejected the Palestinian right of return as it would lead to an Arab majority in Israel, and said that the Arab states were responsible for the Palestinian refugees. Many Palestinian groups, including Fatah, have admitted that granting the right of return would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The question of the Palestinian right of return is the first mayor obstacle for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Six Day War and Arab rejectionism The Arab-Israeli conflict persisted as Arab countries refused to accept the existence of Israel and instigated a boycott of Israel, while they continued to threaten with a war of destruction. (There were some talks, but the Arab states all demanded both the return of the refugees and also parts of Israel in return for just non belligerence). They also founded Palestinian resistance groups

which carried out terrorist attacks in Israel, like Fatah in Syria in 1959 (under the guidance of Yasser Arafat), and the PLO in Egypt in 1964.

In May of 1967, the conflict escalated as Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran for Israeli shipping, sent home the UN peace keeping force stationed in the Sinai, and issued bellicose statements against Israel. It formed a defense union with Syria, Jordan and Iraq and stationed a large number of troops along the Israeli border. After diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis failed, Israel attacked in June 1967 and conquered the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Desert from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan (see map below). Initially Israel was willing to return most of these territories in exchange for peace, but the Arab countries refused to negotiate peace and repeated their goal of destroying Israel at the Khartoum conference. The Six Day War brought one million Palestinians under Israeli rule. Israelis were divided over the question what to do with the West Bank, and a new religious-nationalistic movement, Gush Emunim, emerged, that pushed for settling these areas.

After 1967 the focus of the Palestinian resistance shifted to liberating the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a first step to the liberation of entire Palestine. The Arab Palestinians started to manifest themselves as a people and to demand an independent state. East Jerusalem, reunited with West Jerusalem and proclaimed Israels indivisible capital in 1980, but also claimed by the Palestinians as their capital, became a core issue for both sides in the conflict. The division of Jerusalem with its holy places is the second large obstacle for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

History of the struggle for a Palestinian state and the peace process

In 1974 the PLO was granted observer status in the UN as the representative of the Palestinian Arabs. Beside the UNRWA (set up in 1949 for relief of the

Palestinian refugees) several new UN institutions were established to support the Palestinians and their struggle for their own state. In 1975 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 3379, declaring Zionism to be a form of racism, which caused the UN to lose its last bit of credibility as a neutral mediator in the eyes of Israel, although that resolution was ultimately revoked in 1991. Former UN actions perceived as bias by Israel included the establishment of UNRWA as a separate organization aimed at assisting but not repatriating the Palestinian refugees and the easy acceptance of Egypts decision to dismiss the UN peacekeeping force from the Sinai. The Zionism is racism resolution gave a strong boost to the settlers movement and helped bring the rightwing Likud party to power in 1977.

In 1979, under Likud prime minister Menachem Begin, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty after American mediation, for which Israel returned the Sinai Desert to Egypt. Subsequent negotiations regarding autonomy for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank failed because the Palestinians didnt accept Israels limited autonomy proposal for these areas, and Israel refused to accept the PLO as a negotiation partner. This changed in the early 1990s after the PLO had renounced violence, recognized the legitimacy of Israel, and declared to only strive for a Palestinian state in the 1967 occupied areas. Moreover a major uprising of the Palestinians in the occupied territories from 1987 on (the first Intifadah) convinced the Israeli government that they could not continue to rule over the Arab population. Partly secret negotiations in Oslo led to an agreement under which in 1994 a Palestinian National Authority was established under the leadership of Arafat and the PLO, to which Israel would gradually transfer land. Elections were held for the presidency of the PNA and the Palestinian Legislative Assembly, from which violent or racist parties were excluded. After a 5 year transition period the most difficult matters would be settled in final status negotiations, such as the status of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees, the Jewish settlements and the definite borders. Eventually 97% of the Palestinians came under PA control, including all of the Gaza Strip and approximately 40% of the West Bank land.

Since 1967 Israel has been establishing Jewish settlements in these areas, at first mostly small ones in unpopulated areas and under the Likud governments from the late 1970s on all over the area and large settlement blocs. Although the Oslo agreements did not require removal of the settlements, it was clear that they would constitute an obstacle to a definite peace agreement. The rapid growth of the settlements undermined Palestinian confidence in the peace process. The Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, who partially froze settlement construction, was assassinated by a Jewish extremist in 1995. On the Palestinian side, Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory led to the construction of a terror network by the extremist Hamas and other groups, who from the mid 1990s on were able to carry out an unprecedented number of suicide attacks inside Israel. Under Arafat the PA took limited action against the terror groups and even funded them, and Arafat gave the green light for attacks when that suited his strategy. The continuing violence by Palestinian extremists constitutes the fourth obstacle for peace.

The Oslo peace process got bogged down because both the Palestinians and the Israelis did not stick to agreements they made and the leadership on both sides did little to build confidence and to prepare their own people for the necessary compromises. Large groups on both sides protested against the concessions required by the agreements made. The peace process slowly dragged on towards the negotiations on Camp David in the summer of 2000. After the failure of Camp David a provocative visit to the holy Jerusalem Temple Mount by Likud leader Ariel Sharon sparked the second Intifada, which the Palestinian Authority had been preparing for. Palestinian leaders like Marwan Barghouti later admitted to having planned the second Intifada in the hope that it would press Israel into more concessions. However, the opposite happened, as the Israeli peace camp collapsed under the violence of Palestinian suicide attacks.

In December 2000 US president Bill Clinton presented bridging proposals suggesting the parameters for a final compromise, including a Palestinian state on all of the Gaza Strip and about 97% of the West Bank, division of Jerusalem and no right of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees. While Israel in principle

accepted this proposal, no clear answer came from the Palestinian side. In last minute negotiations at Taba in January 2001, under European and Egyptian patronage, the sides failed to reach a settlement despite further Israeli concessions. Both sides agreed to a joint communiqu saying they had never been so close to an agreement, but substantive disagreements remained about i.a. the refugee issue.

Shortly after that Sharons Likud party won the Israeli elections, and in the US democratic president Bill Clinton was replaced by George W. Bush. Following the terrorist attacks from Al Qaida inside America on September 11, 2001, Bush permitted Sharon to strike back hard against the second Intifada. After suicide attacks had killed over a hundred Israelis in March 2002, Israel re-occupied the areas earlier transferred to the Palestinian Authority and set up a series of checkpoints, which severely limited the freedom of movement for the Palestinians. In 2003 Israel started the construction of a very controversial separation barrier along the Green Line and partly on Palestinian land. These measures led to a strong decline of Palestinian suicide attacks in Israel, but also to international condemnations. Especially the dismissal of Palestinian workers in Israel led to increasing poverty in the territories.

Although both parties accepted the Road Map to Peace, launched by the Quartet of US, UN, EU and Russia in 2003, no serious peace negotiations have taken place in recent years between Israel and the Palestinians. Israeli PM Ariel Sharon did take unilateral measures such as the disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but he demanded an end to Palestinian terrorism before he would engage in negotiations with Arafats successor Abbas concerning final status issues. Plans for further unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank were put on ice after Hamas won the PA elections in early 2006, thousands of rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel, and border attacks took place from both the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon (which Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from in 2000). The latter had spurred the disastrous Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006.

Obstacles to peace

The primary cause for the Arab-Israeli conflict lies in the claim of two national movements on the same land, and particularly the Arab refusal to accept Jewish self-determination in a part of that land. Furthermore fundamentalist religious concepts regarding the right of either side to the entire land have played an increasing role, on the Jewish side particularly in the religious settler movement, on the Palestinian side in the Hamas and similar groups. But whereas the settlers received a blow when they failed to prevent the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, Hamas won the Palestinian elections, and after their breakup with Fatah and their take-over of the Gaza Strip, they remain a dominant force capable of blocking any peace agreement.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is further complicated by preconceptions and demonizing of the other by both sides. The Israelis see around them mostly undemocratic Arab states with underdeveloped economies, backward cultural and social standards and an aggressive religion inciting to hatred and terrorism. The Arabs consider the Israelis colonial invaders and conquerors, who are aiming to control the entire Middle East. There is resentment concerning Israeli success and Arab failure, and Israel is viewed as a beachhead for Western interference in the Middle East. In Arab media, schools and mosques antiSemitic stereotypes are promoted, based on a mixture of anti-Jewish passages in the Quran and European anti-Semitism, including numerous conspiracy theories regarding the power of world Zionism.

