Archive for January, 2010

Pakistan Anger Grows as Obama Steps Up Drone Strikes

January 15, 2010

UN Slams Secrecy Around Repeated Strikes

by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, January 14, 2010

Long something quietly tolerated by the Pakistani government and ignored by the international community, the Obama Administration’s repeated escalation of drone strikes into Pakistan’s tribal areas has gotten too big to ignore, with six separate strikes in the first 14 days of the new year killing scores of people.

The attacks and perhaps worse, the ever present drones flying overheard across North Waziristan threatening further attacks are sewing increasing resentment among tribesmen, even as the massive civilian toll of the strikes is sparking outcry across Pakistan and increasingly, abroad.

Even the United Nations seems willing to get involved, with UN human rights investigator Philip Alston that the US needed to show more transparency with the strikes, particularly as the intensity of the strikes increases.

“When we were dealing with isolated cases I raised it with the United States,” Alston noted, “not that it is systematically using drones, it is becoming increasingly important to get that clarification.”

In 2009 the CIA launched 44 strikes into North and South Waziristan, but managed to kill no more than a handful of notable militants. And while the Pakistani government initially labeled virtually everyone slain as a “suspect,” they are increasingly conceding that there is no evidence to back up that suspicion, and that around 700 people, the vast, vast majority of the victims, were likely innocent civilians.

The extralegal killings of hundreds of people without any accountability or in many cases even admission of responsibility is not only harming American credibility with the Pakistani people, it is even straining relations with the Pakistani government, which was willing to quietly support the strikes before the tolls started to soar. Now even they are growing alarmed at the rate with which American missiles are flying into their territory.

Egypt’s new wall threatens Gaza’s lifeline

January 15, 2010
Middle East Online, Jan 13, 2010




Would be 30 meters deep and 10 kilometers long


Cairo’s move to pressure Hamas threatening more humanitarian disasters in Israeli-besieged Gaza.

GAZA CITY – The construction of a new underground wall and recent border clashes have frayed relations between Hamas and Egypt and could threaten Gaza’s main lifeline in Gaza, analysts say.

Citing national security, Egypt is now building an underground iron wall in a new bid to tighten its porous Sinai border with the restive Palestinian territory.

Media reports said it would be 30 meters (100 feet) deep and 10 kilometers (six miles) long.

Since democratically elected Hamas seized total power in Gaza in 2007 it has relied on smuggling tunnels under the border with Egypt to provide essential food and products for its Israeli-besieged people.

Continues >>

Obama wants record $708 billion for military next year

January 15, 2010
Yahoo! News
Associated Press

By ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers Anne Gearan And Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writers Wed Jan 13, 2010

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of a record $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned — a request that could be an especially hard sell to some of the administration’s Democratic allies.

The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.

Continues >>

US drone slaughters 18 in Pakistan attack

January 15, 2010
Morning Star Online, January 14, 2010

A US drone missile attack has killed at least 18 people and injured 14 others – but missed its target of Pakistani Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud – in Pakistan’s underdeveloped North Waziristan region.

The attack, which was controlled remotely by CIA officials working out of control centres at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, was the seventh remotely-controlled US missile assault in the tribal district this month.

A Pakistani security official said that two missiles had bee fired at a compound in Pasalkot village where Pakistan’s Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud was believed to have been staying.

The official said that he had “information that he was around there – we’re checking on whether he was killed.”

A Taliban spokesman claimed that Mr Mehsud was safe and had left the compound minutes before the assault.

The attack was mounted a day after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking the Obama administration to disclose the legal basis for its use of Predator drones to conduct “targeted killings” overseas.

There were at least 45 drone attacks in Pakistan in 2009, compared with 27 in 2008.

In particular, the ACLU sought to find out under what conditions drone strikes can be authorised, and how Washington ensured compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings.

ACLU National Security Project legal fellow Jonathan Manes said: “The Obama administration has reportedly expanded the drone programme, but it has not explained publicly what the legal basis for the programme is, what limitations it recognises on the use of drones outside active theatres of war and what the civilian casualty toll has been thus far.”

Barack Obama’s government has used unmanned drones to target and kill individuals not only in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, but also in other countries such as Yemen.

