Archive for July, 2009

The Uighurs and China: lost and found nation

July 9, 2009

Yitzhak Shichor, Open Democracy, July 6, 2009

The broader roots of the eruption of protest in China’s far-west region of Xinjiang lie in the experience of the Uighur people under Beijing’s rule, says Yitzhak Shichor.

The reports of violence and deaths in the city of Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang province in northwest China, draw renewed attention to this comparatively neglected region of China and of central Asia. The exact details of what happened there on the night of 5-6 July 2009 are unclear and (inevitably) disputed, though the background may include the assaults on Uighur migrant workers at a toy factory in Guangdong province on 26 June (in which two are reported dead and dozens injured).

Continued >>

McNamara’s Evil Lives On

July 9, 2009
x

BlinkList this item BlinkList
del.icio.us this item del.icio.us
Digg this item Digg
Facebook this item Facebook
Fark this item Fark
Furl this item Furl
Google this item Google
LinkedIn this item LinkedIn
Mixx this item Mixx
MySpace this item MySpace
NewsVine this item NewsVine
NewsTrust this item NewsTrust
Propeller this item Propeller
Reddit this item Reddit
SphereIt this item SphereIt
StumbleUpon this item StumbleUpon
Technorati this item Technorati
TwitThis this item TwitThis
YahooMyWeb this item YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz this item YahooBuzz

Truthdig.com, Posted on July 7, 2009

McNamara and Johnson
AP photo

President Lyndon B. Johnson, right, confers with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in November 1963.

By Robert Scheer

Why not speak ill of the dead?

Robert McNamara, who died this week, was a complex man—charming even, in a blustery way, and someone I found quite thoughtful when I interviewed him. In the third act of his life he was often an advocate for enlightened positions on world poverty and the dangers of the nuclear arms race. But whatever his better nature, it was the stark evil he perpetrated as secretary of defense that must indelibly frame our memory of him.

To not speak out fully because of respect for the deceased would be to mock the memory of the millions of innocent people McNamara caused to be maimed and killed in a war that he later freely admitted never made any sense. Much has been made of the fact that he recanted his support for the war, but that came 20 years after the holocaust he visited upon Vietnam was over.

Is holocaust too emotionally charged a word? How many millions of dead innocent civilians does it take to qualify labels like holocaust, genocide or terrorism? How many of the limbless victims of his fragmentation bombs and land mines whom I saw in Vietnam during and after the war? Or are America’s leaders always to be exempted from such questions? Perhaps if McNamara had been held legally accountable for his actions, the architects of the Iraq debacle might have paused.

Instead, McNamara was honored with the Medal of Freedom by President Lyndon Johnson, to whom he had written a private memo nine months earlier offering this assessment of their Vietnam carnage: “The picture of the world’s greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 noncombatants a week, while trying to pound a tiny backward nation into submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one.”

He knew it then, and, give him this, the dimensions of that horror never left him. When I interviewed him for the Los Angeles Times in 1995, after the publication of his confessional memoir, his assessment of the madness he had unleashed was all too clear:

“Look, we dropped three to four times the tonnage on that tiny little area as were dropped by the Allies in all of the theaters in World War II over a period of five years. It was unbelievable. We killed—there were killed—3,200,000 Vietnamese, excluding the South Vietnamese military. My God! The killing, the tonnage—it was fantastic. The problem was that we were trying to do something that was militarily impossible—we were trying to break the will; I don’t think we can break the will by bombing short of genocide.”

We—no, he—couldn’t break their will because their fight was for national independence. They had defeated the French and would defeat the Americans who took over when French colonialists gave up the ghost. The war was a lie from the first. It never had anything to do with the freedom of the Vietnamese (we installed one tyrant after another in power), but instead had to do with our irrational Cold War obsession with “international communism.” Irrational, as President Richard Nixon acknowledged when he embraced détente with the Soviet communists, toasted China’s fierce communist Mao Tse-tung and then escalated the war against “communist” Vietnam and neutral Cambodia.

