Archive for April, 2009

Drone Attacks on Pakistan’s Indigenous Tribes

April 21, 2009

By Liaquat Ali Khan | Counterpunch, April 20, 2009

In a case filed with the Pakistan Supreme Court, the petitioner states: “The Americans, like in Musharraf’s time, have also been given a free hand by President Zardari and fundamental rights of the (indigenous) people are being violated daily in tribal areas and (in northern areas of) Dir, Swat and Chitral. A large number of (indigenous) people have migrated from these areas and suffered tremendous losses with no hope of returning to their homes because of US drone attacks, but the government is sitting as a silent spectator.”

Since August 2008, nearly 60 drone strikes in tribal and other northern areas have massacred over 500 individuals belonging to a population that qualifies as indigenous people under international law. The majority of victims are poor and frightened men, women, and children. They have little to do with militants who are fighting the NATO occupation forces in Afghanistan. To escape future drone massacres of their families, thousands of residents living in target areas, have left their homes and businesses to seek asylum in other parts of Pakistan. Wretched stories of these internally displaced persons (IDPs) and their trail of tears have made little news in the international media.

After extending a hand of friendship to the Muslim world in his inaugural speech, President Barack Hussein Obama has personally authorized the continuance of drone attacks. In hopes of destroying the nesting places of Muslim militancy, the Obama administration is poised to expanding the drone warfare to other parts of Pakistan. Presuming that Pakistan is secretly supporting drone strikes, the vengeful militants have begun to attack the citadel cities of Lahore and Islamabad. As drone attacks continue to kill and generate the IDPs among the indigenous population and as militants undertake retaliatory measures in major cities, the nuclear-armed Pakistan is predicted to plunge into uncontrollable chaos and carnage threatening international peace and security.

Before Pakistan turns into another Iraq, the Obama administration should reconsider the wisdom and legality of drone strikes as a means of fighting the militants in Pakistan.

Self-Righteous Militarism

For the indigenous people of tribal areas, the drone aircraft has turned into a despised symbol of American militarism, even though the United States armed forces and the CIA have not even once assumed responsibility for drone attacks. Ironically, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Central Asian Muslim states, the drone has previously been known as a note or chord which is continuously repeated in musical pieces, Sufi songs, most notably in qawwalis. Torn from its musical connotations, the drone is now associated with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) engaged in repeated massacres. UAVs perform a host of military functions, including intelligence gathering, surveillance, and launching missiles on electronically-nominated targets. For the indigenous people of Pakistan, however, the drone is a white American jahaz (aircraft) that, all too often around the time of morning prayer, sneaks into the tribal airspace,  strikes fragile houses and compounds, and murders scores of people in each sortie.

In deploying military might, American policymakers consistently fail to comprehend a simple point: No nation looks forward to foreign military attacks. Be it in the Philippines, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the American military is rarely seen as a force of liberation or virtue. The American armed forces did serve the cause of liberation in the Second World War. Even during the Cold War, the American military retained some of its moral underpinnings. No longer, however, is the American military welcome in developing nations. Ignoring this plain truth, American policymakers, driven by unexamined self-righteousness, continue to impose deadly military solutions over complex geopolitical problems.

The drone attacks in Pakistan, which has been a submissive American ally for more than sixty years, complicate problems and not simplify them. They invite retaliation from militants and sow resentment in the Muslim world. Killing the indigenous people in Pakistan under the Obama flag will be as unsuccessful as has been killing Iraqi people under the Bush flag.

Unlawful Collateral Damage

Drone attacks are not only unwise, they are also unlawful. Even when perpetrated with Pakistan’s permission, drone attacks are violations of international law because they produce unacceptably high collateral damage. Collateral damage is a military term to describe damage caused to civilians, facilities, equipment, and property while attacking a lawful military target. The damage can occur to friendly, neutral, or enemy forces. “Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack.” As a rule, therefore, the military benefit must be much higher than the cost of collateral damage. A military strike is unlawful if the collateral damage exceeds lawful military advantage. In tribal areas, the collateral damage has been egregiously high since drone strikes kill hundreds of civilians in order to neutralize a few militants. On the basis of casualty count alone, the drone attacks are contrary to international law.

These attacks turn blatantly illegal when the collateral damage is fully assessed and aggregated. In addition to causing death and injury to non-combatants, drone attacks degrade the social and economic life of indigenous tribes. As noted above, hundreds of families have fled targeted areas to seek refuge elsewhere. Small businesses that sustain communities have been disrupted. Facing the uncertainty of drone attacks, parents decline to send children to schools. When American officials threaten to broaden the drone warfare, panic and the consequent social and economic disruptions are further increased. The physical, social, and economic cost inflicted on the tribal areas cannot be justified under the limited military advantage that drone attacks yield to the United States.

If the Obama administration is serious in turning the page in the Muslim world and if the American war on terror, which is shifting from the Middle East to South Asia, is to be conducted under the rule of law, the drone attacks against indigenous populations of Pakistan’s tribal areas must immediately be called off.

Liaquat Ali Khan is professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas, and the author of the book, A Theory of International Terrorism (2006).

World Bank: Israelis get four times more water than Palestinians

April 21, 2009

By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent | Haaretz, Apr 20, 2009

The water-supply regime used by Israel and the Palestinians must be changed, according to a World Bank report that is to be published today.