Since the Oslo peace process however, a broad consensus has been formed that an independent Palestinian Arab state should be established within the areas occupied in 1967. Polls on both sides show that majorities among Israelis and Palestinians accept a two state solution, but Palestinians almost unanimously stick to right of return of the refugees to Israel, and most Israelis oppose a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

ARAB SPRING Tunisia The Tunisian Revolution, or Jasmine Revolution, began on Dec. 17, 2010 after Mohammed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian man, set himself on fire in front of a local municipal office. According to Aljazeera, earlier that day, Tunisian police confiscated his cart and beat him because he did not have a permit. He went to the municipal office to file a complaint, where workers there ignored him. Bouazizi then set himself on fire. [1] Small scale demonstrations then began in Sidi Bouzid, Bouazizis hometown, and spread throughout the country. According to Aljazeera English, "Bouazizi's act of desperation highlights the public's boiling frustration over living standards, police violence, rampant unemployment, and a lack of human rights. Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali became president of Tunisia in 1987 and tried to calm the situation by promising more freedoms, including a right to demonstrate, and announcing that he would not seek re-election when his current term ends in 2014. (In his last election, in 2009, he received 90 percent of the vote). [2]

According to Aljazeera English, A UN investigative panel reports that at least 219 people were killed during the uprising against Ben Ali, a figure it says is likely to rise. Another 510 Tunisians were injured, according to Bacre Waly Ndiaye. [1] On October 24, 2011, the moderate Islamist party Ennahda emerged as the victor in elections for a constitutional assembly. Ennadha began to engage in talks with liberals in hopes of forming a unity government. The party claims to have "a greater commitment to the principles of Western-style liberal democracy than any other Islamist party in the region," and has "repeatedly pledged to promote equal opportunities in employment and education as well as the freedom to choose or reject Islamic dress like the head scarf."[3] Since their election, the Islamist party Ennahda has tightened censorship, being accused of clamping down on national media. [4] The arrests of two Tunisian artists reignited protests. Human Rights Watched has called on Tunisian authorities to drop all charges on the artists.

Egypt
Early Stages Following the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, Egyptian activists organized a demonstration on Janaury 25, Egypts Police Day, to protest the Emergency Law, unemployment, poverty and Hosni Mubaraks government. Police day, a national Egyptian holiday, celebrates the 50 officers killed on Jan 25, 1952 by

the British in Ismailia, Egypt. This sparked anti-British protest leading to the Free Officers taking power in Egypt.[5] The protests began in Cairo, Egypt and spread throughout the country. According to Aljazeeras Timeline, the protests gained more strength when widespread strikes happened throughout the country. Jack Shenker, writing for the Guardian, described downtown Cairo as a war zone filled with running street battles.[6] According to Wikipedia, pro-Mubarak supporters escalated the violence when they rode on camels and horses into Tahrir (Liberation) Square. The Mubarak government tried to crush protest with armed forces and plain-clothed supporters and when those tactics failed, state media depicted the protesters as foreign agents. The government also targeted foreign journalists and human rights workers. However, during the Protests, Muslims and Christian Egyptians demonstrated unity, and, according to Wikipedias timeline, Muslims protected Christian demonstrators during Sunday service.[7] Mona Seif, an Egyptian woman interviewed by Aljazeera, said, "There was one Egypt inside Tahrir and another Egypt outside."[8] Protests in Egypt portrayed more than political will, Aljazeera Correspondent Fatima Naib, said. Egyptian women, just like men, took up the call to 'hope.' Here they describe the spirit of Tahrir -- the camaraderie and equality they experienced -- and their hope that the model of democracy established there will be carried forward as Egyptians shape a new political and social landscape. [8] On February 11, 2011, Hosni Mubarak resigned his presidency and handed power to the army. The New York Times described Hosni Mubarak as Egypts modern pharaoh, spending almost 30 years in office.[9] He would be sentenced to life in prison on June 2nd, 2012 by an Egyptain court for his role in the killing of unarmed protestors. [10] Human Rights Watch reported "302 people have been killed since the start of Egypt's pro-democracy uprising. Based on visits to a number of hospitals in Egypt, the organization says that records show the death toll has reached 232 in Cairo, 52 in Alexandria and 18 in Suez. [11] Social Media Facebook pages such as We are All Khalid Said, Twitter, BlackBerry Messenger and blogs were tools people in Egypt used to exchange information

globally. In an article in themselves, SM do not cause After all, this technology is restrictions in some places), revolt. [12]

Ahram English, an Egyptian Newspaper, By popular uprisings, demonstrations and revolutions. to be found everywhere (though certainly with but we do not live in a world of constant global

The Ahram article adds that "if protest movements access significant numbers of people, for any opposition event, they can somewhat confidently act on their political motivations and challenge the state. These outlets provide organizers and people a safe space to organize and potentially gain more support. [12] Google Executive Wael Ghonim developed the Facebook page We are All Khalid Said after an Egyptian Activist killed by the police. The Facebook group helped organize over 100,000 people to protest on Egypts Police Day, originally the Facebook page aimed for 50,000 people to protest. [13] According to Aljazeera English, on Jan 27 people reported disruptions to their Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger service. The disruption to internet service lasted until February 2, but internet services were partially restored in Cairo after a five-day blackout aimed at stymieing protests.[14] The use of social media to intensify the protests is a contested one. According to Mary Botarri, writing for PRWatch, "In the end, we may discover that the oldfashioned Friday prayer service was the critical vehicle for educating and mobilizing the great unwired. But Facebook appears to have played an important role in mobilizing the younger, more urban and wired classes, giving them the comfort of an online community and making it safer to take collective action. [15] Post-Mubarak On March 20, the interim military government held elections to garner where Egyptians stood on amendments concerning electing a leader. According to the New York Times, Voters were asked to either accept or reject eight constitutional amendments as a whole - all of them designed to establish the foundations for coming elections. Most addressed some of the worst excesses of previous years - limiting the president to two four-year terms, for example, to avoid another president staying in office as long as Mr. Mubarak. The amendments were announced Feb. 25 after virtually no public discussion by an 11-member committee of experts chosen by the military.[16] According to the

New York Times article, some people argue that early elections would benefit the Brotherhood and the old governing party, which they warned would seek to write a constitution that centralizes power, much like the old one. [16] According to Human Rights Watch, the ruling Egyptian generals may be trying to avoid holding Egyptian soldiers who were involved in death of more than 20 Coptic Christians accountable for their role. On October 9th 1,000 Christians attempted to "stage a peaceful sit-in outside the state television building." The protesters were assaulted and some were "crushed by a speeding military vehicle." The government has thus far denied any military involvement in the deaths. [17] On November 29th, 2011 Egypt held parliamentary elections in the midst of widespread violence and unrest. In the days prior to the election, thousands of protesters violently clashed with the interim-military led government. Many protesters argued that demands from the original protests against Mubarak at Tharir square had yet to be addressed, leading protesters to question the legitimacy of the elections. Voters were urged by protesters to boycott the elections, and many liberal candidates suspended their campaigns, arguing that elections should be delayed to allow opposition candidates more time to organize their campaigns. [18] The elections nonetheless took place as scheduled. The Islamist parties claimed an astounding victory early, receiving 65% of the total vote. The more moderate Muslim Brotherhood got 40% of the vote, whereas ultraconservative Salafi groups got 25%, allowing for the formation of a Islamist majority coalition. The Islamist parties are said to have enjoyed a decisive organizational advantage in light of their well-established base of support that was developed during the Mubarak years. The liberal parties were comparatively newer and less organized, and were thus less able to stage an effective campaign. The strength of the Islamist coalition is expected to grow stronger as more votes are counted from rural, more conservative areas of Egypt. The final vote tally will not be completed until two more rounds of voting have occurred. [19] On December 20th, 2011 hundreds of women took to the streets of Cairo to protest the military governments brutal treatment of female protesters. The demonstration took place in front of a government office complex in Tahrir Square, the scene of violent clashes that led to the death of at least four

demonstrators that day. [20] This was the fifth day of violent clashes between security forces and demonstrators, that resulted in the death of 13 people and left hundreds wounded. med Morsi has won Egypt's presidential runoff. Morsi won by a narrow margin over Ahmed Shafiq, the last prime minister under deposed leader Hosni Mubarak. The commission said Morsi took 51.7 percent of the vote versus 48.3 for Shafiq. On June 24, 2012, Egypt's election commission announced that Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsy won the run-off Presidential election with a margin of 3.5 percentage points, taking in 51.7 of the total and defeating former general Ahmed Shafik. [21]

