Archive for December, 2009

Mr. 10%: Our Man in Islamabad

December 25, 2009

Eric Margolis, The Huffington Post, Dec 23, 2009

In my office hang photos of this writer with Pakistan’s last four leaders. Two of them – Zia ul Haq and Benazir Bhutto – were murdered. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted in a military coup led by photo number four, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who was deposed last year by Pakistan’s military.

Either leading Pakistan is a job with very poor career prospects, or I’m a jinx. Take your pick.

Now, in a delicious irony, Washington is finally getting the democracy it has been calling for in Pakistan – and it’s the Mother of all Backfires.

I’ve not met Pakistan’s current president, Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto. But I’ve written for decades about corruption charges that relentlessly dog him. At one point, I was threatened with having acid thrown in my face if I kept writing about the Bhutto-Zardari’s financial scandals.

Asif Ali Zardari became known to one and all as “Mr. 10%” from the time when he was a minister in his wife’s government, in charge of approving government contracts. Critics say the 10% and other kickbacks produced millions for the Zardari-Bhutto family.

But Benazir Bhutto repeatedly insisted to me that she and her husband – who was tortured and jailed for years on corruption charges – were innocent and victims of political persecution in Pakistan’s utterly corrupt legal system where “justice” goes to the biggest payer of bribes, and politicians use courts to punish their rivals. Small wonder so many Pakistanis are calling for far more honest Islamic justice.

In 2008, Washington sought to rescue Musharraf’s foundering dictatorship by convincing the popular but still self-exiled Benazir Bhutto to front for him as democratic window-dressing for continued military rule. Her price: amnesty for a long list of corruption charges against her and her husband. The US and Britain quietly arranged the amnesty for the Bhuttos and thousands of their indicted supporters (and other political figures).

Just before her assassination, Benazir told me jealous associates of Musharraf were gunning for her.

Asif Zardari then inherited Benazir’s Pakistan People’s Party, the nation’s largest. He became president, thanks to strong US and British political and financial support.

Zardari repaid this support by facilitating the US war in Afghanistan, and allowed the Pentagon to keep using Pakistan’s bases and military personnel, without which the war in Afghanistan could not be prosecuted. Washington promised Pakistan’s elite, pro-western leadership at least $8 billion.

That sleazy deal has now come unstuck thanks to Pakistan’s newest, rather improbable democratic hero, Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. As chief justice of the Supreme Court under Musharraf, he was expected to rubber stamp government decisions.

Instead, Justice Chaudhry began enforcing the law by reinstating the dismissed corruption charges and examining the legality of Musharraf’s self-appointed second term.
Musharraf, with shameful backing from Washington and London, had Justice Chaudhry kicked off the bench. He, and a score of fellow judges who would not toe the line, were placed under house arrest. Some were beaten. Their pensions were canceled.

But the ebbing of Zardari’s power has resulted in the reinstatement by parliament of Justice Chaudhry, who promptly reinstated all the old charges. For the first time, Pakistan was tasting the true institutions of democracy at work.

Zardari has presidential immunity against criminal charges. But his chief lieutenants face prosecution, notably regime strongman, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, and Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar. Both are key supporters and facilitators of US military operations in Afghanistan, America’s use of Pakistani bases, and Pakistan’s war against its own rebellious Pashtun tribesmen (AKA “Taliban”).

Opposition parties are demanding Zardari and senior aides resign. Islamabad is in an uproar just when Washington needs Pakistan’s government to intensify the war against the so-called Pakistani Taliban and support President Barack Obama’s expanded war in Afghanistan. Washington is also intensifying drone attacks inside Pakistan, that are provoking fierce public outrage against the US, and weighing air attacks on Baluchistan Province.

Skeletons are dancing out of Zardari’s closets: $63 million in illegal kickbacks and commissions allegedly hidden in Swiss bank accounts; accusation of laundering $13.7 million in Switzerland. Charges of kickbacks on helicopter and warplane deals. In 2003, Swiss magistrates found Zardari and Bhutto guilty of money laundering, sentencing them to a six month suspended jail term, a fine of $50,000, and ordering them to repay $11 million to Pakistan’s government.