The report notes that an average Israeli gets four times as much water as the average Palestinian, and warns that the Palestinian Authority water system is “nearing catastrophe.”

It concludes by recommending that the current water-distribution arrangement, mandated as part of the Oslo II accords, be changed to improve the Palestinian system.

The report, requested by the PA, is likely to be particularly problematic for Israel due to the regional water crisis. The agreement between the two sides is asymmetrical and exacerbates the crisis greatly as far as the Palestinians are concerned.

This is the first such document presented by the World Bank on the subject of Israeli and Palestinian water use.

According to the report, the understandings reached at Oslo fall far short of fulfilling the needs of Palestinian civilians.

The unequal division of the resources, as well as constraints on information regarding the area’s water supply, have impeded the Palestinians’ ability to develop water sources – a problem that is intensified by the weakness of Palestinian government institutions.

The report says this has lead to an emergency situation with grave ramifications vis-a-vis the economy, the society and the ecology of the PA. Water-related humanitarian crises are frequent in parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

The report states that Palestinians have access to only one-fifth of the mountain aquifer supply, while Israel pumps out the rest, reaching its allocated quota without due authorization from the joint water committee set up in the Oslo accords.

Over-pumping from the aquifer creates a danger of salinity, the report maintains.

It also notes that Palestinians dig comparatively shallow wells and cannot reach water sources, because of Israel’s much deeper drilling.

According to the World Bank, Israel has a satisfactory water distribution and management system, while the PA is struggling to maintain a minimal infrastructure with minimal financial means. In Gaza, the meager investment in water and sanitation has lead to a lack of water-quality control, posing great risk to public health.

Related articles:
• Officials: Kinneret to suffer irrevocably if water not conserved
• Palestinian water authority: 40% of Gazans lack running water
• Officials: Hamas seizes control of Gaza water agency working with Blair

AP ENTERPRISE: Blackwater out of Iraq? No, not yet

April 21, 2009

MATTHEW LEE and MIKE BAKER
AP News | Antiwar Newswire
Apr 20, 2009 18:04 EST

Armed guards from the security firm once known as Blackwater Worldwide are still protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq, even though the company has no license to operate there and has been told by the State Department its contracts will not be renewed two years after a lethal firefight that stirred outrage in Baghdad.
Private security guards employed by the company, now known as Xe, are slated to continue ground operations in parts of Iraq long into the summer, far longer than had previously been acknowledged, government officials told The Associated Press.
In addition, helicopters working for Xe’s aviation wing, Presidential Airways, will provide air security for U.S. diplomatic convoys into September, almost two years after the Iraqi government first said it wanted the firm out.
The company’s continued presence raises fresh questions about the strength of Iraq’s sovereignty even as the Obama administration urges the budding government to take more responsibility for the nation’s future.
Iraqis had long complained about incidents caused by Blackwater’s operations. Then a shooting by Blackwater guards in Baghdad’s Nisoor Square in September, 2007 left 17 civilians dead, further strained relations between Baghdad and Washington and led U.S. prosecutors to bring charges against the Blackwater contractors involved.
That deadly incident was the end, Iraqi leaders said. Blackwater had to get out.
But State Department officials acknowledge the company is still there.
The company declined to comment about a timetable for leaving. “We follow the direction of our U.S. government client,” Xe spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said. Last February, Blackwater changed its name to Xe — pronounced ZEE — in a bid to leave its controversial reputation behind.
Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said Iraq’s ability to enforce bans on companies like Blackwater may provide an early measurement of the strength of its internal sovereignty. As the Iraqi leaders gain more control, he said, the final exit for Blackwater will be inevitable.
“But let’s face it, they’re not entirely their own masters yet,” he said.
In Baghdad, an Iraqi security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said that while Xe will not be allowed to work in Iraq, the company needs “some time” to fully shut down its operations there. The official did not give further details on the timetable.
The State Department’s continued reliance on Blackwater also underscores the difficulties facing the U.S. government in finding other options to protect its diplomats in dangerous areas.
Department officials said this month that Blackwater guards would stop protecting U.S. diplomats on the ground in Baghdad on May 7, when the company’s contract for that specific job expires and a new security provider, Triple Canopy, takes over.
But in its statement following the Iraqi government’s decision to prohibit Blackwater from operating there, State did not reveal that the firm has two other contracts — known as “task orders” — that do not expire until August and September respectively.
Blackwater guards will remain on the ground protecting American diplomats in al Hillah, Najaf and Karbala, all south of Baghdad, until Aug. 4, according to the department.
And Presidential Airways — which operates some two dozen helicopters — will continue to fly until Sept. 3, it said.
After the Nisoor Square deaths, Iraqi officials ruled that North Carolina-based Blackwater would be barred from operating in the country. Despite the ban, the State Department renewed Blackwater’s contract seven months later, in April, 2008.
It wasn’t until January of this year, when Iraqi authorities denied the company an operating license, that the Obama administration said it would not renew the company’s existing task orders.
On Jan. 30, the department said it had informed Blackwater in writing that it “did not plan to renew the company’s existing task orders for protective security detail in Iraq.”
On Feb. 2, though, the department signed a revised task order for Presidential Airways that allowed the Blackwater-owned airline to operate through Sept. 3, according to a federal public procurement database.
Department officials deny any impropriety in the move because the change in the task order was a revision of an old contract. Karl Duckworth, a State spokesman, said the Iraqi government did not tell U.S. officials until March 19 that it would bar Presidential Airways’ flights.
“Based on the government of Iraq’s decision, the department notified Xe in writing that it did not plan to renew the company’s task order for aviation services in Iraq,” Duckworth said.
Duckworth said that State would “re-compete the aviation task order,” allowing Xe and Virginia-based DynCorp and Triple Canopy to bid for the air security contract.
Xe is technically allowed to rebid under federal law because it holds the existing task order. But State would not grant the company a contract because it lacks an operating license in Iraq, officials said.
The State Department has not yet selected a successor to Blackwater for ground protection in al Hillah. But both Triple Canopy and DynCorp have the capability to do the job.
Some of the same security personnel who worked for Blackwater might simply transfer to the new companies operating there, industry experts say.
“As Triple Canopy’s work expands, the logical place to start looking and interviewing and evaluating employees will be those who are already there, those who have some skills and are already employed by Blackwater,” said Alan Chvotkin, a senior vice president and counsel for the trade group Professional Services Council.
Xe, DynCorp and Triple Canopy are all members of the council.
Chvotkin added that in view of the controversies over Blackwater’s role, “Triple Canopy and other security companies are making an independent assessment of any individual before deciding whether to hire them.”
The Iraqi official also said that some former Blackwater officials could remain in Iraq, depending on their experience.
The transition from Blackwater to a new air security firm may be even more complicated. Chvotkin said it will not be easy to find a firm with Blackwater’s air resources. Blackwater should not be ruled out as an option, he said.
“Since the nature of the work is so very different, there may actually be authority for them to operate the air services contract even though they don’t have a license for private security,” Chvotkin said.
Blackwater has been shifting its focus to other lines of business, including international training and air support in places like Afghanistan and Africa.
___
Mike Baker reported from Raleigh, N.C. Associated Press Writer Brian Murphy contributed to this report from Baghdad.
Source: AP News