Libya
The uprising in Libya instantly became violent when the Libyan government reacted harshly towards peaceful protests. On February 18, three days after the protests began, the country erupted into an armed conflict when protesters executed policemen and men loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi for killing protesters. [22] According to Aljazeera English, the Libyan government, on February 19, used artillery, helicopter gunships and anti-aircraft missile launchers to kill protesters. The governments forces also opened fire on people attending a funeral for those killed in the protests. Aljazeera reported 15 people killed in the incident.[23] Social media sites were used to organize people, however, on Feb 18, the Libyan government imposed restrictions on the internet. On March 17, the United Nations passed a resolution allowing member states to take the necessary measuresto protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack. Then on March 29, 40 nations and international entities convened in London and decided to push forward, with the NATO-led aerial bombardment of Libya's forces until Gaddafi complied with the U.N. resolution to end violence against civilians. [22] The BBC reported that NATO and American forces are mainly striking from the air and Libyan rebels are, split between pro-Gaddafi forces controlling the capital Tripoli and the west, and rebels controlling Benghazi in the east. [24] As a result of the territory clashes, several thousand people have been killed.

People are also fleeing Libya to neighboring countries and the UN estimates at least 335,000 left the country. [24] Col. Qaddafi was in power since 1969, making him the longest-serving ruler in Africa and the Middle East.[25] Throughout the recent protests, Gaddafi continues to hold onto power. According to Aljazeera English, critics dismissed his leadership as a military dictatorship, accusing him of repressing civil society and ruthlessly crushing dissident. The move to attack civilians has cost Gaddafi many of his close advisors and military. Reuters reported soldiers defecting to support protesters and because they refuse to shoot on their own people. [26] On October 20, 2011 Qaddafi was killed by rebel fighters in his hometown of Surt. [27] He was found in a "large drainage pipe after a NATO air assault destroyed part of his convoy." Rebels were shown "manhandling" Qaddafi following his capture in video footage subsequently released. In response to demands from the international community, a "commission of inquiry" has been created by the interim government to inquire into the circumstances surrounding Qaddafi's death. Anti-Qaddafi-fighters have been accused of perpetrating "arbitrary arrests and torture" as well as "extralegal killings." Though rebel leaders have promised to prevent atrocities by their soldiers, the interim government may be limited in its ability to carry out a thorough investigation. [28]

General National Congress elections took place on July 7th, 2012. These were the first free national elections in Libya in 60 years. [29] On July 17th the High National Election Committee announced Mahmoud Jibril's National Forces Alliance, had taken 39 out of 80 seats and was therefore the majority party. The Justice and Construction party recieved 17 seats and third was the National Front Party with 3 seats.

Jordan
Protests in Jordan began late January and escalated on March 25 when one man died of a heart attack and over 100 protestors were injured. The protests in Jordan differ from Tunisia and Egypt because they dont want to oust their monarch, much of the dissent is centered around economic issues such as the defecit and inflation. A Jordanian man, interviewed by the Washington Post, said,

"I cannot imagine the country without the royal family. They strike a balance between the people and the government. I trust them." [31] The main goals of the protests were to lower food prices, amend the electoral law- free and fair elections, ending government corruption and a responsible and representative government. King Abdullah in return dissolved the parliament and removed Prime Minister Samir Rifai. The King also met with opposition groups and expressed his readiness to address the grievances and demands of the people. [32] The protest draws more concern for the monarchy than reckless individuals. According to Al Jazeera, The Jordanian government is specifically concerned about rising calls for the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, which would entail reducing King Abdullahs powers so that the king would no longer appoint or dissolve governments or disband parliaments - prerogatives he seems reluctant to give up. [32] Lamis Andoni writing for Al Jazeera said, the protests appeared to be intended to split the population by appealing to fears of the supposedly Palestiniandominated Brotherhood among Jordanians of East Bank descent. And in so doing it has succeeded in deepening an already simmering crisis and further undermining social cohesion within the country.[32] Palestinians in Jordan constitute more than half of the countrys population and this dynamic partly explains why Jordanians have shied away from calling for regime change; for the Hashemites are widely seen as guarantors of stability in the face of Israeli extremists calls for the establishment of a substitute Palestinian state in Jordan, said Andoni. [32] On October 17th, King Abdullah II fired his government in an effort to expedite the process of political reform. The previous government was accused of dragging its feet on reform measures. King Abdullah II would appoint prime minister Awn Khasawneh, who was formerly a judge at the International Court of Justice. [33] Prime Minister Awn Khasawneh would resign on 26 April 2012 without any clear explanation. [34] In a letter to Awn Khasawneh, King Abdullah II complained that "achievements so far are far less than what is required and way below what

we expected." [35] After accepting Khasawneh's resignation, King Abdullah immediatley appointed former Prime Minister and Chief of the Royal Court, Fayez Tarawneh, as current Prime Minister.

Bahrain
The protests for democracy, influenced by other regional upheavals, erupted in Bahrain on Feb 14. The movement, like many others, began online. Almost 30 people were killed since the beginning of the protests and according to Reuters, Bahrain has stepped up arrests of cyber activists and Shi'ites, with more than 300 detained and dozens missing since it launched a crackdown on prodemocracy protests [36] The equivalent to Egypts Liberation Square, Bahrains Peal roundabout became the symbol of the uprising says Reuters. The protesters are calling for more political freedom, but the protests hit on sensitive gulf issues because it is dominated by Shiite Muslims. According to Reuters, Bahrains largest Shi'ite opposition group Wefaq accepted Kuwait's offer to mediate in talks with the government to end the political crisis. Troops from Saudi Arabia have also intervened to cool the uprising. [36] On April 5, President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for Saudi troops to leave the protesters alone and to leave Bahrain, where they are helping a Sunni monarchy put down a Shiite-led protest movement demanding equal rights and a political voice. [37] Bahrain is a "key middle eastern ally" for the US. This strong relationship between Bahrain's ruling regime and the United States has resulted in a "relatively muted" response from the United States to the ongoing protests. In October 2011, for example, the U.S. State Department failed to "directly condemn" Bahrain's government for its egregious sentencing of 20 doctors involved in the protests. [38] Five opposition parties have formed a coalition denouncing Sunni reign and demanding a "transition to a constitutional monarchy." They issued what they referred to as the Manama Document on October 12th, which declared that the "ruling Khalifa party should "govern without powers" in a constitutional monarchy." [39]

