Archive for the ‘imperialism’ Category

Deprivation and Desperation in Gaza

November 25, 2008

By JOE MOWREY | Counterpunch, Nov  24, 2008

As conditions in the Gaza strip approach a catastrophic level of deprivation, the world media, and in particular the U.S. media, remain largely silent. The United Nations, whose truckloads of food and medical supplies continue to be denied entry into Gaza by Israel, appears to be one of the few international voices of dissent concerning the collective punishment of 1.5 million human beings. This, despite the fact that more than 50% of the population in Gaza is comprised of children under the age of 15.

Israel claims to be defending itself against the crude, often homemade rockets which militant factions in Gaza fire randomly into southern Israel. Though it may be considered politically incorrect, this writer refuses to precede his remarks with the requisite, “It’s wrong for militant Palestinians to be firing rockets into Israel.” The ethics of Palestinian resistance to the Zionist colonization of Palestine and the dispossession of the Palestinian people is a subject for another article. The issue at hand is one of collective punishment. Regardless of the actions of certain factions in Gaza, the fact remains that Israel (with the approval of the U.S.and the world community) is depriving an entire civilian population of food, medicine and clean drinking water in response to the violent actions of a few among that population. By any civilized standard this behavior is wrong and should be condemned vociferously. To paraphrase the words of an alien from another planet in a not-so-great Hollywood movie of some years ago, every sentient being knows the difference between right and wrong.

Apparently not. Israel’s Foreign Minister and likely future Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni, recently dismissed the notion that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to collective punishment and claimed those actions were a justifiable response to the rocket attacks on Israel. She stated, “The international community must be more decisive in making itself heard and in using its influence in the face of these attacks.”

To suggest that the international community should condemn “these attacks” by militant Palestinian factions, yet ignore the humanitarian disaster being imposed on Gaza by the government of Israel demonstrates a nearly incomprehensible level of hypocrisy. But more importantly, the fact that Jews are the ones perpetrating these unconscionable actions in Gaza is a tragedy of historic proportions. The Geneva Conventions, particularly those articles addressing the  of civilian populations, were largely crafted in response to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis during World War II. Has the sense of exclusivity and entitlement created by the Zionist experiment in Israel become so great that people there no longer see themselves in the mirror of their own history? The irony of Jews, among the most egregiously persecuted and maligned people in history, denying food to hundreds of thousands of children in order, allegedly, to insure their own security, is breathtaking. Who could ever have imagined such a thing?

As people of Gaza suffer, here in the U.S., the vast majority of so-called progressives continue to revel in the recent election of the first Black man to the Presidency. While Obama has garnered a great deal of political and financial support by pledging his unconditional support for the Zionist regime in Israel, he remains completely silent on the plight of the children of Gaza. Our first Black President not only refuses to speak out against the collective punishment of an oppressed people, he actively supports and encourages the regime responsible for this behavior. This too is a tragedy of historic proportions. Have we come this far in the struggle against racism in our country only to see Barack Obama put a minority face on U.S. support for violations of international law and essential human dignity by Israel? Again, one has to say, who could ever have imagined such a thing?

Each morning I peruse the alternative media online and hope to see at least some minor degree of outrage at the situation in Gaza. A small but courageous handful of progressive web sites dare to criticize Israel and speak out against the abuse of the Palestinian people. But for the most part, the glorious and powerful “NetRoots” movement is too busy congratulating itself on the so-called victory it has achieved in the recent elections, too busy celebrating the illusion of change which Barack Obama represents, to admit the absence of any indication of substantive change in U.S. foreign policy in Palestine or the Middle East under his coming administration.

Does it ever occur to those who so blindly and passionately rallied ‘round their candidate for the Presidency that they might now use their voices to encourage him to oppose the human rights abuses being orchestrated in Gaza? The sad reality is, not even a chorus of such voices is likely to alter the course Obama appears to have taken. He has surrounded himself with a familiar cast of armchair militarists, corporatists and hard core pro-Zionist zealots who will continue to give their unconditional support to Israel regardless of what barbaric tactics the government there uses to advance the colonization of Palestine. He is choosing to turn his back on the men, women and children in Gaza and the West Bank who suffer chronic malnutrition, desperate poverty, dispossession and daily humiliation at the hands of the Israeli military.

We should stand up in opposition to instances of human rights abuses whenever and wherever they occur. The situation in Gaza is only one on an unfortunately long list, locally, nationally and internationally. And U.S. government (that means you and me) support for and complicity in many such instances is no secret. If each of us were to do just one thing per week to address these issues, the result might surprise us all. Take a minute out from the long and endless chatter of day to day living and speak to a friend about the idea of social equality. Write one letter to the editor of your local paper in support of human rights. Spend just one percent of your online hours learning the truth about our complicity as U.S. citizens in the exploitation and degradation of other people and their cultures. Turn off your television. Go stand on a corner with a sign to protest war. Wear a button promoting peace and justice. One small thing at a time.

To those who became politically active, possibly for the first time, and expended their valuable enthusiasm and energy in order to see Barack Obama elected: thank you for being a part of history. Now why not try on the mantel of social activism? Write our President-elect a letter and suggest that he at least acknowledge the suffering of the people in Gaza. It is doubtful it will change him or his policies, but it may change you. And that truly is “change we can believe in.”

Every sentient being knows the difference between right and wrong. The question is, why do so few of us act on that knowledge?

Joe Mowrey is an anti-war and Palestinian rights activist. He lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with his spouse, Janice, and their three canine enablers. You can write to him at jmowrey@ix.netcom.com.