Zardari has an estimated personal fortune of $2 billion; luxurious properties in the US, France, Spain and Britain, and on it goes. He avoided trial in Switzerland by claiming mental illness.

In 2008, Gen. Musharraf had all charges against the Bhuttos dropped as part of the US-engineered plan for a diumverate with Benazir.

The Bhuttos remain one of the largest feudal landowners in a desperately poor nation where annual income is US$1,027 and illiteracy over 50%. Pakistan has been ruled since its creation in 1947 by either callous feudal landlords, who bought and sold politicians like bags of Basmati rice, or by generals.

It appears that Zardari’s days as Washington’s man in Islamabad are numbered. Anti-American fury is surging, with popular claims that Pakistan has been “occupied” by the US, treated like a third-rate banana republic, and is run by corrupt, US-installed stooges and crooks. Shades of Iran under the Shah, and Egypt under Sadat.

Many Pakistanis blame the current bloody wave of bombings in their nation on US mercenaries from Xe (formerly Blackwater), and old foe India staging attacks in revenge for decades of bombings in Kashmir, Punjab and its eastern hill states by Pakistani intelligence.

Most Pakistanis believe Washington is bent on tearing apart their unstable nation to seize its nuclear weapons.

Washington is almost back to square one in turbulent Pakistan. When Zardari goes or is kicked upstairs as an impotent figurehead, attention will turn to Pakistan’s 617,000-man military and its commander, Gen – or should we say “president-elect” Ashfaq Kiyani? He is already in almost constant contact with the Pentagon.

In 2010, the ugly acronym, “Afpak,” will bedevil, befuddle, and consume the Obama White House that so unwisely and rashly ignored Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s wise warning to avoid land wars in Asia.

As the US expands the Afghan War, its strategic rear area in Pakistan is up in flames.

Where Is The Palestinian “Peace Now”?

December 24, 2009

By Neve Gordon, ZNet, Dec 24, 2009
Neve Gordon’s ZSpace Page

“Why,” I have often been asked, “haven’t the Palestinians established a peace movement like the Israeli Peace Now?”

The question itself is actually problematic because it is based on many erroneous assumptions, such as the notion that there is symmetry between the two sides and that Peace Now has been a politically effective movement. Most important, though, is the false supposition that the Palestinians have indeed failed to create a pro-peace popular movement.

Continues >>

Foundations of Christianity

December 24, 2009
Written by John Pickard, In Defence of Marxism,  Wednesday, 23 December 2009

Many of us know that the origins of Christianity have nothing to do with silent nights or wise men. So what are its true origins? John Pickard looks at the reality of how this religion came about – from the standpoint of class forces and the material developments of society, rather than by the pious fictions fed from church pulpits.

Foundations of Christianity

My late father had a very wry sense of humour. At Christmas, whenever there was a reference to church services on the television, he would tut and shake his head. “Look at that”, he would say, “They try to bring religion into everything!”

I imagine much the same complaint may have been made by ancient celts, annoyed that the Christian priests were taking over their traditional Yule festival, celebrating the winter solstice. Or perhaps by Roman citizens, peeved at the Christians taking over their annual ‘Saturnalia’ festival in the last weeks of December.

Continues >>

Torture: The Transfers of Afghan Prisoners

December 24, 2009
Letter to Canada’s House of Commons

by Lawyers Against the War

Uruknet.info, Monday, December 21, 2009

Open letter to the Parliamentary Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan

Dear Committee Members:

Chair: Rick Casson, Vice-chair: Bryon Wilfert, Members: Jim Abbott, Ujjal Dosanjh, Francine Lalonde, Claude Bachand, Laurie Hawn, Dave MacKenzie, Paul Dewar, Greg Kerr, Deepak Obhrai:

Lawyers against the War (LAW) urges the Parliamentary Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan to recommend:

The immediate cessation of transfers of people taken prisoner in Afghanistan (prisoners) by Canada, to third countries, including Afghanistan; and,

That Canada immediately undertake effective protective and remedial measures with respect to all prisoners already transferred by Canada to third countries; and,

The creation of a judicial inquiry mandated to inquire into allegations that the transfers violate Canadian and international law and to recommend the civil and criminal remedies required by law.