May 15 Palestinian Protests Along with popular protests from neighboring countries, Palestinian youth and supporters called for a protest against Israeli occupation on May 15, the day Palestinians consider the Nakba (Catastrophe). Protests began on the borders Israel shares with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank. Social Media Months before the protests, the Facebook group The Third Palestinian Intifada began organizing Palestinians within the territories and the diaspora. The group was shut down after the Israeli government and Jewish Organizations in America petitioned the Facebook administration. According to the Huffington Post, Jewish groups felt the content on the groups page had crossed the line from free speech to violent incitement. Before the group was shut down, it accumulated over 300,000 Facebook Likes. [40] According to the AP, Since its removal, several other pages with of the same name have been created each attracting only a few hundred "likes" apiece. [41] The backlash from Jewish groups raised questions whether Facebook should be used to facilitate some popular uprisings but not others, and even whether Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has lost touch with his family's Jewish roots. [42] Protests Before the May 15 protests began, protests in Jerusalem turned violent when Israeli soldiers were injured by a Molotov cocktail and several Palestinians were injured by rubber bullets. Earlier that day, Milad Ayyash, 16, was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the East Jerusalem area of Ras Al-Amud. Protests intensified on May 15 when Palestinian refugees in Syria, Gaza and Lebanon held demonstrations on the Israeli border. Protesters on Syrian and Lebanese borders managed to enter into Israel. Israeli soldiers cracked down on the protesters killing 20 and injuring hundreds.[43] The Egyptian military halted buses heading for the Egyptian and Israeli border town of Rafah. However, over 1,000 Protesters in Egypt demonstrated outside of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The protest began peaceful and intensified when demonstrators rushed towards the entrance of the embassy. Egyptian soldiers

responded by launching tear gas into the crowd and shooting rubber bullets and live ammunition. [44] In Jordan, over 500 protesters headed towards the Israeli border, but were cut off by Jordanian police before they could reach the border. [45] Obama Supports 1967 Borders In President Barack Obamas May 19 speech, he said that Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states and the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state. [46] However, Obamas balancing act ignored many vital issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the right of return and the Hamas and Fatah unification government. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flatly refused Obamas statements stating the 1967 lines are indefensible and would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines. The Israeli population centers are commonly referred to as Israeli settlements in the West Bank. [47]

Saudi Arabia
Similar to Jordan, protests in Saudi Arabia are directed towards more freedoms than ousting the monarchy. The protests, in comparison, are relatively small ranging from 100 to 4000 people. However, King Abdullah, according to Aljazeera, has tried to head off unrest in the kingdom with a series of economic reforms ... [which] include housing subsidies; unemployment benefits; and a programme to give permanent contracts to temporary government workers. State employees will receive 15 per cent raises. [48] The protesters are calling for an elected "consultative council"; an independent judiciary; and a serious anti-corruption push. [48]They are also calling for Saudi Arabia to pull their troops from Bahrain. According to Reuters, the protests, like the ones in Bahrain, have been "staged in the city by minority Shi'ites, who complain of discrimination at the hands of the Sunni majority." [24] On September 25, King Abdullah "granted women the right to vote and run in future municipal elections." The move was surprising because Saudi Arabia is known for its widespread stifling of women's freedom. Saudi women have

traditionally been not been allowed to drive and are required to be accompanied in public by a male chaperone. The move was view by Saudi women largely as a response to the Arab Spring spreading across the Middl East. The decree, however, will not enter into effect until 2015.

Syria
Protests in Syria, though on a small scale, faced harsh retaliations from the government. The protest began in January after another young man lit himself on fire and groups began organizing on social media sites. They picked up speed on March 16 with a small group of protesters, but security forces quickly and violently ended them. [50] On March 18, three people were killed in what Wikipedia referred to as the most serious unrest to take place in Syria for decades and then on March 25, a group of 100,000 protesters took to the streets of Daraa. [51] Human Rights Watch reported that, the total number of demonstrators and bystanders killed since anti-government protests began in Syria on March 16 to at least 100, according to lists compiled by Syrian human rights groups. [52] The protesters are calling for freedom, human rights and the end to the emergency law. In efforts to calm protesters, President of Syria Bashar alAssad dissolved the government in Daraa, where the protests originated. AlAssad is looking to replace the emergency law with a new anti-terrorism law. The emergency law in Syria has been in place since Al-Assad came to power in 1963. The Emergency law bans oppositional parties. [53] On October 24, 2011 Robert S. Ford, the U.S. Ambassador in Syria, left the country in response to "threats to his safety." Ford's prescence had stirred controversy because of his frequent criticism of the repressive policies of the Syrian government. He also paid a visit to the city of Hama, which has been the site of large demonstrations by Syrian protesters and "attended a funeral for a slain activist." [54] As of October 2011, the crackdown by the Assad regime has resulted in the loss of at least 3,000 lives according to estimates by the United Nations. [55] On November 27, 2011, the Arab League imposed broad sanctions in Syria to punish the government for its continuing crackdowns against its citizens. The

sanctions were levied in response to Syria's failure to allow Arab League observers into the country to monitor the government's adherence to a peace accord that Syria had signed just three weeks earlier. Provisions of the sanctions include prohibiting commercial transactions with the Syrian government, a travel ban on Syrian government officials, the freezing of Syrian assets in Arab countries, and a ban on transactions with Syria's central bank. This type of action against an Arab League member state was unprecedented.[56] Shortly after the Arab League announced the sanctions, Turkey also moved to impose its own sanctions. [57] As of September 21st, 2012 the situation in Syria has escalated into an ongoing civil war that has claimed over 29,000 lives [58] and has left over one million displaced.

Yemen
According to Al Jazeera English, the go-to source for hard-hitting news on the Arab Spring, the uprisings in Yemen began on January 27, 2011.[59] 16,000 citizens lined the streets of the capital city of Sanaa, calling for an end to the 32 year-long rule of Ali Abdullah Saleh[60] The original protests were inspired by the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. The protesters chanted things such as, "Enough being in power for [over] 30 years," and, "No to extending [presidential tenure]. No to bequeathing [the presidency]."[61] As Mother Jones explained, Yemen is the poorest country in the world, which also serves as a fuel for anger for the Yemeni people.[62] Saleh returned to Yemen on September 23, 2011 after having been hospitalized in Saudi Arabia for nearly four months due to severe injuries suffered during an attack on his presidential compound. His return spurred violent confrontations between those still loyal to Saleh and the forces of dissident Gen. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, whose forces controlled much of the capital. The general claims that Saleh "intends to ignite a civil wart hat would bring down the whole country and have repercussions on the whole region and on world peace. [63] On October 21st, 2011 The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution supporting a deal in which Yemen's president would receive immunity in exchange for a "transfer power to his deputy and end escalating violence." President Ali Abdullah Saleh has been "accused by many Yemenis of

pushing the country toward civil war by clinging to power despite massive protests, the defection to the opposition of key tribal and military allies, and mounting international pressure to step down." [64] U.S. Complicity in Oppressive Conditions Despite the fact that Saleh is a brutal dictator, he is also a great ally of the United States, akin to the former U.S.-Egypt relationship with Hosi Mubarak. The Wikileaks diplomatic cables, also known as Cable Gate,[65] showed that Saleh, in a cozy relationship with David Petraeus, opened up the country for the U.S. to attack his own people. The cable from the January, 2010 meeting with Petraeus "agreed to a have U.S. fixed-wing bombers circle outside Yemeni territory ready to engage [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] targets should actionable intelligence become available."[66] It was described as an "open door" to attack Yemen and in the meantime, stoking the fire domestically and deceiving his own people in order to unite under his rule, blamed the launching of cruise missiles on "rebel forces." Yet, the truth is that Saleh agreed to let Americans bomb his country and agreed to continue lying about it.[67] Baumann puts it this way: "Yemen's citizens are the poorest in the Arab world, and Yemen, for all its talk about being a republic, is a particularly nasty dictatorship, complete with the usual secret police and torture and general repression. The U.S. role in Yemen is also extremely controversial and shouldn't be underestimated as a contributing factor in the uprising against Saleh. Would you support a ruler who agreed to let another country bomb your country and then lied about it?"[62] Baumann pieced together a well-researched, one-stop shop articled titled, "What's Happening In Yemen Explained" that can be seen here. Jeremy Scahill: "The Dangerous US Game in Yemen" In a March 30, 2011 article, Scahill explained that there are roughly 300-500 members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen. He explained that AQAP is not the real threat for Saleh, but the uprisings are, and the AQAP threat is "the gift that keeps on giving" for him. Scahill highlights that postSeptember 11, 2001, "President George W. Bush put Yemen on a list of potential early targets in the 'war on terror;' he could have swiftly dismantled Saleh's