It was always a lie and our leaders knew it, but that did not give them pause. Both Johnson and Nixon make it quite clear on their White House tapes that the mindless killing, McNamara’s infamous body count, was about domestic politics and never security.

The lies are clearly revealed in the Pentagon Papers study that McNamara commissioned, but they were made public only through the bravery of Daniel Ellsberg. Yet when Ellsberg, a former Marine who had worked for McNamara in the Pentagon, was in the docket facing the full wrath of Nixon’s Justice Department, McNamara would lift not a finger in his defense. Worse, as Ellsberg reminded me this week, McNamara threatened that if subpoenaed to testify at the trial by Ellsberg’s defense team, “I would hurt your client badly.”

Not as badly as those he killed or severely wounded. Not as badly as the almost 59,000 American soldiers killed and the many more horribly hurt. One of them was the writer and activist Ron Kovic, who as a kid from Long Island was seduced by McNamara’s lies into volunteering for two tours in Vietnam. Eventually, struggling with his mostly paralyzed body, he spoke out against the war in the hope that others would not have to suffer as he did (and still does). Meanwhile, McNamara maintained his golden silence, even as Richard Nixon managed to kill and maim millions more. What McNamara did was evil—deeply so.

US Drone Strikes Kill at Least 60 in Pakistan

July 9, 2009

Twin Strikes Today Bring Total to Four Strikes, Nearly 100 Killed in Less than a Week

by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, July 08, 2009

US Predator drones launched a pair of missile attacks at two targets in South Waziristan today, killing at least 60 and wounding an unknown number of others. The attacks are the second and third in less than 24 hours, and the fourth in less than a week.

In the first attack, drones fired six missiles at a mountaintop training camp, killing 10. Later more drones fired missiles at several vehicles 12 miles east, killing at least 50.

Yesterday, the drones had attacked another compound, killing at least 16 and wounding around 30 others. On Friday, another strike killed 17. So far there are no reports that any high profile militants have been killed in any of the strikes.

Though the Obama Administration has dramatically ratcheted up the rate and severity of the strikes since President Obama’s inauguration, the level has risen even further in recent weeks. The latest escalation seems to be coinciding with the Pakistani military’s offensive in South Waziristan, though it is unclear what role, if any, the Pakistani government had in the selection of the most recent targets.

Is Texas Harboring a Torture Decider?

July 9, 2009

The Buck Stops Where It Began

By Ray McGovern | Counterpunch, July 8, 2009

Editor’s Note: Prior to giving a series of talks in Texas later this week, the author offered the following op-ed to the Dallas Morning News and the Fort-Worth Star-Telegram. Both newspapers in George W. Bush’s home state turned it down.

Seldom does a crime scene have so clear a smoking gun. A two-page presidential memorandum of Feb. 7, 2002, leaves no room for uncertainty regarding the “decider” on torture. His broad-stroke signature made torture official policy.

This should come as no surprise. You see, the Feb. 7, 2002, memorandum has been posted on the Web since June 22, 2004, when then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales mistakenly released it, along with other White House memoranda.

Continued >>

Xinjiang Muslims’ Struggle for Freedom

July 9, 2009
Islam Online,  July , 9 2009


By  Politics in Depth Team
Xinjiang region is to the north-west of China
Xinjiang region is to the north-west of China.

Watching China’s 2008 Olympic Mascots jumping around in their colorful customs and fireworks lightning the sky of the massive country, you would be witnessing the bright side of the communist regime.On the other side stands a picture painted with red and green. In its dark green uniform, the Chinese army is filling up lakes with the blood of inhabitants of the Muslim-majority region of East Turkistan (Xinjiang) butchering 156 protestors, wounding hundreds, and arresting 1,400.

Muslims in Xinjiang (Uighurs) have been suffering under the Chinese occupation for a long time. The region is rich with oil, gas reserves, and about 121 minerals out of the 148 that China produces. Accordingly, the communist regime has given itself a freehand to suppress the Muslim population, burn their Islamic books, tear down mosques, and work on erasing the Muslim identity off the region. The Chinese government has been ruling with iron fist for long time and all is taking place under the silence of the international community. Must it be that Xinjiang Muslims have a charismatic leader in exile like that of Buddhists of the Tibet to get international attention?