Tamil Civilians Slaughtered as Army Shells ‘No-Fire Zone’

April 21, 2009

Red Cross doctors treat 1,500 injured evacuees

by Gethin Chamberlain near Pulmoddai, Sri Lanka| The Guardian, UK, April 19, 2009

Hundreds of civilians are being killed or seriously injured in artillery and gun attacks as the Sri Lankan army attempts to finish off the last Tamil Tiger rebels trapped in a shrinking pocket of land.

[The Observer was refused access to the Putumattalan field hospital by the military, but a doctor, Thangamutha Sathiyamorthy, sent this picture of injured Tamils awaiting treatment. (Photograph: Thangamutha Sathiyamorthy)]The Observer was refused access to the Putumattalan field hospital by the military, but a doctor, Thangamutha Sathiyamorthy, sent this picture of injured Tamils awaiting treatment. (Photograph: Thangamutha Sathiyamorthy)

Injured civilians lucky enough to get out have told of carnage in this so-called “no-fire zone” – a 17 sq km strip of coast where the Tigers are penned in with their backs to the sea.Horrific stories of limbs ripped off by shellfire and bodies buried where they fell are emerging, despite the government’s efforts to hide the scale of the killing by confining the injured to hospitals in a military area around the government-declared no-fire zone, from which the media are strictly excluded.

The casualties’ graphic accounts of a fierce onslaught on the no-fire zone, supported by the evidence of their severe wounds, have been reported by doctors who have treated them at a field hospital at Pulmoddai, inside the military area, where thousands of evacuees have been taken by ship. According to the senior doctor handling the casualties for the Sri Lankan government as they arrive at Pulmoddai, shells are falling among the tightly packed tents and shelters that are home to tens of thousands of civilians, killing and wounding dozens every day.

“Most of the people have shell blast injuries and gunshot injuries. Some people have lost their limbs, other people have lost other parts of the body, some people have wounds in the abdomen, some in the chest,” said Gnana Gunalan, a doctor who treats the flood of casualties as they arrive by Red Cross ship.

Gunalan, chairman of the local Sri Lankan Red Cross, said: “All these people are very badly traumatised. Some have lost all their loved ones and come here alone, one boy losing both legs. One girl came who had lost her husband and children and everybody.”

The doctor said the accounts of the evacuees appeared to support previous claims from doctors in the no-fire zone that the shelling had not come from Tamil Tiger positions in the zone. The Sri Lankan government has vehemently denied firing into the zone, but it is not possible to verify the claims.

Gunalan – who is based in the town of Trincomalee, surrounded by heavy Sri Lankan army security – said that the field hospital at Pulmoddai had treated 1,468 casualties among the 5,456 people evacuated by sea from the no-fire zone in the last month. Doctors say most of those killed have been buried near where they died and there has been no attempt to bring out the bodies.

Determined to resist international pressure to stop the fighting before it has finished off the hardcore rump of the Tamil Tigers cornered by the military, the Sri Lankan government has kept casualties away from the eyes of the world. This weekend the government rejected an appeal by the UN to give civilians more time to leave the no-fire zone.