government despite Saleh's pre-9/11 declaration that 'Yemen is a graveyard for the invaders.' But Saleh was determined not to go the way of the Taliban, and he wasted little time making moves to ensure he wouldn't."[68] Saleh proceeded to board a plane to the United States in Nov. 2001 -- during that trip, Bush and Saleh crafted an agreement through which U.S. Special Operations troops would deploy to Yemen and create a "counterterrorism camp" run by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Marines, and Special Forces. They were (and still are) housed in Camp Lemonier, located in Djibouti.[69] Not too long thereafter, the Joint Special Operations Command set up camp there to begin a campaign of targeted assassinations of so-called terrorists and members of Al Qaeda. Numerous targeted assassinations have gone awry, with scores of Yemeni citizens having been killed. While the assassinations unfurled, over 60 documented Al Qaeda attacks on Yemeni soil took place. Scahill wrote, quoting a former senior counterterrorism official, "When Al Qaeda starts creating problems in Yemen, the US money starts flowing." A direct correlation can be drawn between increased terrorist attacks and the U.S. covert presence in Yemen, but money keeps flowing into Yemen nonetheless to do more of the same. In April 2009, General David Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command, "approved a plan developed with the U.S. Embassy in Sana, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies to expand US military action in Yemen...Though Petraeus paid lip service to the cooperation between the United States and Yemen, he was clear that the United states would strike whenever it pleased." Petraeus also issued an order known as a Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order, which served as a "permission slip of sorts for special-ops teams.[70]

Numerous instances of "collateral damage" have taken place during this operation phase, including the accidental killing of the main mediator between AQAP and the Yemeni Parliament. This has poured gasoline on the already burning flame that is AQAP. Furthermore, as Scahill explains, the people of Yemen understand the "special relationship" that exists between the Saleh

Administration and the Obama Administration that is allowing innocent civilians to be killed in the name of defeating terrorism, the very terrorist threat that their actions are actually fueling and making worse. In sum, a small group of Yemenis have flocked toward AQAP and the United States' actions in the country serve as motivators for more to join, while the vast bulk of the rest of the country sees the intricate role Saleh has played in the whole affair and is calling for his immediate ouster.

KASHMIR CONFLICT GENERAL FACTS: The State of Jammu and Kashmir is a mountainous region surrounded by Afghanistan, China, India and Pakistan. The total area is 86,000 square miles and the population is about 14 million, including over 1.5 million refugees in Pakistan.

STATUS:

Kashmir was ruled by local kings for centuries before the Moghuls incorporated the region into their vast empire in the 16th century. The British occupied the region in the 19th century and in 1846 they sold the entire region, including the population, to a Dogra Hindu chief named Gulab Singh, for 7.5 million rupees.

CAUSE OF DISPUTE: When the British left the subcontinent in 1947, their empire was divided into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India.

The smaller princely states, such as Hyderabad, Junagarh, Munawadar and Kashmir were to decide on their own whether to join India or Pakistan. Though Junagarh, Munawadar and Hyderabad opted to join Pakistan, India sent in her forces and took over these states by brute force.

In Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim state, the people wanted to join Pakistan but the ruler hesitated with regard to making a choice. People rose up against his tyrannical rule and were joined by volunteers from other areas of the subcontinent.

The Indians used the situation to their advantage by sending in Indian forces to occupy Kashmir. Later they claimed that the Maharaja had signed a document, an Instrument of Accession, allowing the Indians to intervene in Kashmir. Dr Alistair Lamb, a British historian, has later proven beyond any doubt with his excellent research that there was in fact no such document and that it was impossible for the Maharaja to have signed any such document on the date specified by the Indians.

Even if one chooses to believe the Indians, this accession was conditional on a plebiscite to be held according to UN resolutions. India has never allowed this plebiscite to be carried out. It is also interesting to note that India never allowed

anybody to have a look at the document of accession and has later claimed that the original document was destroyed in a government office fire!

CURRENT SITUATION: Since 1988 Indian forces have been waging an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kashmiri people. Houses are being burnt, people arrested, tortured, raped and killed. According to Kashmiri sources this has resulted in the deaths of over 80 000 people so far. The numbers continue to rise as the Indians are using increasingly brutal methods to repress the Kashmiri freedom struggle.

SOLUTION: The international community needs to force India to accept holding talks with Kashmiri representatives and the Pakistani government so that a peaceful solution can be facilitated. The need for such an action has to be realized now that both India and Pakistan are nuclear states. In order to avoid a disastrous nuclear exchange in the future, the Kashmir conflict has to be solved according to the wishes of the Kashmiri people as guaranteed by numerous UN resolutions.

KASHMIR CONFLICT 2

The Kashmir dispute dates from 1947. The partition of the Indian sub-continent along religious lines led to the formation of India and Pakistan. However, there remained the problem of over 650 states, run by princes, existing within the two newly independent countries. In theory, these princely states had the option of deciding which country to join, or of remaining independent. In practice, the restive population of each province proved decisive. The people had been fighting for freedom from British rule, and with their struggle about to bear fruit they were not willing to let the princes fill the vacuum.

Although many princes wanted to be "independent" (which would have meant hereditary monarchies and no hope for democracy) they had to succumb to their people's protests which turned violent in many provinces. Because of its location, Kashmir could choose to join either India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, was Hindu while most of his subjects were Muslim. Unable to decide which nation Kashmir should join, Hari Singh chose to remain neutral But his hopes of remaining independent were dashed in October 1947, as Pakistan sent in Muslim tribesmen who were knocking at the gates of the capital Srinagar. Hari Singh appealed to the Indian government for military assistance and fled to India. He signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding Kashmir to India on October 26. Indian and Pakistani forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. India referred the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its forces. Once this happened, a "free and fair" plebiscite was to be held to allow the Kashmiri people to decide their future. India, having taken the issue to the UN, was confident of winning a plebiscite, since the most influential Kashmiri mass leader, Sheikh Abdullah, was firmly on its side. An emergency government was formed on October 30, 1948 with Sheikh Abdullah as the Prime Minister. Pakistan ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting, holding on to the portion of Kashmir under its control. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed, with 65 per cent of the territory under Indian control and the remainder with Pakistan. The ceasefire was intended to be temporary but the Line of Control remains the de facto border between the two countries.

In 1957, Kashmir was formally incorporated into the Indian Union. It was granted a special status under Article 370 of India's constitution, which ensures, among other things, that non-Kashmiri Indians cannot buy property there. Fighting broke out again in 1965, but a ceasefire was established that September. Indian Prime Minister, Lal Bhadur Shastri, and Pakistani President, M Ayub Khan, signed the Tashkent agreement on January 1, 1966. They resolved to try to end the dispute, but the death of Mr Shastri and the rise of Gen Yahya Khan in Pakistan resulted in stalemate. In 1971a third war, resulting in the formation of the independent nation of Bangladesh (formerly known as East Pakistan). A war had broken out in East Pakistan in March 1971, and soon India was faced with a million refugees. India declared war on December 3, 1971 after Pakistani Air Force planes struck Indian airfields in the Western sector. Two weeks later, the Indian army marched into Dhaka and the Pakistanis surrendered. In the Western sector the Indians managed to blockade the port city of Karachi and were 50 km into Pakistani territory when a ceasefire was reached. In 1972 Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, her Pakistani opposite number (and father of Benazir Bhutto, a later Pakistani premier), signed the Simla Agreement, which reiterated the promises made in Tashkent. The two sides once again agreed to resolve the issue peacefully, as domestic issues dominated. Both India and Pakistan had other important domestic problems which kept Kashmir on the back-burner. In 1975 Indira Gandhi declared a state of national emergency, but she was defeated in the 1978 general elections. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was overthrown and hanged in 1977; Pakistan reverted to military dictatorship under Gen Zia ul Haq.