What are the motives of the Chinese government? And who are the Xinjiang Muslims?

IslamOnline.net presents this collective folder in an attempt to present a more comprehensive picture of the status of the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang.

Muslim states ‘deeply concerned’ by China unrest

July 8, 2009

Middle East Online, July 7, 2009



At least 156 people were killed in Urumqi unrest

OIC deplores disproportionate use of force, firepower against China’s Muslim Uighurs.

JEDDAH – Muslim states said they were “deeply concerned” on Tuesday by riots which left at least 156 people dead in China’s Xinjiang region, where Muslim Uighurs form the largest ethnic group.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference deplored the “disproportionate use of force,” calling upon Beijing to open an “honest probe over the seriously dangerous events and to bring those responsible to justice”.

“It seems from the huge number of civilian casualties that there has not been cautious and proportionate use of force and firepower,” the Jeddah-based grouping of 57 Muslim countries said in a statement.

It called on Beijing to address the “problem of Muslim groups and communities in China in a broad manner that would address the roots of the issue.”

At least 156 people were killed and more than 1,000 wounded when violence erupted in the capital of China’s northwestern Xinjiang region, Urumqi, on Sunday after decades of simmering tensions between Uighurs and Han Chinese.

Several human rights groups have expressed concern over the fate of 1,434 people who were taken into police custody, saying they could be tortured or mistreated.

Biden, Israel and Iran

July 8, 2009

“Any Sovereign Nation is Allowed to Bomb Another”

By Gary Leupp | Counterpunch, July 7, 2008

Vice President Joe Biden, apparently speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, has just given Israel the green light to bomb Iran.

“Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,” he told ABC’s “This Week” in an interview broadcast Sunday. “Whether we agree or not, they’re entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed. If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice,” he declared.

The statement is presented in logically abstract terms. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do what’s in its interest regardless of what “we” think, surely. How very reasonable—magnanimous, even, coming from the mouth of the vice-president of the superpower that’s in the last eight years brutally imposed its will on two sizable Southwest Asian countries.

But to test Biden’s universalist logic imagine yourself in 1939, substitute Germany for Israel and Poland for Iran and ask whether “any sovereign nation is” really “entitled to do that.”

Of course Israel doesn’t have any “sovereign right” to attack Iran! And Biden’s implied distaste for the attack (“That is not our choice”), which may presage a calculated distancing from an action in the future, doesn’t undo the fact that he explicitly validates such action here.

They’re entitled to do it, says Joe. Just as presumably they’re entitled to remain outside the nuclear nonproliferation treaty regime, and produce and stockpile the only nuclear weapons in the Middle East, while claiming that the Iranian nuclear program (begun under U.S. encouragement under the Shah) can only have military intentions and can only be designed to produced a “nuclear Holocaust” to destroy the Jews.

Just as presumably they’re entitled to deploy vast resources  to pressure the U.S. government to bomb Iran for them. (But no worry about the impact on U.S. foreign policy. “There is no pressure,” says Joe, “from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.” What he really means is: There’s actually a whole shitload of pressure from Israel on us to bomb Iran. But we might not do that. Because Obama thinks that the Israeli-demanded attack on Iran, like the assault on Iraq, might be a “strategic blunder.”)

One could argue, of course, that in positing Netanyahu’s “sovereign right” to bomb Iran, a nation which has not attacked another in modern times, Biden is just shooting off his famous mouth again. But there are at least two reasons his comments should be taken very seriously.

First of all, there is obviously much conflict within the U.S. power structure over the wisdom of a U.S. attack on Iran. The Israel Lobby demanding one may have suffered a defeat at the hands of the Pentagon, which sees such an attack as complicating the imbroglios it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan (and down the road in Pakistan?), and the intelligence community which knows that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapons program threatening the world.