Afghans to Obama: End the Occupation

November 24, 2008

by Sonali Kolhatkar | CommonDreams.org, Nov 22, 2008

President Elect Barack Obama wants to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan. But the US/NATO occupation is less popular than ever. Eman, an Afghan woman’s rights activist with RAWA tells Uprising host, Sonali Kolhatkar, that Obama must end the occupation. RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, is the oldest women’s political organization in Afghanistan, struggling non-violently against foreign occupations and religious fundamentalism for more than 30 years.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Many on the American left are celebrating the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the US. But while he has pledged to end the Iraq war, he has also promised to increase troops in Afghanistan. What is your opinion of Barack Obama and his stated policy on Afghanistan?

Eman: We can easily judge Obama from what he said in one of his recent interviews that he does not feel the need to apologize to the Afghan people. We do not consider this [the result of] a lack of information. But didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the wrong policies of the US government for the past three decades in our country? Didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the fundamentalist-fostering policies of the US government in creating, arming, and supporting these brutal, misogynist groups like the Northern Alliance and other fascist groups during the past three decades? Didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the occupation of our country under the banner of democracy, the so-called “war on terror,” and women’s rights, but then compromise with terrorists like the Northern Alliance, who cannot be distinguished from the Taliban in the history of their criminal acts? In fact these murderers were the first to destroy our nation. And even after seven years of a very long and very costly “war on terror,” terrorism has not been uprooted in Afghanistan but has become stronger and the Taliban are becoming more powerful. Plus recently [the US is] talking about negotiating with the most wanted terrorist, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and with the Taliban, which is in contradiction with what they claimed and what their main objective was in occupying Afghanistan.

From his statements during his election campaign, we don’t think that Obama’s position is different from the Bush administration; it is the continuation of Bush’s foreign policy. As Obama’s first message to our country was that of war, we cannot be hopeful about him.

Kolhatkar: Do you think the troops should be withdrawn and if so, what will happen in Afghanistan if US/NATO forces leave Afghanistan?

Eman: RAWA strongly believes that whatever happens, a withdrawal of foreign troops should be the first step, because today, with the presence of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, with the presence of many foreign countries in our nation, for the majority of our people particularly poor people in the other provinces of Afghanistan outside Kabul, the situation is so bad that it cannot get any worse. Today they are also suffering from insecurity, killing, kidnapping, rape, acid throwing on school girls (as happened just last week), hunger, lawlessness, lack of freedom of speech (with journalist Parwiz Kambakhsh being imprisoned), After seven years of occupation [the US] failed to bring peace, security, democracy, and women’s rights that they claimed. I think seven years is quite enough time to prove that democracy and peace cannot be brought by foreigners. It can only be achieved by our own people by democratic organizations and individuals. It’s our responsibility to become united as an alternative against the occupation, to rise up, to resist and to organize our people.

Obviously it is very difficult. No one can predict how long it will take, how much blood, how much sacrifice, and what price should be paid. But this is the only solution, as RAWA has always emphasized.

Right now our people are under attack from different sides. From one side we have the Taliban, from the other side are the US air strikes, and from another side are the Northern Alliance warlords in different provinces. We are in a political confusion. With the withdrawal [of troops] our people will at least get rid of one of these enemies.

We believe that even with the withdrawal of the troops they have a moral duty towards Afghanistan as they have empowered these dangerous fundamentalist groups economically; and given them arms which were a big threat to the security of our country. If the US and its allies are kind enough to try to help us and they are honest in their claim of helping our people then they can prove it in other ways. They can prove it by the disarmament of armed groups. They can prove it by stopping any kind of support, help and compromise with any fundamentalist groups by helping our people to prosecute our war criminals of three decades. They can do this by supporting democratic voices. So they have other alternatives to help us if they really want to.

Kolhatkar: Hamid Karzai’s tenure is up next year and there are to be new elections. What do you think needs to happen before the elections, and is there any chance the elections could bring some positive change inside Afghanistan?

Eman: We have two kinds of elections ahead of us: parliamentary and presidential. About the presidential election, everyone knows that the White House determines who is going to be the next president. Our public’s votes are just used as a formality. But what we are sure of is that the next president will not be independent or a real democrat. So our people are not so hopeful about those elections.

About the parliamentary elections, it is important to state that this election, like the last one, will be conducted under the shadow of guns, airpower and money. So we cannot call it a fair and free election. For a fair and free election to be held we think that disarmament of the powerful warlords which have private armies in different provinces, is a necessary factor. Otherwise it will be a repeat of the last election. For example, according to a law made by the Election Commission, warlords cannot take part in the elections. The last time, our people appealed to the election commission against criminal candidates and drug lords with evidence but nobody paid attention to them and these most-wanted murderers found their way to parliament. There were just a very few exceptions who were really elected by the people. The majority were well-known murderers, criminals, and rapists.

Kolhatkar: In RAWA’s recent statement on the 7th anniversary of the US war on October 7th, you say “Our freedom is only achievable at the hands of our people.” How strong are democratic grassroots forces in Afghanistan, and are they capable of rising up and leading the country?

Eman: Unfortunately the democratic forces are very weak due to many reasons. The two main reasons are, firstly, financial problems because there is no government support at all, and powerful international forces like the United Nations have never been interested in supporting democratic groups, individuals, and voices. Secondly they are weak for security reasons, which have always suppressed these groups. We believe that the main source of power lies with our people. Today they have become hopeless with false promises from the West of establishing democracy. And moreover people are fed-up of the fundamentalism of the Taliban, Northern Alliance, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, etc. So today if we witness demonstrations organized by our suffering and tired people, tomorrow they will be much more organized under the leadership of democratic movements. So we should not lose our hope. The groups are weak but they exist. I think it’s the duty of democratic forces all over the world to support democratic movements in Afghanistan and they should show their practical solidarity with them.