The balance of influence had decisively tilted in Pakistan's favour by the late 1980s, with people's sympathy no longer with the Indian union as it had been in 1947-48 and 1965. Mrs Gandhi's attempts to install puppet governments in state capitals, manipulating the democratic process in the state legislatures, deeply angered the Kashmiris. The status quo was largely maintained until 1989 when pro-independence and pro-Pakistan guerrillas struck in the Indian Kashmir valley. They established a reign of terror and drove out almost all the Hindus from the valley before the Indian army moved in to flush them out. Meanwhile Indian and Pakistani troops regularly exchanged fire at the border. Whereas in 1948 India took the Kashmir issue to the UN and was all for a plebiscite, by the 1990s it hid behind the Simla agreement and thwarted any attempts at UN or third-party mediation. Over the decades the plebiscite advocated by India's great statesman Jawaharlal Nehru became a dirty word in New Delhi. These developments have led many to believe that Delhi has squandered the Kashmiri people's trust and allegiance. India and Pakistan both tested nuclear devices in May 1998, and then in April 1999 test-fired missiles in efforts to perfect delivery systems for their nuclear weapons. Pakistan tested its Ghauri II missile four days after India's testing of its long-range (1,250 km) Agni II. Although Pakistan claims that its missiles are an indigenous effort, in July 1999 Indian customs agents seized components shipped from North Korea which they claim were destined for Pakistan's missile programme. Pakistan's later intermediate-range Ghauri III missile has a range of about 3,000 km. When the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, set out to Lahore by bus on February 20, 1999, inaugurating the four times a week Delhi-Lahore-Delhi bus service, the world felt that such a genuine effort at friendly neighbourhood relations would lower the tension along the Line of Control in Kashmir.

But, all hopes of diplomacy disappeared once the cross-LOC firing in Kargil began during the mid-1990s. The death toll , including both soldiers and civilians, was more than 30,000. In the first week of August 1998 Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged artillery fire, described by locals as heavier than that of the 1948 and 1965 wars put together. An estimated 50,000 rounds of ammunition were expended and a large number of soldiers and civilians killed. In the summer of 1999 hostility in Kargil went far beyond the now familiar annual exhange of artillery fire. When India began patrolling the Kargil heights that summer, it found to its horror that many key posts vacated in the winter were occupied by infiltrators. A patrol was ambushed in the first week of May 1999. India belatedly realised the magnitude of the occupation - which was around 10 km deep and spanned almost 100 km of the LOC - and sent MiG fighters into action on May 26. India contended that the infiltrators were trained and armed by Pakistan, and based in "Azad Kashmir" with the full knowledge of the Pakistani government and that Afghan and other foreign mercenaries accompanied them. Pakistan insisted that those involved were freedom fighters from Kashmir and that it was giving only moral support. India ordered the jets not to stray into Pakistani territory; but those that did were shot down. The conflict ended only after Bill Clinton, the US President, and Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's Prime minister, met in Washington on July 4, 1999. Meanwhile, the Indian Army had made significant advances, capturing vital territory on July 4. Despite the apparent efforts to mediate, the US maintained that it was not interfering in what India still claims to be a bilateral issue. Pakistan withdrew its forces later that month. However, skirmishing continued, and in August India shot down a Pakistani reconnaissance plane, killing 16. The official number of Indian troops lost in Kargil was around 500, with almost double that number of "infiltrators" killed. Nevertheless, India did not declare

war against Pakistan - instead, Mr Vajpayee ambigously announced a "war-like situation". Yet this, by all accounts of soldiers and top Indian army officers involved, was a war in which India lost men engaged in hand-to-hand combat with Pakistani soldiers in the heights of Kargil - a war that could be compared with the one of 1948-49, which was limited to Kashmir, with the other border regions remaining peaceful. Thus in 1999, in a war limited to one sector, India suffered casualities within its own territory. Despite much pressure from the military and the public, the government decided not to cross the LOC. Pakistan too suffered criticism at home for limiting its war to artillery fire across the LOC and shooting down Indian aircraft. The fear of a full-scale war (with nuclear capability adding a deadly dimension), coupled with precarious economies and the knowledge of what international sanctions could do to them, may have prevailed in both countries

IRAQI WAR The Iraq Struggle or War in Iraq started on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by the United States beneath the administration of President George W. Bush and the United Kingdom below Prime Minister Tony Blair. The battle is also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Second Gulf War.

Prior to the invasion, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that the opportunity of Iraq employing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threatened their safety and that of their coalition/regional allies. In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which referred to as for Iraq to utterly cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to confirm that it was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction and cruise missiles. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was given entry by Iraq below provisions of the UN decision but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Extra months of inspection to conclusively confirm Iraq's compliance with the UN disarmament requirements were not undertaken. Head weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Safety Council that whereas Iraq's cooperation was "active", it was not "unconditional" and never "immediate". Iraq's declarations with reference to weapons of mass destruction couldn't be verified at the time, however

unresolved duties regarding Iraq's disarmament could possibly be completed in "not years, not weeks, but months".

Following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological applications in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion however that Iraq meant to resume manufacturing once sanctions were lifted. Though some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 had been found, they were not the weapons which had been the principle argument to justify the invasion. Some U.S. officers also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, however no evidence of a meaningful connection was ever found. Different reasons for the invasion given by the governments of the attacking countries included Iraq's monetary support for the households of Palestinian suicide bombers, Iraqi government human rights abuse, and an effort to spread democracy to the country.

Length of official combat operation, Operation Iraqi Freedom: March 20 May 1, 2003. Deployment: More than 300,000 coalition troops deployed to the Gulf region: about 255,000 U.S., 45,000 British, 2,000 Australian, and 200 Polish troops. Post-conflict peace-keeping forces: About 130,000 U.S. and 11,000 British troops were stationed in Iraq following official end of hostilities, May 1, 2003.About 49 countries have participated in some form in what was called the coalition of the willing. At its strongest, the coalition provided a total of 25% of the troops in Iraq. About 13 countries have withdrawn their personnel as of March 2006. Coalition forces remaining in Iraq in March 2006: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom U.S. casualties: Deaths March 20May 1 (official end of hostilities): combat, 115; noncombat, 23; total, 138. Deaths March 20, 2003Nov.9, 2006: combat, 2,275; noncombat, 562; total, 2,837. 134 civilian contractors were killed as of June 2006. U.S. soldiers wounded in action: 21,572 (Nov. 7, 2006). American POWs: 8 (6 captured on March 23, 2003, in Nasiriya; 2 pilots shot down on March 24 near Karbala). All were rescued.

Coalition casualties: Britain, 119; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, 6; Slovakia, 3; El Salvador, 3; ; Thailand, 2; Estonia, 2; The Netherlands, 2; Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Romania, and Latvia, 1 each (Oct. 24, 2006) U.S. cost of stationing troops in Iraq: in the first years, it was estimated at $4 billion per month, by 2006 it was $6 billion per month1 Iraqi civilian deaths: over 55,000 (according to Iraq Body Count in Mar. 2006)

THE COLD WAR

After World War II, the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its satellite states began a decades-long struggle for supremacy known as the Cold War. Soldiers of the Soviet Union and the United States did not do battle directly during the Cold War. But the two superpowers continually antagonized each other through political maneuvering, military coalitions, espionage, propaganda, arms buildups, economic aid, and proxy wars between other nations. From Allies to Adversaries The Soviet Union and the United States had fought as allies against Nazi Germany during World War II. But the alliance began to crumble as soon as the war in Europe ended in May 1945. Tensions were apparent in July during the Potsdam Conference, where the victorious Allies negotiated the joint occupation of Germany. The Soviet Union was determined to have a buffer zone between its borders and Western Europe. It set up pro-communist regimes in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, and eventually in East Germany. As the Soviets tightened their grip on Eastern Europe, the United States embarked on a policy of containment to prevent the spread of Soviet and communist influence in Western European nations such as France, Italy, and Greece. During the 1940s, the United States reversed its traditional reluctance to become involved in European affairs. The Truman Doctrine (1947) pledged aid to governments threatened by communist subversion. The Marshall Plan (1947) provided billions of dollars in economic assistance to eliminate the political instability that could open the way for communist takeovers of democratically elected governments. France, England, and the United States administered sectors of the city of Berlin, deep inside communist East Germany. When the Soviets cut off all road and rail traffic to the city in 1948, the United States and Great Britain responded with a massive airlift that supplied the besieged city for 231 days until the blockade was lifted. In 1949, the United States joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the first mutual security and military alliance in American history. The establishment of NATO also spurred the Soviet Union to create an alliance with the communist governments of Eastern Europe that was formalized in 1955 by the Warsaw Pact.