What Next, Viva Palestina?

January 14, 2010

by Stuart Littlewood, Dissident Voice,  January 12, 2010

Mere words cannot express my admiration for Viva Palestina and those who devote their efforts to it. I love the way they shamed – and not for the first time – the great powers and their gutless leaders.

And for his pains the British MP George Galloway has been declared ‘persona non grata’ in Egypt. How heartbreaking for him.

Given past disagreements, and the stubborn refusal of this latest convoy to be derailed, it was never going to end in hugs and kisses from President Mubarak’s henchmen, or fond messages of “Come ye back soon, George.”

What really matters is that they delivered the life-saving goods when the armies and navies of the so-called Free World wouldn’t even think about it. And they did it with style in the face of Egypt’s tantrums.

The nervous Egyptian authorities allowed exhausted convoy members only 30 hours inside Gaza to say hello, distribute their aid and take a rest. Sad and wobbly regimes simply cannot handle a few hundred humanitarians so they accuse them of “incitement” and “hostile acts”, and throw them out.

Now we hear grumbles from some activists that criticising Egypt diverts attention from the real culprit. But Israel’s evil machinations would find little success without the Egyptian government’s co-operation. There should of course be free movement of goods and people through the Gaza/Egypt border. Instead, Mubarak signed up to the US-Israel-EU conspiracy to keep the 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip bottled up and helpless to resist what many are calling a slow genocide. In so doing, Egypt joined the worst offenders against international law, the UN Charter and the codes of decent conduct. It is time the spotlight fell on Cairo even if it means momentarily taking it off Tel Aviv and Washington.

Mubarak has slithered even further into the Middle East swamp of iniquity by constructing an iron Death Wall designed to create a hermetic border seal and inflict even more misery on his Muslim bothers and sisters, and the Christian community.

The Egyptian president is certainly not part of any solution. He has become a problem.

As for Mr Galloway, when can we expect to see him receive an official pat on the back for doing what the British government’s poseurs were too cowardly to do: bringing humanitarian aid to trampled people Britain still has a residual responsibility for?

Mr Galloway speaks of more convoys setting out for Gaza from Venezuela, Malaysia and South Africa. But Egypt has just announced that convoys, regardless of their origin, are no longer welcome. Instead, it is introducing a new “mechanism” whereby all aid for Gaza must in future be handed over to the Egyptian Red Crescent as soon as it arrives at the port of El-Arish. It will then be processed and passed on (if you can believe that) to the Palestinian Red Crescent.

Nobody trusts the Egyptian authorities to do this in an honest and transparent way. Besides, donors and fund-raisers often have direct links with charitable organisations inside Gaza and the West Bank. They would not wish to see the fruits of their labour and other people’s generosity disappear into some distribution ‘black hole’.

Britain still blames Hamas for Gaza’s suffering

And what says the British government, which never seems able to get anything right these days?

The Foreign Office’s “clear advice” is against all travel to Gaza. Why, when they should be facilitating travel to Gaza and applying sanctions against anyone who hinders it?

“The suffering of Gazan people is compounded by the violent and irresponsible actions of Hamas,” says the Foreign Office. “We are concerned by the recent upsurge in incidents of Hamas confiscating aid and obstructing the efforts of international aid organisations in Gaza.” We keep hearing these accusations but never proof. Gaza is on a war footing, under crippling blockade and in continual crisis. Hamas, the de facto government, runs the health service and is almost certainly best placed to know where medical supplies are needed most. Obviously they’ll step in when aid arrives.

Viva Palestina are at least as well informed about the situation in Gaza as the Foreign Office. Would convoy activists really go to so much trouble if Hamas was seizing everything they delivered?

Britain, while eagerly offering the services of the Royal Navy to help Israel stop “smuggling” into Gaza, won’t use its ships to spare the Gazans a slow death from starvation and prevent a public health catastrophe.

It is time our servants Brown and Miliband explained, carefully and logically, exactly what their problem is with Gaza and its democratically elected rulers so that the rest of us can try to understand – if indeed there is anything beneath the layers of pro-Israel ‘crapaganda’ worth understanding.