Continues >>

For Obama, No Opportunity Too Big To Blow

December 24, 2009

By Naomi Klein, ZNet, Dec 23, 2009
Source: EnviroNation

Naomi Klein’s ZSpace Page

Contrary to countless reports, the debacle in Copenhagen was not everyone’s fault. It did not happen because human beings are incapable of agreeing, or are inherently self-destructive. Nor was it all was China’s fault, or the fault of the hapless UN.

There’s plenty of blame to go around, but there was one country that possessed unique power to change the game. It didn’t use it. If Barack Obama had come to Copenhagen with a transformative and inspiring commitment to getting the U.S. economy off fossil fuels, all the other major emitters would have stepped up. The EU, Japan, China and India had all indicated that they were willing to increase their levels of commitment, but only if the U.S. took the lead. Instead of leading, Obama arrived with embarrassingly low targets and the heavy emitters of the world took their cue from him.

Continues >>

Obama and the Permanent War Budget

December 24, 2009

William Hartung, Foreign Policy in Focus, Dec 23, 2009

It’s been a good decade for the Pentagon. The most recent numbers from Capitol Hill indicate that Pentagon spending (counting Iraq and Afghanistan) will reach over $630 billion in 2010. And that doesn’t even include the billions set aside for building new military facilities and sustaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

But even without counting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense budget has been moving relentlessly upward since 2001. Pentagon budget authority has jumped from $296 billion in 2001 to $513 billion in 2009, a 73% increase. And again, that’s not even counting the over $1 trillion in taxpayer money that has been thrown at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if those wars had never happened, the Pentagon would still be racking up huge increases year after year after year.

And perhaps most disturbing of all, the Pentagon budget increased for every year of the first decade of the 21st century, an unprecedented run that didn’t even happen in the World War II era, much less during Korea or Vietnam. And if the government’s current plans are carried out, there will be yearly increases in military spending for at least another decade.

We have a permanent war budget, and most of it isn’t even being used to fight wars – it’s mostly a giveaway to the Pentagon and its favorite contractors.

What Can Be Done?

For starters, the Pentagon needs to cut unnecessary weapons systems that were designed to meet Cold War threats that no longer exist. A good place to look for these kinds of cuts is in the Unified Security Budget, an analysis provided annually by a taskforce organized by Foreign Policy In Focus. Its most recent recommendations call for over $55 billion in cuts in everything from unneeded combat aircraft to anti-missile programs to nuclear weapons spending.

To their credit, President Obama and his Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have sought to eliminate eight such programs, from the F-22 combat aircraft to the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (a leftover from the old “Star Wars” program). An analysis recently produced by Taxpayers for Common Sense indicated that six of the eight proposed program cuts stuck. This is an impressive record, given the need to fight the weapons contractors and their pork-barreling allies in Congress to get the job done. But as the analysis also notes, additional spending on other programs added up to $1 billion more than the amount saved by the cuts.

This shouldn’t be surprising. As a candidate for president, Obama told a rally in Iowa that it might be necessary to “bump up” the military budget beyond the record levels established by the Bush administration. And in announcing the administration’s proposed weapons cuts in spring 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made it clear that he was seeking to rearrange priorities within the Pentagon, not reduce its budget. Gates sought more funding for equipment that would support counterinsurgency operations – like unmanned aerial vehicles – and less for systems designed to fight a Soviet threat that no longer exists – like the F-22 combat aircraft. And he got pretty much what he asked for.

Reducing U.S. Reach

Another area for savings would be to cut the size of the armed forces. But Obama campaigned on a promise to carry out a troop increase of 92,000, mirroring proposals made by the Bush administration. And his commitment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan might set the stage for even larger increases in the total U.S. forces at some point down the road.

Finally, any real savings in U.S. military spending would need to be accompanied by a reduction in U.S. “global reach” – in the hundreds of major military facilities it controls in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. But – in parallel to the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan- U.S. overseas-basing arrangements have been on the rise, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan themselves but in bordering nations.