And last night the Sri Lankan military sources said 2,857 civilians had broken through Tamil Tiger lines and made their way to safety during the day. They added that 5,000 people had tried to escape and had come under fire from the rebels. But it was not possible to verify the reports because the military has denied access to the area surrounding the no fire zone.

Until last month the government allowed civilians injured in the no-fire zone to be taken to the larger hospital in Trincomalee, but then decreed that they must be kept inside the military area.

At Pulmoddai the most serious injuries are stabilised by a team of Indian doctors working in temporary metal huts. By Friday, 26 had died at the Pulmoddai field hospital. It is not possible to verify the doctors’ accounts, because neither side will allow access to the no-fire zone. The military has permitted international media access on occasional day trips to the surrounding military area only. The Observer was refused entry to the hospital, turned back at a checkpoint on the edge of Pulmoddai, and refused access to the camps where those who have escaped the fighting are being held.

Pulmoddai is two and a half hours’ drive north of Trincomalee, a journey involving countless military checkpoints. Soldiers are everywhere, in bunkers or standing beneath trees watching the road. No one can move without permission from the Defence Ministry.

However, reports continue to get through. Two regional health directors, defying government instructions, have described at length the extent of the unfolding humanitarian disaster.

One, Thangamutha Sathiyamorthy, told the Observer on Friday that civilians were still being killed and injured by shelling inside the zone. He also said there had been a number of attacks by helicopters. He said the previous day, five people had died in the hospital from their wounds and a child of 13 had perished from the effects of diarrhoea.

He said many people had dug shelters in the sand to try to escape the shelling. “The fighting is continuing. Shells are falling. But these people have no alternative. They cannot move. Most of the injuries we are treating are from shells and bullets. Today we received 58 injured civilians, including 16 children.”

Most of the Tamil Tiger fighters were on the front line, he said, but some were moving among the civilians, visiting family members or moving casualties. He said Tamil Tiger police were still operating, attempting to control the crowds.

The Sri Lankan health secretary, Athula Kahandaliyanage, last week accused Sathiyamorthy and another doctor of spreading “malicious propaganda”, claiming their accounts “cannot be credible, since these officials are operating under duress and the dictates” of the Tamil Tigers.

The Health Ministry says both doctors will face disciplinary action. But Sathiyamorthy denied he was under pressure from the LTTE. “We are telling the truth. The government has strongly asked us not to tell the truth, but we must.”

ISRAEL: ‘If You Don’t Know, It Didn’t Happen’

April 21, 2009

Analysis by Daan Bauwens | Inter Press Service News

TEL AVIV, Apr 20 (IPS) – Even though atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers have surfaced and the appointment of a right-wing government diminishes the chances for peace in the Middle East, no left-wing Israeli is taking to the streets.

During the war in Gaza, modest peace manifestations brought together a few thousand protesters at a time. After the war and the elections, the voice of the left is completely muted.

“Where is the left in this country?” says Alina Charny, a yoga teacher from the Pardes Hanna district of Haifa. “There is a growing feeling that people from the left have lost all belief there can be a change. We have been in this war for too long now, but the voice of peace has never been in such a bad condition.”

All is still on the left side of the Israeli political spectrum. “We were left with all the guilt and no votes,” says Ido Gideon, an Israeli film producer and former spokesperson of Israel’s largest left-wing party Meretz.

In spite of confessions of atrocities by Israeli soldiers and growing evidence that the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) deliberately committed war crimes, no political force aside from Israeli human rights organisations is pushing for an independent investigation into what the army’s internal investigation later dismissed as “rumours”.

“We’re in no position to push for anything right now,” says Gideon. “I am indifferent, I don’t care any more, a lot of people I know have become indifferent. For the moment, we are trying not to get too much affected by things. Too many bad things happened at once.”

“When you don’t know, it never happened,” says teacher Alina Charny. “People don’t want to feel guilty, so they don’t want to hear about destruction or death. At the same time, everyone does want to know what happened, but in a perverted way: they read and talk in aggressive slogans, without taking into consideration what was happening on the ground. The Israeli public has detached itself from feeling, from any emotions.”

Yossi Wolfson has worked over 20 years as a human rights lawyer in the occupied Palestinian territories, focusing on conscientious objectors in the Israeli army. “The public prefers not to acknowledge what its power-addicted discourses mean on the ground,” he says. “They said the time had come for revenge, but didn’t want to think about children losing their limbs and being attacked while being taken to an ambulance. Now they don’t want to think about their neighbour’s son having shot a family drinking tea while sitting down, or having given orders to a drone. You just don’t want to think about that, so nobody talks about it. Even newspapers, except for Haaretz, don’t want to publish what really happened.”

Israel lives with too many contradictions, Wolfson tells IPS. “We have been living in a dream for too long. You cannot be with the occupation for the sake of the survival of Israel, but against it for the sake of the Palestinians. You cannot go to the army because you are obliged, but convince yourself you can change it from within. You cannot have a democratic but strictly Jewish state.”

Israelis now seem to be changing their very conception of peace. “The mainstream discourse has always been: we want peace,” says Wolfson. “But in fact, nobody wanted peace with all the implications of it. Now the popular discourse is: we don’t want the peace process to die.”