Secondly, the state of Israel continues to depict the Islamic Republic of Iran as an “existential” threat to itself, while threatening to attack it with missiles if the U.S. does not do so. The Bush administration always endorsed Israel’s vilification campaign and conceded the possibility that it might act “on its own” (as though it could really do so without a green light from Washington). Dick Cheney told Don Imus on MSNBC in January 2005 that “Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel [sic (disinformation)], the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.” He implied that if the U.S. didn’t take action, the Israelis would be justified in doing so.

This remains the U.S. position under the Obama administration. And having decided for geopolitical reasons to adopt a tougher line on Israel’s illegal settlements on the West Bank, Washington is perhaps particularly disinclined to deter Israel should it opt to create the mess of which Cheney spoke. “That was not our choice,” it will say.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch’s merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

President Hu skips G8 over China unrest

July 8, 2009
Al Jazeera, July 8, 2009

Troops are out in force on the streets of the predominantly Han Chinese city of Urumqi [Reuters]

China’s president is skipping the G8 summit in Italy and returning to Beijing as ethnic tensions which have already claimed at least 156 lives, flare again.

The official Xinhua news agency said Hu Jintao, who had been on a state visit to Italy ahead of the Group of Eight summit starting on Wednesday, cut short his trip “due to the situation” in Xinjiang.

His hurried return comes as tensions were rising again in Urumqi, the region’s capital, on Wednesday.

Victor Gao, the director of the government-run China National Association of International Studies, called Hu’s early return “very unusual”.

Unprecedented measure

Twitter

Follow Al Jazeera’s China reporter Melissa Chan.

Live Twitter feed

What is twitter?

“Because of the unprecedented scale and the severity of the situation in Xinjiang,” he told Al Jazeera, Hu had taken the “unprecedented measure of leaving the G8 meeting before it starts and coming back to China to exercise his leadership role in calming down the situation in Xinjiang”.

Al Jazeera’s Melissa Chan, reporting from Urumqi, said tensions were rising again after a relatively calm Wednesday morning following a curfew overnight.

Ethnic Han Chinese were taking to the streets, our correspondent said, carrying sticks and trying to enter Uighur neighbourhoods dotted around the predominantly Han city despite riot police blocking off main streets and armoured personnel carriers conducting patrols.

In depth

Q&A: China’s restive Uighurs
Xinjiang: China’s ‘other Tibet’
Silk Road city ‘under threat’
Muslim states ‘silent’ on Uighurs
Uighurs blame ‘ethnic hatred’

Videos:
Uighur leader speaks out
Xinjiang remains in grip of unrest
Exiled Uighur denies stirring unrest
Uighur culture under threat
China clamps down on Uighurs

On Tuesday, thousands of Han Chinese had rampaged through the city seeking revenge against ethnic Uighurs who they say started Sunday’s deadly riots.

Groups of Uighurs also took to the streets and government forces fired tear gas at the crowds and ordered the imposition of a curfew in an effort to maintain control of the city.

According to Chinese authorities at least 156 people died in Sunday’s riot which broke out after a street protest by ethnic Uighurs turned violent.

The riot was some of the deadliest ethnic unrest seen in the country for decades.

Chinese police are reported to have arrested more than 1,400 people in a crackdown that Wang Lequan, the head of the Chinese Communist party in Xinjiang, said was intended to quell the unrest, although he warned “this struggle … against separatism … is far from over”.

Uighurs say Chinese repression and mass Han migration have stoked tensions [Reuters]

Commenting on the government’s handling of the crisis, Victor Gao, who worked as translator for the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, said the government needed to be “very fair and very effective” in tackling the situation.”It is easy to draw the line along ethnic groups, however it is a temptation that we need to resist,” he said.

“I think it’s better to focus on the criminal activities regardless of which ethnic group they are, whether they are Uighurs or Han Chinese.”

Uighur groups say China’s repressive policies combined with years of mass migration to Xinjiang by Han Chinese, China’s largest ethnic group, have stoked ethnic tensions and sown the seeds for violence.

‘Great embarrassment’

Asked if Beijing needed to reconsider its “go west” policy encouraging the Han migration, Gao said China “should not deviate from the overall situation regardless of what’s happening in Urumqi right now”.