The Worldwide Cold War In Europe, the dividing line between East and West remained essentially frozen during the next decades. But conflict spread to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The struggle to overthrow colonial regimes frequently became entangled in Cold War tensions, and the superpowers competed to influence anti-colonial movements. In 1949, the communists triumphed in the Chinese civil war, and the world's most populous nation joined the Soviet Union as a Cold War adversary. In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, and the United Nations and the United States sent troops and military aid. Communist China intervened to support North Korea, and bloody campaigns stretched on for three years until a truce was signed in 1953. In 1954, the colonial French regime fell in Vietnam. The United States supported a military government in South Vietnam and worked to prevent free elections that might have unified the country under the control of communist North Vietnam. In response to the threat, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was formed in 1955 to prevent communist expansion, and President Eisenhower sent some 700 military personnel as well as military and economic aid to the government of South Vietnam. The effort was foundering when John F. Kennedy took office. Closer to home, the Cuban resistance movement led by Fidel Castro deposed the pro-American military dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959. Castro's Cuba quickly became militarily and economically dependent on the Soviet Union. The United States' main rival in the Cold War had established a foothold just ninety miles off the coast of Florida.

Kennedy and the Cold War Cold War rhetoric dominated the 1960 presidential campaign. Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon both pledged to strengthen American military forces and promised a tough stance against the Soviet Union and international communism. Kennedy warned of the Soviet's growing arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles and pledged to revitalize American nuclear forces. He also criticized the Eisenhower administration for permitting the establishment of a pro-Soviet government in Cuba.

John F. Kennedy was the first American president born in the 20th century. The Cold War and the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union were vital international issues throughout his political career. His inaugural address stressed the contest between the free world and the communist world, and he pledged that the American people would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." The Bay of Pigs Before his inauguration, JFK was briefed on a plan drafted during the Eisenhower administration to train Cuban exiles for an invasion of their homeland. The plan anticipated that support from the Cuban people and perhaps even elements of the Cuban military would lead to the overthrow of Castro and the establishment of a non-communist government friendly to the United States. Kennedy approved the operation and some 1,400 exiles landed at Cuba's Bay of Pigs on April 17. The entire force was either killed or captured, and Kennedy took full responsibility for the failure of the operation. The Arms Race In June 1961, Kennedy met with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, Austria. (See a memorandum outlining the main points of conversation between President Kennedy and Khrushchev at their first lunch meeting.) Kennedy was surprised by Khrushchev's combative tone. At one point, Khrushchev threatened to cut off Allied access to Berlin. The Soviet leader pointed out the Lenin Peace Medals he was wearing, and Kennedy answered, "I hope you keep them." Just two months later, Khrushchev ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall to stop the flood of East Germans into West Germany. As a result of these threatening developments, Kennedy ordered substantial increases in American intercontinental ballistic missile forces. He also added five new army divisions and increased the nation's air power and military reserves. The Soviets meanwhile resumed nuclear testing and President Kennedy responded by reluctantly reactivating American tests in early 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis

In the summer of 1962, Khrushchev reached a secret agreement with the Cuban government to supply nuclear missiles capable of protecting the island against another U.S.-sponsored invasion. In mid-October, American spy planes photographed the missile sites under construction. Kennedy responded by placing a naval blockade, which he referred to as a "quarantine," around Cuba. He also demanded the removal of the missiles and the destruction of the sites. Recognizing that the crisis could easily escalate into nuclear war, Khrushchev finally agreed to remove the missiles in return for an American pledge not to reinvade Cuba. But the end of Cuban Missile Crisis did little to ease the tensions of the Cold War. The Soviet leader decided to commit whatever resources were required for upgrading the Soviet nuclear strike force. His decision led to a major escalation of the nuclear arms race. In June 1963, President Kennedy spoke at the American University commencement in Washington, D.C. He urged Americans to critically reexamine Cold War stereotypes and myths and called for a strategy of peace that would make the world safe for diversity. In the final months of the Kennedy presidency Cold War tensions seemed to soften as the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was negotiated and signed. In addition, Washington and Moscow established a direct line of communication known as the "Hotline" to help reduce the possibility of war by miscalculation. Vietnam In May 1961, JFK had authorized sending 500 Special Forces troops and military advisers to assist the government of South Vietnam. They joined 700 Americans already sent by the Eisenhower administration. In February 1962, the president sent an additional 12,000 military advisers to support the South Vietnamese army. By early November 1963, the number of U.S. military advisers had reached 16,000. Even as the military commitment in Vietnam grew, JFK told an interviewer, "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win itthe people of Vietnam against the Communists. . . . But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. . . . [The United States] made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participatewe may not

like itin the defense of Asia." In the final weeks of his life, JFK wrestled with the need to decide the future of the United States commitment in Vietnamand very likely had not made a final decision before his death.

PEACE IN MINDANAO In December 2006 I had the chance to visit the island of Mindanao in the Southern Philippines. Mindanao and the surrounding islands rarely make the headlines except when some Western tourists are kidnapped. But Mindanao has been the scene of an ongoing conflict that has now lasted for more than 35 years, as the Muslim Bangsa Moro people have fought for self-determination. To date the conflict has claimed 120,000 lives, many of them civilians. More than a million people have been made homeless and destitute. An estimated 200,000 to 300,000 refugees have taken refuge in neighbouring Sabah, Malaysia and many other have moved to Manila or other parts of the Philippines in search of security.

The origins of the conflict go back a long way. The islands we now call the Philippines were colonized by Spain in the 16th century. But in fact the Spaniards just captured Manila and gradually extended their control over the northern island of Luzon. Over the next three hundred years they moved southwards, not without meeting considerable resistance: there were over 200 recorded uprisings during the Spanish colonial period. But they never conquered Mindanao beyond a few coastal settlements. The western part of Mindanao and the neighbouring islands were ruled by the Muslim sultanates of Sulu and Maguindanao, the people being known as Moros. The rest of the island was inhabited by indigenous tribes.

In 1896 the Philippines war of independence from Spain began. But it was impacted by the Spanish-American War of 1898. Initially presenting themselves as friends of the Filipinos, the Americans ended up by buying the Philippines from Spain for 20 million dollars, by the terms of the Treaty of Paris in December 1898. The resulting resistance by the Filipinos in Luzon was subdued at the cost of 600,000 dead, about a sixth of the population. The conquest of the other islands led to a similar proportion of casualties. No accurate count has ever been made, but it is reasonable to say that at least a million (out of a population of seven million at the time) Filipinos died in the course of the American conquest. The American General "Jake" Smith made no bones about

what he wanted from his soldiers: I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn; the more you burn and kill the better it will please me. His colleague General Shafter expressed the same idea in a more philosophical vein: It will perhaps be necessary to kill half of the Filipinos in order to enable the other half to attain a level of existence superior to their present semi-barbarous state.

If the Spanish had no right to sell the Philippines and the Americans no right to buy them, they had even less right as far as Mindanao was concerned, since Spain had never conquered it. In the whole of the Philippines resistance to the American occupation lasted for years after the upper-class leaders of the movement had sold out and made their peace with Uncle Joe. In Mindanao it lasted even longer, up until 1914. A high point of the American civilizing mission was reached in March 2 1906 with what is variously known as the First Battle of Bud Dajo or more accurately as the Moro Crater Massacre. Between 800 and 1000 Moros, armed with spears and swords, including many women and children, retreated into a volcanic crater on the island of Jolo, where they were attacked with modern weapons and artillery. When the battle was over there were only six survivors among the Moros. About twenty Americans died, out of a force of several hundred.