Kolhatkar: When we started our conversation, you weren’t very optimistic about Barack Obama’s stated policy on Afghanistan. What advice would you give President Elect Barack Obama, when he takes office in January?

Eman: We believe that if the American government does not have any bad, expansionist, hidden intentions regarding our country then they have to accept and change their long-term mistakes and wrong policies in our country. In the early 1990s they supported the anti-democratic, anti-women forces and they still have not learned a lesson and still they rely on and compromise with the different fundamentalist groups, which makes the situation of our country even worse. So from one side they are still nourishing and working with those drug lords and warlords of the Northern Alliance. And from the other side they complain about drugs, corruption and insecurity which is a painful game with the destiny of our people, who do not want more troops and war. Our people want justice, peace, and democracy.

As the US failed with spending billions of dollars on the presence of thousands of troops for the past seven years, I’m sure that they will fail even if they bring millions more troops as long as the American government does not change its policies in Afghanistan.

Kolhatkar: Finally, what advice would you give the American anti-war movement on what Afghanistan needs from them?

Eman: Since the US government has always supported fundamentalist groups and ignored democratic voices in our country, I think that the US government does not represent all American people. But there are great American people and great peace movements who have always raised their voice against war and defended peace with justice. History shows that these movements have always affected government policies, for example on the Vietnam war. So I think that they have a great responsibility to put pressure on their government and especially its foreign policy, to change the policy and to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan. And they have to show their solidarity with the democratic movements in Afghanistan. It’s very very important for us and we need their voices. But I just read an article that some parts of the US peace movements are supporting the Iranian government. We condemn this position because we consider the Iranian government a fundamentalist, fascist government. But as long as the peace movement is concerned, we need their solidarity and we are very happy to have their support.

Find out more about RAWA at www.rawa.org. Sonali Kolhatkar is host and producer of Uprising, at KPFK, Pacifica Radio, www.uprisingradio.org.

Activists Seek Executive Order Banning Torture

November 20, 2008

NEW YORK – Shutting down the infamous detention centre at Guantanamo Bay is just one of a series of measures to reform U.S. counterterrorism practices being urged by the watchdog organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW).

[]

In a report released Sunday, the New York-based HRW urged President-elect Barack Obama to quickly repudiate the abusive policies put in place by the George W. Bush administration in its “global war on terror”.”The Obama administration is going to have a difficult task to restore America’s standing in the world,” Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism programme director at HRW, told IPS. “The Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies deeply damaged the reputation of the United States.”

HRW’s 11-step action plan — entitled “Fighting Terrorism Fairly and Effectively: Recommendations for President-elect Obama” — suggests how the U.S. could again become a credible leader in the fight for the global implementation of human rights.

“But it depends on how dramatically the Obama administration makes a clear break with the past,” Mariner added.

According to HRW, some 250 terrorist suspects are still being held as “enemy combatants” at the military detention centre at Guantanamo Bay opened in 2002. Most of the detainees have now been in custody for nearly seven years, without charge.

As president, Obama should close the detention facility — a step he has already pledged to take — and establish a task force to review all the detainees’ cases to determine whether they should be charged and brought to trial or released.

Also among the 11 steps is the abolition of military commissions to try suspected foreign terrorists. HRW argues that these commissions lack “basic fair trial guarantees” and that federal criminal courts were the “best-equipped” and “time tested” venues to handle terrorism cases.

Similarly, plans to legalise the indefinite preventive detention of suspected terrorists – based on “predictions of future dangerousness” — should be rejected by Obama, HRW says.

Justifying detention without charge by classifying people as “enemy combatants” in the “war on terror”, as has happened to suspects arrested in locations like Bosnia, Thailand and along the U.S.-Mexico border, should also be stopped.

HRW also condemned the use of torture and inhumane interrogation techniques by U.S. armed forces and intelligence agencies — “including stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, and noise, and depriving them of sleep for long periods”.

To ban these practices, which have led to the deaths of some detainees, Obama should quickly issue an executive order and repudiate legal memos issued by the Bush Justice Department and presidential directives under the outgoing administration that permit torture and other abuses.

HRW called on the new administration to redress victims of abusive counterterrorism policies — something which has not happened so far as the victims have effectively been shut out of U.S. courts.

Above all, past abuses should be investigated, documented and publicly reported by a non-partisan commission with subpoena power, and former government officials who were responsible for some of the crimes should not be given immunity from prosecution, the group said.

Last week, Rep. Rush Holt, a Democrat from New Jersey who chairs an intelligence oversight panel, issued a statement saying that “while an executive order [to ban torture] will not remove the need for legislation on the issue,” if Obama did so, it would “begin to restore our moral leadership on the issue”.

Holt also expressed support for the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT), a coalition of religious groups from all over the country that is lobbying to eliminate the use of torture as a part of U.S. policy.

On Nov. 12, NRCAT held a nationwide action day with more than 50 delegations of religious leaders holding meetings with members of Congress. Thirty religious groups participated in a demonstration in front of the White House, where President Bush is spending his final days in office.

While she agreed on the need to fight terrorism, Mariner of HRW rejected many of the measures taken after the 9/11 terror attacks, emphasising that “the Bush administration entirely disregarded even basic principles of the rule of law.”

“The government addressed terrorism in an extremely counterproductive way,” Mariner said.

Instead of diminishing the terrorist threat, reports of human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere fuelled the recruitment of supporters for militant groups, which argued the U.S. was in fact leading a “war on Islam”.