Xinjiang and the Uighurs

Xinjiang is officially an autonomous region in China’s west.

Region is sparsely populated but has large reserves of oil, gas and minerals.

Xinjiang was formerly a key transit point on the ancient Silk Road linking China to Europe.

Region’s Turkic speaking Uighur population number around eight million.

Uighur activists say migration from other parts of China is part of official effort to dilute Uighur culture in their own land.

Uighurs say they face repression on a range of fronts, including bans on the teaching of their language.

Uighur separatists have staged series of low-level attacks since early 1990s.

China says Uighur separatists are terrorists and linked to al-Qaeda.

“It is a severe incident, it’s a great embarrassment for us Chinese, but I think we need to continue because I think without stability, improvements of the living standards of the people in Xinjiang, including the Uighurs, will be out of the question.”According to Chinese state media, Sunday’s clashes erupted after a demonstration against the government’s handling of an industrial dispute turned violent.

Beijing blames Uighur exiles for stoking the unrest, singling out Rebiya Kadeer, a Uighur businesswoman who was jailed for years in China before being released into exile in the US where she now heads the World Uighur Congress, for “masterminding” the unrest.

But Kadeer, a 62-year-old mother of 11, has rejected the accusations, saying from Washington DC that they were “completely false”.

Activists say the clashes started when armed police moved in to break up a peaceful demonstration called after two Uighur workers at a toy factory in southern China were killed in a clash with Han Chinese staff late last month.

Kadeer said the protests in Urumqi started peacefully.

“They were not violent as the Chinese government has accused. They were not rioters or separatists,” she said.

She did, however, condemn “the violent actions of some of the Uighur demonstrators”, saying she supported only peaceful protests.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Galloway on McNamara: Reading an obit with great pleasure

July 7, 2009

By Joseph L. Galloway | McClatchy Newspapers, July 6, 2009

“I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.” —Clarence Darrow (1857–1938)

Well, the aptly named Robert Strange McNamara has finally shuffled off to join LBJ and Dick Nixon in the 7th level of Hell.

McNamara was the original bean-counter — a man who knew the cost of everything but the worth of nothing.

Continued >>

British Weapons Inspector Dr Kelly Was Writing Book On Govt Secrets Before Mysterious Death

July 7, 2009

Dr David KELLY’S BOOK OF SECRETS

Daily Express/UK, July 5,  2009

Story ImageDr David Kelly

He was intending to reveal that he warned Prime Minister Tony Blair there were no weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq weeks before the ­British and American invasion.

He had several discussions with a publisher in Oxford and was seeking advice on how far he could go without breaking the law on secrets.

Following his death, his computers were seized and it is still not known if any rough draft was discovered by investigators and, if so, what happened to the material.

Dr Kelly was also intending to lift the lid on a potentially bigger scandal, his own secret dealings in germ warfare with the apartheid regime in South Africa.

US television investigators have spent four years preparing a 90-minute documentary, Anthrax War, suggesting there is a global black market in anthrax and exposing the mystery “suicides” of five government germ warfare scientists from around the world.


“He wanted his story to come out”

Director Bob Coen said: ‘‘The deeper you look into the murky world of governments and germ warfare, the more worrying it becomes.

“We have proved there is a black ­market in anthrax. David Kelly was of particular interest to us because he was a world expert on anthrax and he was involved in some degree with assisting the secret germ warfare programme in apartheid South Africa.”

Dr Kelly was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home on July 17 2003. His apparent suicide came two days after he was interrogated in the ­Commons over his behind-the-scenes role in exposing the flaws in the “sexed-up” Number 10 dossier which justified Britain going to war with Iraq.

Conspiracy theorists have claimed he was murdered.

British author Gordon Thomas said last night: ‘‘I knew David Kelly very well and he called me because he was working on a book.

“He told me he had warned Tony Blair there were no weapons of mass destruction. I advised him that as he had signed the Official Secrets Act life could get ­difficult for him.

“I gained the impression that he was prepared to take the flak as he wanted his story to come out.”

Anthrax War will be screened ­privately in London on July 17, the sixth anniversary of Dr Kelly’s death.