Go by sea

Events now seem to be prodding Viva Palestina to change tack. Perhaps it Is too simplistic to suppose that Gaza needs to be sea-fed like any other coastal community. But should humanitarian relief teams continue to seek access by land crossings that are controlled by militarised thugs bent on destroying Gaza’s population and halting any convoy in its tracks?

Deal direct. Surely that must be the aim. And do it in the name of God. A large armada of boats led by a multi-faith alliance demanding freedom of the seas and the right to an armed escort, could be the best vehicle. The United Nations should provide the necessary security arrangements to check the cargoes as they are landed in Gaza.

It would require considerable courage. Whether religious leaders have the balls for it is doubtful, even when the highest moral purpose is being served, but they might surprise us. A sprinkling of politicians could be relied on but the higher echelons know which side their bread is buttered.

Israel, Egypt, the US and the UK might wish to airbrush Mr Galloway out of the picture, but that’s unthinkable. He’ll be nominated for the next Nobel Peace Prize and seen as a million times more deserving than the fraud in the White House.

Yes, the REAL international community – that’s ordinary folk like you and me and Viva Palestina and everyone and his dog around the globe – are finally beginning to assert themselves against the corrupt power freaks that strut the world stage.

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart’s website.

Tony Blair froze out Iraq war dissenters

January 14, 2010

By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent

The Independent/UK, Jan. 14, 2010

Tony Blair froze out anyone with concerns about the Iraq war and was not challenged on the issue by a Cabinet that had been “conditioned” to accept that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq inquiry has been told.

Lord Turnbull, who as Cabinet Secretary was Britain’s most senior civil servant, said that Mr Blair largely surrounded himself with those who would not disagree with him, while those who did have concerns were given almost no time to discuss the issue.

Continues >>

AfPak war claimed over 12,500 lives in Pakistan during 2009

January 14, 2010

By James Cogan, wsws.org, January 14, 2010

The Pak Institute of Peace Studies (PIPS) report published on January 10 makes clear that the carnage from the fighting between the Pakistani military and anti-government Islamist and tribal militants more than matches that taking place in neighbouring US-occupied Afghanistan. In 2009, the low-level civil war in Pakistan cost the lives of at least 12,632 people and wounded another 12,815, as compared to an estimated 6,500 deaths in Afghanistan.

Continues >>

The True Face of Obama

January 14, 2010

After his first year, Obama shows his true face

By Nat Hentoff, Village Voice,  January 12, 2010

Pat Benic/Newscom

  • What a disappointment a year makes.
    What a disappointment a year makes.

Before President Obama, it was grimly accurate to write, as I often did in the Voice, that George W. Bush came into the presidency with no discernible background in constitutional civil liberties or any acquaintance with the Constitution itself. Accordingly, he turned the “war on terror” over to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld—ardent believers that the Constitution presents grave obstacles in a time of global jihad.

But now, Bush’s successor—who actually taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago—is continuing much of the Bush-Cheney parallel government and, in some cases, is going much further in disregarding our laws and the international treaties we’ve signed.

Continues >>

Race to help Haiti quake victims

January 14, 2010
Al Jazeera, Jan 14, 2010
Many Haitians are living on the streets fearing that aftershocks will destroy more buildings [AFP]

Aid agencies are racing to get help to Haiti where thousands of people are feared to be trapped under rubble following a devastating earthquake which is believed to have left tens of thousands dead.

The United Nations has mobilised 37 search and rescue teams from a global network to the devastated capital Port-au-Prince.

Elisabeth Byrs, a spokeswoman for the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said search and rescue teams were “working against the clock” to save lives.

But more than 24 hours after the 7.0 magnitude quake struck, there was little help in sight on the streets of the capital where numerous bodies lay amid collapsed buildings and the cries of people buried beneath rubble continued to ring out.

Continues >>

Blair private pact with Bush on Iraq

January 13, 2010

Chilcot inquiry reveals former UK Prime Minister ‘pledged UK to war in secret notes’

The Globe and Mail

Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian News Service, Jan. 12, 2010

Tony Blair privately assured President George Bush in letters written a year before the invasion of Iraq that Britain would “be there” in any US-led attack on the country, it was revealed at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war in London Tuesday.