So, barring major public pressure, don’t expect the overall Pentagon budget to go down anytime soon. We can certainly still achieve some real reforms, from the elimination of outmoded systems like the F-22, to cracking down on war profiteering, to supporting the Obama administration’s indispensable efforts to cut back the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. At least for now, though, making the Pentagon do with less when most communities in the country are suffering from the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression is not in the cards. Not unless large numbers of us make it an issue.

© 2009 Foreign Policy in Focus

William Hartung is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus and the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation.

Lithuanian Probe Reveals Two CIA Black Sites

December 23, 2009

CIA Conducted ‘Interrogations’ in Stable

by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com,  December 22, 2009

The Lithuanian Parliament released its findings into a probe of CIA activities in the nation today, confirming that the American spy agency in fact operated two “black sites” inside the Lithuanian capital city of Vilnius.

Povilas Malakauskas

The probe further showed that at least five CIA planes landed in the city and that Lithuania’s own domestic spy agencies prevented border guards from inspecting them. Lithuania’s civilian government denies ever having been informed of any such actions beforehand, and Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius called it a “matter of great concern.”

Rather the requests are said to have gone directly to Lithuania’s State Security Department, which approved the CIA’s requests establishing both a single-cell “interrogation” facility and later a larger site. A former stable on the outskirts of the city served as the CIA’s interrogation center.

The US has declined all comments into this probe so far, but the Lithuanian government seems determined not to allow the activity to damage relations at any rate. The State Security Department’s chief, Povilas Malakauskas, resigned last week in anticipation of the results of the probe.

Iran sanctions are a precursor to war

December 23, 2009

Ron Paul, Information Clearing House, Dec 23, 2009

Last week the House overwhelmingly approved a measure to put a new round of sanctions on Iran. If this measure passes the Senate, the United States could no longer do business with anyone who sold refined petroleum products to Iran or helped them develop their ability to refine their own petroleum. The sad thing is that many of my colleagues voted for this measure because they felt it would deflect a military engagement with Iran. I would put the question to them, how would Congress react if another government threatened our critical trading partners in this way? Would we not view it as asking for war?

This policy is pure isolationism. It is designed to foment war by cutting off trade and diplomacy. Too many forget that the quagmire in Iraq began with an embargo. Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade. It is ironic that people who decry isolationism support actions like this.

If a foreign government attempted to isolate the US economically, cut off our supply of gasoline, or starve us to death, would it cause Americans to admire that foreign entity? Or would we instead unite under the flag for the survival of our country?

We would not tolerate foreign covert operations fomenting regime change in our government. Yet our CIA has been meddling in Iran for decades. Of course Iranians resent this. In fact, many in Iran still resent the CIA’s involvement in overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953. The answer is not to cut off gasoline to the Iranian people. The answer is to stay out of their affairs and trade with them honestly. If our operatives were no longer in Iran, they would no longer be available as scapegoats for the regime to, rightly or wrongly, blame for every bad thing that happens. As bad as other regimes may be, it is up to their own people to deal with them so they can achieve true self-determination. When foreigners instigate regime change, the new government they institute is always perceived as serving the interest of the overthrowing country, not the people. Thus we take the blame for bad governance twice. Instead we should stay out of their affairs altogether.

With the exception of the military industrial complex, we all want a more peaceful world. Many are hysterical about the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran. Here are the facts: Iran has never been found out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) they signed. However, being surrounded by nuclear powers one can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully. After all, we don’t sanction nuclear capable countries. We take diplomatic negotiations a lot more seriously, and we frequently send money to them instead. The non-nuclear countries are the ones we bomb. If Iran was attempting to violate the non-proliferation treaty, they could hardly be blamed, since US foreign policy gives them every incentive to do so.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Liu Xiabao Chinese dissident goes on trial

December 23, 2009
Al Jazeera, Dec 23, 2009
Liu Xiabao had repeatedly called for political reform and the protection of human rights in China [Reuters]


The trial of a leading Chinese dissident accused of trying to subvert the power of the state has ended after lasting just two hours.

Liu Xiaobo, a 53-year-old academic, who was previously jailed over the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, has been charged with “inciting subversion of state power” for co-authoring a report appealing for political liberalisation.