“When you go to war, you shoot to kill, not to play games,” Haim Gordon, senior lecturer at the department of education at the Ben Gurion University in the Negev desert tells IPS. “Have you ever heard of a war where civilians were not killed? It’s good that we did what we did. The people in Gaza are big boys now, they’re responsible for their own lives now we’re not there anymore. Today the oppressors are Hamas, and the people from Gaza accept the oppression, they even support it.”

Gordon, formerly a human rights activist in Gaza, adds: “Not only should the Israeli public not protest, they should go to war when others shoot on us. The Israelis are not indifferent; on the contrary, they are very determined not to let Hamas change the rules of the game.”

Israel criticism sparks UN walkout

April 20, 2009
Al Jazeera, April 20, 2009

A demonstrator is pushed away as Ahmadinejad addresses the Durban Review Conference [REUTERS]

Dozens of delegates have walked out of a United Nations conference on racism after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, described Israel as a “racist government”.

Ahmadinejad told delegates at the summit in Switzerland on Monday, that after the Second World War the United States and other nations had established a “cruel, oppressive and racist regime in occupied Palestine”.

“The UN security council has stabilised this occupation regime and supported it in the last 60 years giving them a free hand to continue their crimes,” he told delegates at the Durban Review Conference hall in Geneva.

Dozens of diplomats from countries including Britain and France left the hall in protest as he made the remarks.

Ahmadinejad also asked the conference: “What were the root causes of the US attacks against Iraq or invasion of Afghanistan?

‘Enormous losses’

“The Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses … wasn’t the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists … in the US administration, in complicity with the arms manufacturing companies?”.

Related
Ahmadinejad speech criticised

Defining racism

Many delegates who remained in the hall applauded Ahmadinejad’s comments.At least three demonstrators, dressed as clowns and shouting “racist, racist,” were expelled as Ahmadinejad began to speak.

Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera’s correspondent at the conference, said Ahmadinejad had reiterated his views on Israel, especially over its 22-day war on Gaza.

He said: “At the time [of the offensive] he said what was going on in Gaza was a genocide … this was an opportunity for him to say that at a world forum.

“There are people in the hall who believe that what Ahmadinejad was saying is correct – that is why there is such a split here.”

President criticised

Alireza Ronaghi, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran, said: “Ahmadinejad’s words are being criticised in Iran, not just among the youth, but among the different political factions.

Related

Ahmadinejad speech criticised

“This is the exact attitude he has been criticised for some time.””Even among the conservatives they have said such remarks are totally uncalled for.”

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, condemned Ahmadinejad’s “speech of hate” and called for a “firm and united” reaction from the European Union.

Jonas Gahr Store, Norway’s foreign minister, said the Iranian leader’s comments had “run counter to the very spirit of dignity of the conference … he made Iran the odd man out”.

The speech by Ahmadinejad, who is a frequent critic of Israel and has cast doubt on the extent of the killing of Jews during the Second World War, coincided with Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel, which begins at sundown on Monday.

The United States, Canada, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands, had earlier said they would not attend the conference amid fears Ahmadinejad would use the summit to propagate anti-Semitic views.

‘Overly critical’

Washington also said it believed a draft text to be discussed was overly critical of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians.

Opening the five-day summit earlier, Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nation’s secretary general, said he was “profoundly disappointed” that some western countries were not attending, but also condemned those who sought to deny or minimise the extent of the Holocaust.

He said: “Some nations who by rights should be helping us to forge a path to a better future are not here … I deeply regret that some have chosen to stand aside.”

Israel had withdrawn its ambassador to Switzerland in protest over a meeting between Ahmadinejad and Hans-Rudolf Merz, his Swiss counterpart.

The UN organised the summit to help heal the wounds left by its last racism conference in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, when the US and Israel walked out after Arab states sought to define Zionism as being racist.

Barack Obama, the US president, announcing his administration’s decision not to attend the conference, said Washington wanted a “clean slate” before tackling race and discrimination issues at the UN.

Several Muslim nations at the summit called for moves to prevent perceived insults to Islam, which they say have proliferated since the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001.

UN Race Conference Undermined by Western Withdrawals

April 20, 2009

US, Other Governments Cannot Take ‘Yes’ for an Answer

Human Rights Watch, April 19, 2009

“The sad truth is that countries professing to want to avoid a reprise of the contentious 2001 racism conference are now the ones triggering the collapse of a global consensus on the fight against racism. As these Western governments demanded, the negotiated text for the review conference upholds freedom of expression and avoids singling out Israel.

Juliette de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director

(Geneva) – The announcement by the US government that it would not participate in the upcoming UN Review Conference on Racism, followed by the decision of the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Australia to pull out and Germany to attend as an observer, strikes a blow at UN efforts to fight racism, Human Rights Watch said today. There is no justification for the decision because the draft declaration to be adopted at the conference on April 20-24, 2009, fully incorporates the legitimate concerns of EU and other Western governments.

“The sad truth is that countries professing to want to avoid a reprise of the contentious 2001 racism conference are now the ones triggering the collapse of a global consensus on the fight against racism,” said Juliette de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “As these Western governments demanded, the negotiated text for the review conference upholds freedom of expression and avoids singling out Israel. But these governments couldn’t take ‘yes’ for an answer and are boycotting the conference anyway.”