Asked whether she believes Obama will heed the recommendations of HRW, Mariner stressed that by voting against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to authorise trials by military courts, “Obama has already stood up against these abuses.”

The president-elect also explicitly pledged to close Guantanamo during his campaign.

“So we are confident that consistent with his message of change, his actions and his criticism, he is going to repudiate the abusive counterterrorism policies of the Bush administration,” Mariner said.

Terror Indian Poll in Kashmir: A Vote for Independence

November 19, 2008

Dr Abdur Ruff Colachal, Nov 19, 2008

The larger world is quite unimpressed by the Indian polls in Kashmir by keeping the terror military threat more active. Unlike the great powers around, Kashmiris could be easily fooled by India and its agents in and around country by keeping them under its terror control and feeding false promise of freedom and development and also democracy to them. But Kashmiris have voted for both re-independence and development and they have hinted they would not like to antagonize India after achieving freedom from hegemonic India.

In view of prevailing mood of the Kashmiris seeking complete re-independence from occupier India, Indian poll action in JK on Nov 17 does not reflect the realities, though India keeps asking the USA and other powers to take note of the changing realities to accommodate its concerns. The state elections are being staggered over seven phases to allow authorities to mount a huge security operation to contain the freedom movement’s anti-poll campaign. In the first stage of elections, voting has been held in ten of the 87 state assembly segments.

India used force against the anti-poll campaign by the freedom leaders and tries to reduce the impact of the freedom struggle started form the Muzaffarabad March where several freedom strugglers including a major leader were killed by Indian terror forces. Indian agencies have made the poll possible as it feared international shame if polls are not held. Indian media is focused on the very conduct of polls. Turnout in the 10 seats contested across Jammu and Kashmir state was above average, but as expected by India. More surprising perhaps was a turnout of 59 percent in three seats contested in the Kashmir Valley, up from around 55 percent in the same seats in 2002. Previous elections have seen freedom fighters threatening violence to enforce their call for a boycott, and Indian soldiers trying to coerce people to vote. This time the freedom fighters did not resort to anti-state terror measures and said they would not interfere.

On the eve of the polls, the Indian government arrested and tortured freedom leaders and activists and terrorized the Kashmiris to vote. By conducting polls against the will and wishes of the freedom loving people and the freedom fighters by police and military threats, India has in fact killed democracy in Kashmir. The freedom fighters resisted from counter-force and the polls were “thus peaceful”. Four freedom activists and two army men were killed in two separate encounters on poll day in the State while another soldier was abducted after a gunfight in Poonch.

However surprising the turnout in Bandipora, voters in this picturesque Township insist their vote should not be misconstrued as “the vote against the movement”. Not just voters but the contestants also sought to reiterate that they did not seek vote in favour of any ideology but “exclusively for development. At least 42 people were shot dead by police when hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Muslims took to the streets this year shouting “Azadi” (freedom).

Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) said the people are yearning for revival of the golden era of governance that the state had witnessed under the stewardship of Mufti Sayeed between 2002 and 2005. PDP says the people have decided to teach the National Conference, a pro-Hindutva party, a lesson for the power-hungry politics of deceit practiced by the party over the years and they came out in large number yesterday to do so

State Terror and Violations

Human rights and poll monitor groups are not spared by the forces. Those who had gone to monitor the “freeness and fairness of polls” are behind the bars. Prominent human rights activist Parvez Imroz, the president of Coalition of Civil Societies, was beaten and arrested by police at Bandipora. Bar association struck its work in high court and other courts here in protest against the beating and arrest of Imroz. That apart – the man has been of late been in news for his Coalition’s interest in monitoring elections in Jammu and Kashmir and India has been focused on his torture and silence.

Important here is the history of detentions that Imroz has faced in the past. Since 2002, J&K CCS has been monitoring elections in the state. Their 2002 Assembly election report and later the 2004 parliamentary election report was not taken well by the powers-that-be because it contained several references to how the police and the Army had coerced people to vote. Significantly, the coalition even lost one of its volunteers during the 2004 elections when the vehicle, in which she was traveling, was targeted in a mine blast. Kurram Pervez lost his leg in the accident. He had to get it amputated. The leader of human rights campaign in the valley, he has long been espousing the cause of the voiceless especially those killed in custody and those who disappeared over the past several years of conflict in the valley. Very recently, Imroz’s house was under attack from people who are yet to be identified and punished.

They voted for Re-independence

Independence is a separate issue from the need for a better life, which a good administration can provide. While it is too early to draw firm conclusions from Monday’s first stage in a seven-part election across a very diverse state, the turnout in parts of the mainly Muslim Kashmir Valley was a surprise for separatists who had heatedly called for a boycott. This year has seen some of the biggest anti-India protests in the Kashmir Valley since an insurgency began in 1989, but a 70-year-old man said they wanted to cast their ballots even though they had taken part in protest marches

A good turnout at the start of Indian Kashmir state elections may mean freedom fighters don’t want to cause death to Kashmir by Indian terror forces under guise of tackling the opposition by the ‘separatists’. In fact of late freedom leaders showed inclination for Kashmir development while gaining freedom back from India. However, talk of democracy is something neither Kashmiris nor Indians know for sure. For Kashmiris it is state terrorism that is shown to them as democracy. An effective poll mechanism of promising life and development of Kashmir along with pressure tactics have brought a lot people to vote for a new government, but they say in voice that they don’t vote for India.