Liu’s brother told reporters after the trial that a verdict was expected on Friday.

The highly-sensitive case has been criticised by human rights groups and Western governments who have urged China to drop the charges and immediately release Liu.

Western diplomats in Beijing had requests to attend the trial rejected, while other key Chinese dissidents were also reportedly warned to stay away.

Dozens of police ringed the courthouse on Wednesday as Liu’s trial was set to get underway.

If convicted, Liu faces a maximum of 15 years in prison. He has already been jailed for 21 months for participating in the Tiananmen protests.

The case against Liu centres on his co-authoring of a petition called Charter 08, which calls for the protection of human rights in China and reform of the country’s one-party communist system.

Petition circulated

Who is Liu Xiabao?
Liu Xiabao is a literary critic, a former professor of literature and human rights activist.

He has called for the reform of China’s one-party Communist system, and was jailed for 21 months for taking part in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

In 1996, he served another three years in a “re-education” camp for seeking the release of prisoners jailed in the Tiananmen demonstrations.

Last year, he was arrested for co-authoring Charter 08 – a petition calling for freedom of assembly, expression, and religion in China.

In June, Liu was charged with the “incitement of subversion of state power” and could face up to 15 years in prison if convicted.

According to China Human Rights Defenders, a network of activists, the petition had been widely circulated online, and was signed by more than 10,000 people, including other dissidents and intellectuals.It specifically calls for the abolition of subversion in China’s criminal code – the very crime with which Liu has been charged.

Bao Tong, a former aide to ex-Chinese leader Zhao Ziyang, who was jailed for sympathising with the Tiananmen protests, also signed the petition.

“I insisted that I am a part of this case. If Liu Xiaobo is to be tried, then I should be tried as well,” he told AFP news agency.

“If he is found guilty, this will be a problem because it will mean that the freedom of speech and freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution are fake.”

Liu is fighting the charges but has no plans to appeal if the verdict goes against him, his wife, Liu Xia, said ahead of Wednesday’s trial opening.

“With a government like this, a government without principles, there is nothing you can say,” she said.

Access barred

Gregory May, a political officer with the US embassy in Beijing, said he and other diplomats had been refused access to the trial.

“We were told all the passes were given out. We understand no one can get
in,” he told reporters.

“Liu Xiaobo’s detention and trial show that the Chinese government will not tolerate Chinese citizens participating in discussions about their own form of government”

Sam Zarifi,
Amnesty International’

“We call on the government of China to release him immediately. We urge that any judicial proceedings be conducted in a fair and transparent manner.”Nicholas Weeks, the first secretary of the Swedish Embassy, said diplomats from at least 15 countries were outside the court.

Human rights groups say the sensitive trial has been deliberately timed by Chinese authorities to coincide with the Christmas holiday period, in the hope that international media and foreign governments will overlook the case.

The subversion charge faced by Liu is often brought against those who voice opposition to China’s ruling Communist Party, and rights groups have accused the government of abusing such charges to silence its critics.

“Liu Xiaobo’s detention and trial show that the Chinese government will not tolerate Chinese citizens participating in discussions about their own form of government,” Sam Zarifi, the director of Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Programme, said in a statement.

“After Liu Xiaobo, more than 300 Chinese scholars, lawyers and officials who proposed a blueprint for improving their political system may be at risk, as well as nearly 10,000 signatories.”

SRI LANKA: Five Years after Tsunami, Many Still without Shelter

December 23, 2009

By Amantha Perera, Inter Press service News, Dec 23, 2009

KALMUNAI, Sri Lanka, Dec 23 (IPS) – “We have been here for almost five years. So many promises have been made, but very few have been kept,” complains Mohideen Nafia, 22, one of the survivors of the 2004 Asian tsunami still living in a temporary facility in the coastal town of Kalmunai, located 300 kilometres east of the capital, Colombo.

Newly married Nafia would have preferred a house of her own with her husband. But at the moment she has to make do with what amounts to a shelter, a one-room unit in a government-provided disaster camp, which the couple shares with Nafia’s family of five and is located about a one kilometre from the beach.

Continues >>