The draft document, adopted after preparatory negotiations, contains no reference to Israel or the Middle East and rejects the dangerous concept that religions, as opposed to individuals, could be defamed or have their rights violated. It also reaffirms the singular tragedy of the Holocaust and condemns anti-Semitism. In addition, it fully protects the right to freedom of expression as defined under international law, affirms and strengthens the call for the protection of migrants’ rights, and acknowledges multiple and aggravated forms of discrimination.

Some governments have argued against the document because it reaffirms the 2001 Declaration and Program of Action. However, with the exception of the US, the Western governments now planning to boycott the conference endorsed the prior declaration in 2001. Although the US government boycotted the 2001 conference, and had concerns about language in the proposed text regarding incitement, its concerns could easily have been met through reservations or parallel statements rather than a wholesale boycott of the conference and its important race agenda.

“Governments boycotting the conference have decided to put the concerns of victims last,” de Rivero said. “Instead of isolating radical voices, governments have capitulated to them.”

The review conference taking place in Geneva represented a chance to move beyond the controversy that surrounded the race conference in 2001. The 2009 review should set a positive and constructive vision for the fight against racism. Instead, the boycott decisions took place despite US officials’ acknowledgement that the vast majority of their “red lines” had not been crossed. The Netherlands, New Zealand, Germany, and Australia pulled out of the conference a day before it is due to begin, although the final text produced on April 18 met the remaining demands of the EU states on protecting freedom of expression.

“The boycott plays into the hands of those who want the conference to fail,” de Rivero said. “The only ones celebrating will be those who want to undermine efforts to defeat racism and protect rights.”

US Drone Strike Kills Eight Civilians in South Waziristan

April 20, 2009
Women, Children Killed in Series of Explosions Set Off by Air Strike

by Jason Ditz | Antiwar.com,  April 19, 2009

This morning, a US drone attacked an apparent militant hideout in Pakistan’s South Waziristan Agency, triggering a massive series of explosions which local residents eight civilians, including women and children, and injuring at least two others.

Reports on the attack are still not totally clear, with local police insisting first that no one was killed at all in the attack, which evidently started a fire which spread to two explosive-laden vehicles.  Militants cordoned off the area, but it does not appear that any of them were present at the time of the attack.

The attack came just one day after the local Ahmedzai Wazir tribe managed to negotiate a ceasefire across the troubled agency. The Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the government forces in the agency agreed to stop attacks, and certain demands of the TTP, including the removal of checkpoints, were reportedly being considered. It is unclear what impact the US attack will have on this deal.

Related Stories

Franklin Rosemont, artist, historian and rebel

April 20, 2009

Alan Maass honors a revolutionary who helped keep the history of our movement alive.

Franklin Rosemont (center) with Penelope Rosemont and Paul Buhle (Thomas Good | Next Left Notes)

Franklin Rosemont (center) with Penelope Rosemont and Paul Buhle (Thomas Good | Next Left Notes)

FRANKLIN ROSEMONT, a historian, poet, artist and lifelong revolutionary, died suddenly April 12 at the age of 65. He was a part of movements for justice that spanned half a century, and as a writer and artist, he helped keep alive the traditions and history of the struggle for a better world.

Franklin was born in Chicago in 1943. His father Henry was a union printer who played a leading role in the nearly two-year-long Chicago newspaper strike of 1947-1949, editing the strike newspaper and writing scripts for a daily radio show, “Meet the Union Printers,” broadcast on the Chicago Federation of Labor’s station WCFL. His mother Sally was a jazz musician who became president of a union local for women musicians.

Not surprisingly, Franklin was drawn to the left early on–he joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) at age 7. Tiring of high school, he dropped out to hitchhike across the U.S. and Mexico, logging more than 20,000 miles by his count.

One regular stop was San Francisco’s North Beach, the heart of beat culture, where he met Lawrence Ferlinghetti and the other poets at City Lights bookstore. Franklin was also drawn toward surrealist literature and art–first encountered, he said, in a high school anthology, where he came across the surrealist proverb “Elephants are contagious.”

With U.S. society still in the grips of Cold War conservatism, the appeal of the beats and the surrealists was as a cry of defiance against the conformity of American culture. But Franklin always connected cultural rebellion to a political one, viewing surrealism not only as a form of artistic expression, but as a political philosophy.

By the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was shaking U.S. politics, and a new left was emerging. Back in Chicago, Franklin went to Roosevelt University, then a center of radical activity, and one of the few schools committed to hiring African American faculty–it was known as the “little red schoolhouse.”

In the mid-1960s, he and his wife Penelope, a fellow artist, visited Paris, where they met Andre Breton, the main figure of European surrealism. Breton’s Surrealist Manifesto, written in the 1920s, insisted on the connection of politics and art. Breton later visited Mexico to meet Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky–together, they wrote the manifesto Toward a Free Revolutionary Art.