If Hindu-terrorists are harassed by the state, the Hindutva forces come to their rescue. Breaking his silence over the Maharashtra anti-terror squad (ATS) probing the September 29 Malegaon bomb blasts that killed six persons, Lok Sabha Opposition leader LK Advani on 17Nov expressed “shock and outrage” over the way Sadhvi Pragya was “physically and psychologically tortured and abused in obscene language by her interrogators.” Advani should not realize the way the Muslims of India and Kashmir are being ill-treated by Indian forces and jail authorities. This is main reason how Kashmir poll was peaceful so far.

Illegal Indian Polls

Current Indian poll in JK is ilegal and immoral. The chairmen of Hurriyat factions, senior freedom leaders Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said that the sanctity of elections have been lost in presence of 7 lakhs troops. Reacting to the statement of authorities that 55 per cent people voted in first phase of election, Geelani said that the claim of free and fair elections ‘is a sheer joke’. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat (Freedom) Conference which had called for a boycott, questioned the official figures and said free and fair voting was impossible in the presence of hundreds of thousands of troops. But more mainstream political parties appeared to have won some listeners by arguing that the need to choose good government that can build roads and improve civic amenities would not necessarily undermine the independence movement. Many voters said they still wanted independence as firmly as ever, but experts said a successful election across Kashmir would give the state and central government the chance to offer better governance and defuse the independence movement to some extent.

Some Observations

One does not clearly know if the current governor Vohra has difference of opinion over the poll show when he met the big bosses in New Delhi recently, but as an appointed agent of New Delhi as governor of JK, he still continues to work for Indian case in JK by ensuring the poll at any cost by using the terror forces taking positions street by street.  It was a common knowledge that the occupying Indians would go all about presenting a pro-India image for the watching world and with the waste resources wasted on poll machinations in JK, the task would not have been a total flop given a sort of neutral posture adopted by the freedom leaders. But the trend would fast change.

US president-elect Obama’s passion for a free Kashmir must have given the Kashmiris and their freedom leaders a fresh boost in pursuing their goals in non-confrontational manner. But, the unexpected turnout in 10 assembly constituencies that went to polls on Monday has given a boost to the pro-India so-called “mainstream” parties. Each party in JK wants to claim some credit for the polls. They believe massive participation of people will set a trend for the rest of the polling, especially in Srinagar and will give a confidence to candidates as well as voters. That is the joke being played out by New Delhi’s strategists, quit tragically, if not pathetically.

Does it all mean that India would not surrender sovereignty back to Kashmir in a peaceful manner? Does it mean Kashmir is permanently under Indian brute control? As a mark of support for Kashmir vote for re-independence, six mini trucks carrying goods from Pakistani Kashmir crossed the border in Baramulla district of Jammu and Kashmir.

However, it is quite clear that Kashmiris have voted not for Indian terrorist-rule in Kashmir, but, on the contrary, to get rid of India oppression and gain freedom. Kashmiris have showcased their strength once again in making the vote as a declaration for gaining independence from India. India should read the message quite correctly and not to day-dream about keeping JK under its terror custody forever!

Kashmir Freedom seems to be fast approaching!

Police arrest Kashmiri leader over anti-poll rally

October 24, 2008

REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service

Oct 23, 2008 02:33 EST

SRINAGAR, India, Oct 23 (Reuters) – Indian police arrested a Kashmiri separatist leader in an overnight raid after he led a rally urging people to boycott forthcoming state elections in the disputed Himalayan region, police said on Thursday.

Multi-stage state elections are due to start on Nov. 17 in Kashmir, where the past two months have witnessed some of the biggest anti-India protests since a separatist revolt against New Delhi’s rule broke out in 1989.

Yasin Malik, chief of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front who started an anti-election campaign in north Kashmir on Wednesday was detained at his house in Srinagar, Kashmir’s summer capital.

Police used tear gas and batons to disperse scores of demonstrators protesting against the arrest.

Kashmir’s main separatist alliance the All Parties Hurriyat (Freedom) Conference, which is demanding an end to Indian rule in the region, has called for a complete boycott of the elections scheduled to be held in seven phases.

There had been pressure to suspend the elections, due this year, after at least 42 people were killed by security forces and more than 1,000 wounded in anti-India protests.

“New Delhi is trying to project the election as an alternative solution to Kashmir, but we will not allow it to happen,” Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq told reporters. “We appeal to the people to boycott the elections.”

The government has announced a ban on public meetings of five or more people for one month.

There will be a massive deployment of security forces across the strife-torn region during the poll.

In the past, separatist guerrillas have attacked candidates, polling stations, party workers and rallies during elections, killing scores of candidates and workers.

But early this year, United Jihad Council, a Pakistan-based militant alliance fighting Indian troops in Kashmir, rejected the use of violence to force a boycott of elections.

Violence involving Indian troops and separatist guerrillas has declined significantly since India and Pakistan, which both claim the region, began a slow-moving peace process in 2004. (Reporting by Sheikh Mushtaq; Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Alex Richardson) (For the latest Reuters news on India see in.reuters.com, for blogs see blogs.reuters.com/in)

Source: Reuters North American News Service

Indo-US Terrorism in Pakistan?

October 23, 2008

By Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal

It is crudely painful to know the Pakistan is engaged in killing Muslims of Pakistan with the help of USA and India via Afghanistan. Recently, a lot of Muslims are being butchered by these trio-“democrats” in this Islamic nation and that is a shameful event. Missiles thought to have been fired by the US have killed at least seven students of a religious school in north-western Pakistan. At least two missiles, reportedly fired by pilotless US drones, hit the school early on Oct 23. One does not what exactly the USA wants in Pakistan by destabilizing and terrorizing citizens of that country. The school, in North Waziristan, is close to the residence of a fugitive Taleban leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani and by killing these innocent school kids, USA has possible tried to reduce the Muslim population in a Muslim country with the help of Indian Hindus who always talk filth about Indian Muslims saying they are growing at a reckless speed and they have 30 million share in the 1 billion of India and that poor Hindus have stopped producing children long back. America is, then, appeasing it newly found nuclear partner in many ways.