The disclosure came during sometimes sharp exchanges with Alastair Campbell, Mr. Blair’s communications chief and close adviser, who described Gordon Brown, the then UK finance minister, as “one of the key ministers” the former Prime Minister spoke to about Iraq.

In almost five hours of questioning, Mr. Campbell:

– Defended “every single word” in the Blair government’s now largely discredited dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons programme.

– Said Britain should be “proud” of its role in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

– Said Mr. Blair tried to get the conflict with Iraq resolved “without a shot being fired.”

Mr. Blair wrote “quite a lot of notes” to Mr. Bush in 2002 and their substance was not shared with the cabinet, Mr. Campbell made clear. Asked if the then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, knew their contents, Mr. Campbell replied: “I very much doubt if drafts went round the system … They were very frank.” However, Mr. Campbell said they were discussed with Sir David Manning, Mr. Blair’s foreign policy adviser.

He said the tenor of the letters was: “We share the analysis, we share the concern, we are going to be with you in making sure that Saddam Hussein is faced up to his obligations and that Iraq is disarmed.” Mr. Campbell added: “If that cannot be done diplomatically and it is to be done militarily, Britain will be there. That would be the tenor of the communication to the president.”

The letters Mr. Blair wrote to Mr. Bush have been passed to the Chilcot inquiry. It has not given any indication about whether it will publish them.

Mr. Campbell was responding to persistent questioning from Sir Roderic Lyne, a member of the inquiry panel and a former ambassador. Mr. Lyne referred Mr. Campbell to a leaked document in which Mr. Manning, on a trip to Washington in March 2002, a year before the invasion, told Mr. Blair he had underlined Britain’s position to Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser.

“I said you [Blair] would not budge in your support for regime change, but you had to manage a press, a parliament, and a public opinion which is very different than anything in the States,” Mr. Manning wrote.

Responding to Mr. Lyne’s question, Mr. Campbell said: “The prime minister’s overall approach was saying ‘there’s going to be disarmament. We’re going to do our level best to get that through the diplomatic route, without a single shot being fired but, if push comes to shove and the diplomatic route fails, Britain would see it as its responsibility and its duty to take part in military action’.”

Blair was determined to disarm Saddam, Campbell said. Mr. Blair’s message to the US in April 2002 was he would try to do it through UN resolutions. However, “if the only way is regime change through military action then the British government will support the American government”, Mr. Campbell said, describing Mr. Blair’s view.

The inquiry has also heard from senior British diplomats that regime change was being discussed by Mr. Blair in the US in 2002 even though, according to leaked documents, Lord Goldsmith, the then attorney general, warned Mr. Blair that military action aimed at regime change, as opposed to disarmament, would be unlawful.

Mr. Campbell stoutly defended the September 2002 Iraqi weapons dossier which stated Saddam Hussein was continuing to build up a nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programme – claims that were shown to be without foundation after the invasion. He insisted Sir John Scarlett, then chairman of the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee, was adamant throughout that he was “100 per cent in charge” of the process of drawing up the dossier.

“At no time did I ask him to ‘beef up’, to override, any of the judgments that he had,” Mr. Campbell told the inquiry. “John Scarlett said to me ‘This is a document the prime minister is going to present to parliament, there are massive global expectations around it, and I need a bit of presentational support,’ and that is what I gave him.”

At no time did Mr. Scarlett or intelligence officers question the contents of the dossier, said Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Campbell on occasions sharply criticized the British media and played down any influence he had over journalists. Asked about the notorious claim in the weapons dossier that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes he said it had only been given “iconic” status by the press.

Asked if it could have been made clear that the claim only ever applied to battlefield weapons rather than longer range missiles, Mr. Campbell replied: “Obviously, but it’s not that big a point.”

He disclosed the UK’s then international development secretary Clare Short, who subsequently resigned over the war, had been excluded from discussions on the aftermath of the conflict because of fears of leaks.

“I think in an ideal world the secretary of state for international development would, should and could have been involved in all those discussions,” he said. “It was no secret that she was very difficult to handle at times. I think sometimes the military found her approach to them difficult to deal with.”