Breton found kindred spirits in the Rosemonts. Franklin and Penelope came back to the U.S. and formed the Chicago Surrealist Group. Its members could be found at Solidarity Bookstore or Gallery Bugs Bunny–both places served as meeting space during organizing around the demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

For the Rosemonts, exhibitions of their art went hand in hand with producing leaflets and posters for the struggle. Franklin worked with the IWW and Students for a Democratic Society. He also spearheaded the newspaper Surrealist Insurrection, which was singled out as an inspiration by radical students during the Prague Spring rebellion in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

FRANKLIN WAS a tireless writer. After Breton’s death in 1966, he edited an English language collection of Breton’s writings, among many other works by surrealists. He published numerous books of his own poetry.

He also used his encyclopedic knowledge of American labor and the left to become a prolific historian–all without, as one tribute to him put it, “ever holding a university post.” Recently, he published his biography Joe Hill, the IWW and the Making of a Working-Class Counterculture. He also edited and wrote introductions for numerous books collecting the writings of a virtual Who’s Who of American radicals.

Many of these books were connected to what became a central project of Franklin’s life–the Charles H. Kerr Company, the oldest socialist publisher in the country.

Founded in 1886, the Kerr Company was a stronghold of the Socialist Party left and IWW during the first decades of the 20th century–known for a vast list of radical books, its series of short pamphlets wrapped in red cellophane called “The Pocket Library of Socialism,” and its monthly magazine, the widely read International Socialist Review.

By the time Franklin connected with the Kerr Company in the late 1970s, it had fallen on hard times. A small number of older socialists who remembered the Kerr Company in its heyday had recently joined the board of directors, thinking that the company deserved “a proper burial,” and that at least its stock of old books could be saved from the dumpster.

But one thing led to another, and the Kerr Company was reborn, with a steady trickle–and then a healthy stream–of reprints and new titles. Franklin threw himself into the work with all his infectious energy, giving new life to Kerr classics by the likes of Upton Sinclair, Clarence Darrow, Eugene Debs, Mother Jones and many more.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I MET Franklin when I was first coming around left-wing politics in the early 1980s. With the right-wing Reagan era taking hold, Franklin’s knowledge and experience were a treasured resource. He was a bridge to the struggles of the past that we knew about mainly through reading–not only those he was a part of in the 1960s and ’70s, but ones that came before him.

Through Franklin, I met the Kerr Company’s movement veterans–like Fred Thompson, whose days as an agitator dated back to the pre-Depression Wobblies. Or Joe Giganti, formerly head of the Sacco-Vanzetti Defense Committee, not to mention opera critic for the Communist Party’s Italian-language paper Il Lavoratore.

I knew about the 1930s Chicago union activist Vicki Starr (who went by the name Stella Nowicki) from the wonderful documentary Union Maids. But of course, Franklin and his Kerr Company co-conspirator David Roediger knew where she lived, and got her to an International Women’s Day event where she could be questioned in person.

I should also say that I was never prouder to call Chicago my hometown than when I was talking to Franklin. He was an inexhaustible storehouse of information about the other Chicago they don’t make tourism commercials about–or mention in their bids to host the Olympics.

It was enough to say you’d moved to a new place in such and such neighborhood, and you’d soon learn that you were down the block from a factory once owned by the German émigré who financed the English-language translation of Marx’s Capital, or that there was a forgotten monument to Haymarket martyr Albert Parsons’ widow Lucy Parsons in a park nearby, or that the 1968 convention protesters had taken refuge on that street over there where they’re building the fancy townhouses.

The book of Franklin’s that I always thought was perfectly suited to him was the Haymarket Scrapbook, which he edited with David Roediger–and if you see a copy for sale anywhere, don’t hesitate, grab it fast.

The Scrapbook is what a coffee-table book should be–hugely oversized, and stuffed with essays, excerpts, quotes, poems, drawings, photos, reproductions of leaflets and anything else remotely pertaining to the 1886 demonstration in Chicago’s Haymarket Square and the execution of the Haymarket Martyrs after that.

The book tells the story of the Martyrs and the movement for the eight-hour day that they led. But it also sets out the backdrop and associated political developments, and it traces Haymarket’s reverberations through the years in shaping all kinds of people and all kinds of struggles.

This is the history of our movement that’s kept hidden from us. Franklin was devoted to keeping that history alive so that it could be a part of shaping the struggles of the future. And for that, we owe him many thanks–and our commitment to keep up the fight.

Four CIA chiefs said ‘don’t reveal torture memos’

April 20, 2009

Agency’s ex-directors objected to interrogation techniques being revealed. But Barack Obama went ahead anyway.

By Pamela Hess | The Independent, UK, April 19, 2009

Former CIA directors General Michael Hayden (above), Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch fought the White House over release of embarrassing documents

afp

Former CIA directors General Michael Hayden (above), Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch fought the White House over release of embarrassing documents

Four former CIA directors opposed the release of classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed disclosure of the records. Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called “torture memos” would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say.

President Barack Obama ultimately overruled the objections after internal discussions that intensified in the weeks that followed the former directors’ intervention. The memos were released on Thursday.

Mr Obama’s involvement grew as the decision neared, and he even led a National Security Council session on the matter, four senior administration officials said. White House adviser David Axelrod, who said he also talked to Mr Obama about the pending release of the memos in recent weeks, said the ex-directors’ opposition was considered seriously but did not impede the decision-making process. “The CIA directors weighed in and it slowed things down,” Mr Axelrod said on Friday.