By such methods were the Moros brought into the Philippine state - an American colony till 1946, then formally independent. They continued to be oppressed and discriminated against politically, economically and culturally. It is easy to understand that they fiercely maintained their own identity and their desire for freedom and it was only a question of time before this broke out in open rebellion. A defining moment was the Jabidah massacre in 1968, when Moro army recruits were massacred by their Philippine army superiors after refusing to take part in the invasion of Sabah, a province of Malaysia with which the Moros have historic links. Armed struggle began in the early 1970s, first of all under the leadership of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), which negotiated a peace agreement with the Philippine Government that led to the creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) in 1996, though it turned out to be a very unsatisfactory form of autonomy. A second movement

arising from a split in the MNLF - the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) continued an armed struggle and is now negotiating for wider autonomy.

However, the situation in Mindanao is not simply a case of an oppressed nation, the Bangsa Moro, fighting for self-determination, for autonomy within, or independence from, the Philippines. That is one aspect of it, but not the only one. The Moros never occupied the whole of Mindanao, there were always nonMuslim tribes. Nevertheless there was a Muslim majority in Mindanao till 1918, but today the Muslim population of Mindanao is about 25 per cent. The indigenous Lumad peoples make up another 5 per cent. The remaining 70 per cent are Christian. This demographic evolution has nothing accidental about it. It is the result of a policy conducted throughout the 20th century under American rule and by the independent Philippines, of settling Mindanao with migrants from elsewhere in the Philippines. This had a double advantage: defusing rural discontent elsewhere by offering land to these settlers, and populating Mindanao with people loyal to the Philippine state. This policy was consciously carried out by introducing land registration and Western legal norms and limiting the amount of land Muslims could own.

The aim of successive government in Manila was therefore quite clear. It was also successful. But these settlers and their descendants are not any kind of caste above the Moros, nor do they live separately from them. The migrants and their descendants are ordinary workers and peasants and they live side by side with Muslims. No one is proposing to drive them out.

Muslims are in a majority in some areas of Mindanao and the adjoining islands, which mostly form part of the ARMM, and a more or less substantial minority elsewhere. The twelve tribes of the Lumad indigenous peoples also have their ancestral lands in both Christian and Muslim dominated areas. Any progressive solution to the problems of Mindanao must recognise the right of the Moro people to self-determination as well as the rights of the Lumad. But it also has to start from the fact that three peoples with their own history, culture and

identity now share Mindanao. That is why progressive forces on the island have developed, since the 1990s, the concept of a tri-people solution, of the necessity and the possibility for the three peoples to live together.

This is reinforced by the fact that the problems of Mindanao cannot be reduced to the Moro national question. The regions of Mindanao and the neighbouring islands are among the poorest in the Philippines, which is saying something in a country where 40 per cent of the population live on less than two dollars a day. Often referred to as the Philippines last frontier Mindanao is now the target of multinational companies eager to exploit its agricultural (rubber, coconuts, mangoes) and mining resources and its forests. Apart from plundering Mindanaos natural wealth, these activities cause ecological havoc and infringe on the ancestral lands of the Lumad.

The social problems of Mindanao made it, in the 1970s and early 1980s, a bastion of the movement against the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos - a movement which involved the armed insurgency of the New Peoples Army led by the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines, but also mass resistance by peoples organisations in the cities and countryside. The Maoist insurgency continued after the overthrow of Marcos in 1986, but it was greatly weakened in the late 1980s by political mistakes, a series of suicidal purges and finally a split in the CPP in 1992. The hardline Maoists of the CPP-NPA, who advocate - and practise - physical liquidation of political opponents, are still present. So are forces from the other side of the 1992 split, the most important of which is the Revolutionary Workers Party-Mindanao (RPMM).

Mindanao and the adjoining islands are bristling with arms. The army and the militarised police are omnipresent. Landlords and the multinational mining and logging companies all have armed goons at their disposal. The Moro movements are armed. Organising a strike, fighting for land reform or otherwise defending the poor and exploited can make you a candidate for the death squads. Several hundred political activists have been murdered since President Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo came to power in 2001, as have 50 journalists. So the movements of the left also have to be armed.

The reason for my going to Mindanao was as part of a delegation from Holland to the 4th Mindanao Peoples Peace Summit. The main organiser of the event was the Mindanao Peoples Peace Movement (MPPM). The MPPM arose as a response to the upsurge in hostilities on the island in 1997 and 1999 and in particular in response to the declaration of Total War against the MILF by then president Joseph Estrada in June 2000. (A few months later Estrada was overthrown by a peoples power movement).

Previous summits had taken place in 2000, 2002 and 2004. While continuing to pursue its general work for peace and organising relief for victims of the war, the MPPM decided to focus on finding a lasting solution to the Bangsa Moro question, working in particular with the Bangsa Moro Consultative Peoples Assembly headed by Professor Abhoud Syed M. Lingga. The twin axes of such a solution were the recognition of the Bangsa Moro peoples right to selfdetermination and the proposal to have any settlement approved by a UNsupervised referendum. The campaign for such a referendum was launched at the 2nd summit in December 2002.

The 4th summit was held in the town of Lamitan on the island of Basilan. The choice was not accidental. Basilan and the neighbouring Sulu and Tawi-Tawi islands have been the centre of the activities of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). Unlike the MNLF and the MILF, which are national liberation movements, the ASG is a fundamentalist Islamic group with links to Al Quaida that engages in terrorist actions - bombings, killings, kidnappings. Its origins are obscure and government agents provocateurs are widely thought to have played a role in creating it. Today its activities are systematically inflated and used by the government to fan anti-Muslim feeling and insecurity, in order to justify the presence of Philippine troops and American advisers in what Washington has defined as the latest front in its war against terror.

Lamitan was the scene of a siege and several deaths in 2001 when militants of the ASG held their foreign hostages in a local hospital. Nevertheless the 55 per cent of Christians and 45 per cent of Muslims that make up the towns population live harmoniously together. It was to counterpose this reality to the government and media inspired hysteria that Lamitan was chosen for the summit, and the participants received a warm and friendly welcome from the municipality and the people of the town.

For five days, the more than 500 people at the summit, all but a handful of them from Mindanao and the surrounding islands, discussed how to work for a peaceful and democratic solution to the conflict in Mindanao. Representatives of both the MNLF and the MILF, as well as of the Lumad peoples, took part. There were also organisations of youth, women and popular organisations who are active on issues of peace, health, education and economic development. The main discussion in the summit centred on the question of self-determination and of finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. But other issues were raised Muslim women vigorously posed the issue of equality, to the obvious discomfort of some of the more traditionally-minded men.

One session of the summit reported on the peace negotiations between the RPMM and the government. A ceasefire had been signed in 2005 and agreement was reached on its application and monitoring in a meeting shortly after the summit. But unlike some armed groups, the RPMM does not see things from a purely military point of view. It makes a definitive agreement and disarmament conditional on the government fulfilling its promises to provide the resources to tackle the social problems in the areas where the RPMM operates - health, housing, employment, etc. Furthermore it lets the people in those areas define what their needs are.

The fight for peace in Mindanao is inseparable from the question of economic and social development. At present the level of armed conflict is quite low and

the government is negotiating with both the MNLF and the MILF. It is possible, though far from certain, that a new agreement on autonomy for the Bangsa Moros will be reached. But peace is not just the absence of war. A lasting peace means not only respecting the rights of the Moros and the Lumad, it also means putting an end to all the forms of poverty, inequality and injustice which breed violence. Mindanao is potentially a very rich island, but its natural wealth needs to be owned and controlled by its people and not as at present by an alliance of corrupt politicians, landowners and the multinationals.