The latest missile attack comes hours after the Pakistani parliament unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the government to defend its sovereignty and expel foreign fighters from the region. The resolution also called upon the government to prevent the use of Pakistani territory for attacks on another country. The Pakistani army is investigating the incident. The US has made no comment. It seems both USA, the global terrorist state and India, the regional terror state, have coerced Pakistan to be silent on the US-led terror wars in Islamic world including Pakistan and accommodate the Into-US “concerns” in Pakistan. Witnesses told the BBC that the missiles destroyed nearly half of the school building in the Dande Darpakhel area near Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan. At least six people were injured in the attack. It is still not clear whether there were any foreign fighters among the dead students. Local people have said that most of the injured were local students at the seminary. The residential complex of Jalaluddin Haqqani had been targeted by a previous missile attack, in which more than 10 people had been killed or injured.

In recent weeks the United States has launched several missile strikes against suspected militant targets in the Afghan border region. Any support for Muslims is treated as act of terrorism. Muslim fighters from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East sympathizing with the terrorized global Muslims are the target of Indo-US state terrorists. Intelligence failures have sometimes led to civilian casualties and in Islamic world that does not matter to anti-Islamic terrorists led by the USA. Washington is least worried about Muslim civilian casualties and simply covers it up by saying the strikes are used against “suspected” militant targets. Some 80 people have been killed in a number of suspected US missile strikes in South and North Waziristan region over the past month.

Earlier in October a suspected pilotless American drone fired missiles in North Waziristan, killing at least six people. The United States rarely confirms or denies such attacks, as India does it when they kill innocent Kashmiri civilians. They have least regard for Muslim human lives.

Pakistan has been on the hit list of India and one cannot firmly say if the recent cross-border trade would eventually remove the “cross-border-terrorism” mentality of India. Indian media and intelligence not seem to be really interested in peace with India, although on US pressure both are doing this kind of CBMs. The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the military based premier spy agency of India created in 1968, has assumed a significant status as invisible actor in formulation of India’s domestic, regional and global policies, particularly directed against Muslims. It fundamental jobs include destabilize the region by engineering splits and turmoil in Indian neighborhoods. Fundamentalist Hindus give credit to Indira Gandhi who in the late 1970s gave RAW a new role to suit her Indira Doctrine specifically asking it to undertake covert operations in neighboring countries especially Pakistan which comprises majority of Muslims. RAW was given a green signal to mobilize all its resources by exploiting political turmoil in East Pakistan in 1971 which RAW had created through its agents who provided Bengalis arms and ammunition for conducting guerrilla acts against the Pakistani defence forces.

Tensions between the US and Pakistan have increased over the issue of cross-border incursions against militants by American forces based in Afghanistan. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has said he will not tolerate violations of his country’s territory. The US state department has affirmed “its support for Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity”. But the US-led terrorist attacks are on the increase inside Pakistan, known as a major non-NATO ally and a “respected”, crucial partner of the USA. No one can clearly say what exactly has been happening in Jinnah’s Pakistan now-a-days!

Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal has been a university teacher, and has worked in various Indian institutions like JNU, Mysore University, Central Institute of English FL, etc. He is also a political commentator, researcher, and columnist. He has widely published in India and abroad, and has written about state terrorism.

Washington warns Iraq to accept security deal

October 23, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of “real consequences” for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact. Without a deal, the United States could be forced to end its military operations.

The White House said Iraqi security forces are incapable of keeping the peace without U.S. troops, raising the specter of reversals in recent security and political gains if the proposed security deal is not approved by the time the current legal basis for U.S. military operations expires Dec. 31.

“There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said. “And the Iraqis know that. And so, we’re confident that they’ll be able to recognize this. And if they don’t, there will be real consequences, if Americans aren’t able to operate there.”

At the Pentagon, press secretary Geoff Morrell said the U.S. fallback position is to extend the U.N. Security Council mandate authorizing U.S.-led coalition operations in Iraq, but he emphasized that the Bush administration’s preference is to complete a bilateral U.S.-Iraqi agreement.

“Our focus is entirely on trying to get this deal done,” Morrell said.

Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not had direct contacts with Iraqi officials since Baghdad announced earlier this week that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki determined that unspecified changes to the draft accord are required. The spokesman said it was not clear what changes the Iraqis are demanding.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the draft agreement “both protects our troops and the Iraqi sovereignty” and would stand as it was negotiated.

“It is a good agreement,” Rice told reporters traveling with her Wednesday to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where she was to meet her Mexican counterpart, Patricia Espinosa.

Rice would not say whether she opposes the Iraqi Cabinet petition to reopen negotiations.

“I understand the Iraqis themselves recognize they are not ready to operate without the coalition forces yet,” Rice said.

At the State Department, spokesman Robert Wood said time was running short.

“It’s time for the Iraqis to step up to the plate and take a decision,” Wood said. He insisted that the administration had yet to hear anything official from the Iraqi government on its position or its suggestions for possible amendments.

The U.S. has 155,000 troops in Iraq. In addition to conducting combat operations against a weakened insurgency and hunting down al-Qaida fighters, the U.S. military is training Iraqi security forces, assisting in the resettlement of displaced persons, coordinating efforts to restore and improve basic services like water and sewage, and providing personal security for senior Iraqi government officials.

Iraqi government on Wednesday decried what it called the “not welcomed” statements from Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who cautioned the Iraqis of unwelcome consequences in the event that the security pact is not signed by the end of the year.