The memos detailed the legal rationales that senior Bush administration lawyers drew up authorising the CIA to use simulated drowning and other harsh techniques on terror suspects. They described how prisoners were naked, shackled and hooded at the start of interrogation sessions. When the CIA interrogator removed the hood, the questioning began. When a prisoner resisted, the documents outlined techniques the CIA could use to bring him back in line:

* Nudity, sleep deprivation and dietary restrictions kept prisoners compliant and reminded them they had no control over their basic needs. Clothes and food could be used as rewards for co-operation.

* Slapping prisoners on the face or abdomen was allowed. So was grabbing them forcefully by the collar or slamming them into a false wall, a technique called “walling” intended to induce fear rather than pain.

* Water hoses were used to douse the prisoners for minutes at a time. The hoses were turned on and off as the interrogation continued.

* Prisoners were put into one of three “stress positions”, such as sitting on the floor with legs out straight and arms raised in the air.

* At night, the detainees were shackled, standing naked or wearing a nappy. The length of sleep deprivation varied but was authorised for up to 180 hours, or seven and a half days. Interrogation sessions ranged from 30 minutes to several hours and could be repeated as necessary, and as approved by psychological and medical teams.

The Bush administration approved the use of waterboarding, a technique in which a suspect was strapped to a board, his feet raised above his head, and his face covered with a wet cloth as interrogators poured water over it. The body responds as if it is drowning, over and over as the process is repeated. “We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death,” Justice Department attorneys wrote. “From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing.”

But attorneys decided that waterboarding caused “no pain or actual harm whatsoever” and so did not meet the “severe pain and suffering” standard to be considered torture.

President Obama has ended the CIA’s interrogation programme. CIA interrogators are now required to follow army guidelines, under which waterboarding and many of the techniques listed above are prohibited.

The President gave the question of these documents’ release “the appropriate reflection”, Mr Axelrod said. He said Mr Obama’s deliberations revolved around “the issue of national security versus the rule of law”, and amounted to “one of the most profound issues the President of the United States has to deal with”.

On 18 March, the Justice Department told the Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, as he was leaving for a foreign trip, that it would be recommending that the White House release the memos almost completely uncensored, officials said. Mr Panetta told the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, and officials in the White House that the administration needed to discuss the possibility that the memos’ release might expose CIA officers to lawsuits on allegations of torture and abuse. Mr Panetta also pushed for more censorship of the memos, officials said. The Justice Department informed other senior CIA leaders of the decision to release the memos and, as a courtesy, told former agency directors.

Senior CIA officials objected, arguing that the release would damage the agency’s ability to interrogate prisoners. They also said the move would tarnish CIA officers who had acted on the Bush officials’ legal guidance. And they warned that the action would erode foreign intelligence services’ trust in the CIA’s ability to protect national security secrets. The four former directors immediately protested to the White House, officials said. The enhanced interrogation procedures outlined in the memos had been approved on Mr Tenet’s watch during the Bush administration.

On 19 March, the Justice Department requested a two-week delay in responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that asked for release of the memos. Justice officials told the court dealing with that lawsuit that it was considering releasing the memos voluntarily. Two weeks later, Justice Department lawyers told the court the memos would come out on or before 16 April.

Inside the White House, according to aides, Mr Obama expressed concerns that releasing the memos could threaten current intelligence operations as well as US officials. He also echoed the CIA chiefs’ worries about US relationships with always-skittish foreign intelligence services. The Justice Department argued that the ACLU lawsuit would in the end force the administration to release the documents anyway, officials said.

Mr Obama eventually agreed. The administration decided it would be better to make the release voluntarily, so as not to be seen as being forced to do so, the officials said. The only items blacked out included names of US employees or foreign services or items related to techniques still in use. Still, CIA officials needed reassurance about the decision, the officials said.

Mr Obama took the unusual step of accompanying his decision with a personal letter to CIA employees. He also devoted a big share of his public statement to saying and repeating that he believed strongly in keeping intelligence operations secret, and operations about them classified. He said he would not apologise for doing so in the future

What the memos reveal

The Bush administration memos describe the interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects, the fullest government account of the techniques to date. They range from waterboarding – or simulated drowning – to using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls. The treatment of two suspects in particular are described:

Abu Zubaydah In 2002, the Justice Department authorised CIA interrogators to step up the pressure even further on the suspected terrorist. Justice Department lawyers said the CIA could place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box. Because Zubaydah appeared afraid of insects, they also authorised interrogators to place him in a box filled with caterpillars (though the tactic was not in fact used). Finally, the Justice Department authorised interrogators to take a step into what the United States now considers torture: waterboarding. Zubaydah was strapped to a board, his feet raised above his head. His face was covered with a wet cloth as interrogators poured water over it.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed A memo dated 30 May 2005 says that before the harsher methods were used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a top al-Qa’ida detainee, he refused to answer questions about pending plots against the US. “Soon, you will know,” he said, according to the memo. It says the interrogations later extracted details of a plot called the “second wave”, using East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner in Los Angeles. Plots that were disrupted, the memos say, include the alleged effort by Jose Padilla to detonate a “dirty bomb”, spreading radioactive materials by means of explosives.