Mullen, who was traveling in Europe, told reporters on Tuesday that time was running out for the Iraqis to sign the deal and that he was concerned the Iraqis may not fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation.

“These statements are not welcomed in Iraq,” Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement. “All Iraqis realize the volume of their responsibilities and they appreciate the importance of signing the pact or not in the way they deem it proper.”

Al-Dabbagh added: “A compulsory method must not be imposed on their choice and it is improper to address Iraqis in such manner.”

Morrell said the Iraqis should not take Mullen’s comments as an attempt to force anything on them.

“That couldn’t be further from the truth,” Morrell said. “We are not trying to pressure the Iraqis or force the Iraqis into signing anything they don’t wish to sign.”

In subsequent remarks Wednesday, Mullen said he believes the Iraqis are not ready to provide their own defense, according to a Pentagon account of comments to reporters traveling with him.

Mullen also made clear in those remarks that if there is no U.S.-Iraqi deal and the U.N. mandate runs out on Dec. 31 without being extended by the Security Council, then all U.S. military operations would have to cease. Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials have said repeatedly that the security situation in Iraq is too fragile to justify a full U.S. withdrawal anytime soon.

The proposed security pact calls for all U.S. combat forces to be removed from Iraqi cities by June 2009 and for all forces to leave the country by the end of 2011, unless both sides agree to an extension.

In a satellite video-teleconference from Baghdad, an Army commander told reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday that his understanding is that by June 2009 U.S. troops would not be based inside cities but would be allowed to operate as trainers and advisers attached to Iraqi military units.

“We will have embedded teams,” Col. William Hickman, commander of the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, said. “And those teams will remain with Iraqi army and the Iraqi police in execution of our mission. So that is how we’re seeing our situation here — to continue to focus on the training of the Iraqi security forces so that they are prepared as we go into spring and summer of next year.”

Hickman’s brigade operates in western Baghdad.

Morrell announced that on Thursday the Iraqis would regain security responsibilities for Babil province, making it the 12th of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be restored to Iraqi control.

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Matthew Lee, Terence Hunt and Nestor Ikeda contributed to this story.

America’s National Strategy of Global Intervention

October 20, 2008

By William Pfaff | Information Clearing House, Oct 18, 2008

Paris, October 15, 2008 – Last June the U.S. Department of Defense unexpectedly issued a new version of its National Defense Strategy. It was unexpected because there will be a new administration in Washington in January which might be expected to issue a statement of its own ideas about military strategy.

Some in Washington speculated that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, only recently named to that office, a man who gets along with Democrats as well as Republications, might be bidding to keep his job under a new administration.

The new statement lacks the Bush administration’s unilateralism and triumphalism (as if there were anything left to be triumphal about), but it foresees a “Long War” of “promoting freedom, justice and human dignity by working to end tyranny, promote effective democracies and extend prosperity; and confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies.”

All that is straight Bush doctrine, drawn from his second inaugural address and Condoleezza Rice’s policy statement last summer predicting decades of a “new American realism” of “nation-building” to conquer “extremism.” By now the “Long War,” realistic or not, will have become orthodoxy for most of the Washington defense and strategic studies community.

The noteworthy thing about this National Defense Strategy statement is that it says nothing directly about American national defense. It is a strategy for intervening in other countries, and preventing others from blocking or resisting American interventions.

It states the responsibilities of America’s armed forces (summarizing the document’s introduction) as follows:

§ Conduct a global struggle against a violent extremist ideology that seeks to overturn the international system.

§ Deal with the threats of rogue-nation quests for nuclear weapons.

§ Confront the rising military power of other states.

These duties “[will require] the orchestration of national and international power over years or decades to come” to accomplish the following:

§ Long-term innovative approaches to counter al-Qaeda’s rejection of state sovereignty, violation of borders, and attempts to deny self-determination and human dignity.

§ Deal “with the inability of many states to police themselves effectively or work with their neighbors to ensure regional security.” Armed sub-national groups must be dealt with, “including but not limited to those inspired by violent extremism” which if left unchecked will threaten the stability and legitimacy of key states, and allow instability to spread “and threaten regions of interest to the United States, its allies and friends.”

§ Form local partnerships and creative approaches to deny extremists the opportunity to gain footholds in “ungoverned, under-governed, misgoverned, and contested areas” affecting local stability and regional stability.

§ Counter Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology and enrichment capabilities, and deal with the ability of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to threaten international order, sponsor terrorism, and disrupt fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

§ Meet possible challenges from (a) “more powerful states [that] might actively seek to counter the United States in some or all domains of traditional warfare or to gain an advantage in developing capabilities that offset our own,” as well as (b) nations that might “choose niche areas of military capability and competition in which they believe they can develop a strategic or operational advantage [even though] some of these potential competitors [may also be partners of the U.S. in] diplomatic, commercial or security efforts…”

§ For the foreseeable future, “hedge against China’s growing military modernization and the impact of its strategic choices on international security….The objective of this effort is to mitigate near-term challenges while preserving and enhancing U.S. national advantages over time.”

§ Recognize that Russia’s [pre-Georgian crisis] “retreat from openness and democracy,” “bullying of its neighbors,” and “more active military stance… and signaled increase in reliance on nuclear weapons as a foundation for its security …[are warnings of] a Russia exploring renewed influence” and a greater international role.

§ Prevent prospective adversaries, especially non-state actors and their state sponsors, from adopting “anti-access technology and weaponry [that can] restrict our future freedom of action,” and also from “making adversary use of traditional means of influence” such as by “manipulating global opinion using mass communications venues and exploiting international commitments and legal avenues.”

§ The global “commons [space, international waters, aerospace and cyberspace] must be secured and with them access to world markets and resources,” using military capabilities and alliances and coalitions, participating in international security and economic institutions, and employing “diplomacy and soft power to shape the behavior of individual states and the international system, using force when necessary.”

The principal preoccupation of the document is to protect American forces operating in foreign countries: to block measures by foreign states to “deny” American efforts to intervene in their countries, or to develop measures and technology to resist American intervention (or to send Americans to international criminal courts).

As for the United States itself, the document quotes the constitutional obligation of the government “to provide for the common defense,” but says that today, after more than 230 years, the U.S. “shoulders additional responsibilities on behalf of the world,…a beacon of light for those in dark places.” Yet the fear of those dark places that permeates the document compels the recommendation that American troops remain at home, where they will be safe from enemies and untrustworthy allies, and defend their own country.

William Pfaff is the author of eight books on American foreign policy, international relations, and contemporary history, including books on utopian thought, romanticism and violence, nationalism, and the impact of the West on the non-Western world. His newspaper column, featured in The International Herald Tribune for more than a quarter-century, and his globally syndicated articles, have given him the widest international influence of any American commentator.

© Copyright 2008 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.

Israel ‘weighing Saudi peace deal’

October 20, 2008
Al Jazeera, Oct 20, 2008

Livni is scrambling to get the necessary numbers to form a coalition government [AFP]

Israel’s defence minister has said the country’s leaders are considering a dormant Saudi plan offering comprehensive peace with the Arab world.

Ehud Barak said it was time to pursue an overall peace deal because there was very little progress in individual negotiations with Syria and the Palestinians.

The peace plan – first mooted by Saudi Arabia in 2002 – offers Israel recognition by its Arab neighbours in return for its withdrawal from lands in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights captured during the 1967 Middle East war.

Barak said he had discussed the plan with Tzipi Livni, the leader of Israel’s Kadima party trying to form a coalition government, and that they were considering a response.

“There is definitely room to introduce a comprehensive Israeli plan to counter the Saudi plan that would be the basis for a discussion on overall regional peace,” he told Israel’s Army Radio.

Barak’s announcement came as Livni sought a two-week extension to form political alliances in a new government, having failed to attract the ultra-orthodox Shas party to join Kadima and Barak’s Labour party in the administration.

Coalition deadline

Livni was elected leader of Kadima last month, taking over from Ehud Olmert who resigned as prime minister in the wake of a corruption scandal but remains in office in a caretaker capacity until a new government is formed.

Livni has already won an initial agreement from Barak, the leader of the Labour party, to join a coalition under her leadership.

But her efforts to attract Shas, which is making a number of demands, have so far proved fruitless.

Al Jazeera’s Sherine Tadros, reporting from Jerusalem, said the Shas party had a strong bargaining position.

The Shas party knows that Livni really needs it in order to become prime minister and form a strong government acceptable to the Israeli public, our correspondent said.

The religious Shas party, which has long billed itself as a party that represents Israel’s poor, has been demanding increased government spending of about $270m on social welfare as a price for joining a Livni-led coalition.

Scramble for numbers

With Labour in her corner, Livni would control 48 of the 120 seats in parliament.

“She could go to the Knesset [to ratify a government] with the seats she already has, but she believes she can do it in the end,” Gil Messing, a Livni spokesman, said.

Without Shas, she could form a minority government relying on precarious support from outside the coalition of left-wing and Arab parties wary of a national election that opinion polls show Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud would win.

Shas’s membership would boost that number to 60, a wafer-thin coalition but enough to stop the opposition from toppling her government in no-confidence votes.

Winning the support of smaller factions, such as the Pensioners party, with seven Knesset members, and the left-wing Meretz, with five, would give Livni a stronger mandate to pursue policies that include peacemaking with the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, some 80 truckloads of food and medical supplies were delayed from reaching the Gaza Strip after dozens of Israelis blocked a crossing on Sunday, demanding their government seal an agreement with Hamas to release Gilad Shalit.

Hamas is demanding the release of 1,400 prisoners in exchange for Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured by Palestinian fighters more than two years ago.

Tens of Thousands of Iraqis Mass for Anti-SOFA Protest

October 18, 2008

Antiwar, October 18, 2008

At least 50,000 Iraqis joined a protest in the streets of Baghdad today, organized by followers of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, chanting anti-US and anti-occupation slogans and waving banners opposing the controversial Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which would keep US troops in Iraq through 2011.

Though Sadr was not personally present at the rally, he did address the crowd in a message directed at Iraqi lawmakers, read by Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammadawi. In the statement he urged Iraq’s parliament to “champion the will of the people over that of the occupier” and oppose the pact. He also cautioned that passing the deal “will stigmatize Iraq and its government for years to come.”

Sadr is just one of many influential religious leaders, both Sunni and Shi’ite, speaking out against the SOFA. The high attendance for the rally underscores a growing popular hostility for the deal, which faces a long battle for approval in the Iraqi government.

Though it is unclear at this point whether the terms of the deal are finalized, officials reported this was the case earlier in the week though White House Press Secretary Dana Perino denied it yesterday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari says it would be “difficult to reopen the text” and that it was time for parliament to either ratify or reject the deal. He added that “the next few days are very crucial for Iraqi leaders to decide.”

Popular and religious opposition to the deal as well as a splintering coalition government will make it extremely difficult for Iraq’s parliament to pass the deal. And even though a simple majority is all that is required for passage, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reportedly intends to submit it for consideration only if he is confident it will receive a two-thirds majority, fearing criticism if the vote is close.

Related Stories