Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Who Decides About War? What About the People?

October 3, 2009

John Nichols, The Nation, Oct 2, 2009

The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan has reached its “sell-by…” date.

A majority of Americans now tell pollsters the mission was a mistake. Ninety-eight members of the House – including liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans – have cosponsored Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern’s resolution asking the Pentagon to develop an exit strategy.

Unfortunately, the generals who run wars, and the defense contractors who profit from them, want to keep U.S. troops on the ground in that distant land. And President Obama is under pressure to surge tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops into “the graveyard of empires.”

Continues >>

Where freedom means a chance to work

October 2, 2009

With Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas in mind, Ela Bhatt raised hope when she organized female labourers in India

By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun, October 2, 2009

Ela Bhatt

Ela Bhatt

Photograph by:

Ian Smith, Vancouver Sun

Ela Bhatt never met Mohandas Gandhi, but as a child she caught a glimpse of him leaving her family’s home in Ahmedabad.

Her grandfather and great-uncle were among Gandhi’s followers who were jailed for civil disobedience. And it’s Gandhi’s philosophy that has profoundly influenced Bhatt’s own thoughts and actions.

As a young lawyer in 1972, she helped found a trade union for the 93 per cent of female labourers whose efforts aren’t counted as part of the Indian economy.

Continues >>

Obama agrees to keep Israel’s nukes secret

October 2, 2009

By Eli Lake, The Washington Times, Oct 2, 2009

President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.

The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.

Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.

Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969 understanding because of his strong support for nonproliferation and priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The U.S. and five other world powers made progress during talks with Iran in Geneva on Thursday as Iran agreed in principle to transfer some potential bomb fuel out of the country and to open a recently disclosed facility to international inspection.

Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued U.S.-Israeli accord slip last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by Israel’s Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama’s speech at the U.N. General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear weapons, would apply to Israel.

“It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was speaking about North Korea and Iran,” the Israeli leader said. “But I want to remind you that in my first meeting with President Obama in Washington I received from him, and I asked to receive from him, an itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for many years between Israel and the United States on that issue. It was not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I received [that document].”

The chief nuclear understanding was reached at a summit between President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that began on Sept. 25, 1969. Avner Cohen, author of “Israel and the Bomb” and the leading authority outside the Israeli government on the history of Israel’s nuclear program, said the accord amounts to “the United States passively accepting Israel’s nuclear weapons status as long as Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon.”

There is no formal record of the agreement nor have Israeli nor American governments ever publicly acknowledged it. In 2007, however, the Nixon library declassified a July 19, 1969, memo from national security adviser Henry Kissinger that comes closest to articulating U.S. policy on the issue. That memo says, “While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact.”

Mr. Cohen has said the resulting policy was the equivalent of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The Netanyahu government sought to reaffirm the understanding in part out of concern that Iran would seek Israeli disclosures of its nuclear program in negotiations with the United States and other world powers. Iran has frequently accused the U.S. of having a double standard by not objecting to Israel’s arsenal.

Mr. Cohen said the reaffirmation and the fact that Mr. Netanyahu sought and received a written record of the deal suggest that “it appears not only that there was no joint understanding of what had been agreed in September 1969 but it is also apparent that even the notes of the two leaders may no longer exist. It means that Netanyahu wanted to have something in writing that implies that understanding. It also affirms the view that the United States is in fact a partner in Israel’s policy of nuclear opacity.”

Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, declined to comment, as did the White House National Security Council.

The secret understanding could undermine the Obama administration’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In particular, it could impinge on U.S. efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, two agreements that U.S. administrations have argued should apply to Israel in the past. They would ban nuclear tests and the production of material for weapons.

A Senate staffer familiar with the May reaffirmation, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, “What this means is that the president gave commitments that politically he had no choice but to give regarding Israel’s nuclear program. However, it calls into question virtually every part of the president’s nonproliferation agenda.The president gave Israel an NPT treaty get out of jail free card.”

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the step was less injurious to U.S. policy.

“I think it is par for the course that the two incoming leaders of the United States and Israel would want to clarify previous understandings between their governments on this issue,” he said.

However Mr. Kimball added, “I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Netanyahu. President Obama’s speech and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1887 apply to all countries irrespective of secret understandings between the U.S. and Israel. A world without nuclear weapons is consistent with Israel’s stated goal of achieving a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Obama’s message is that the same nonproliferation and disarmament responsibilities should apply to all states and not just a few.”

Israeli nuclear doctrine is known as “the long corridor.” Under it, Israel would begin to consider nuclear disarmament only after all countries officially at war with it signed peace treaties and all neighboring countries relinquished not only nuclear programs but also chemical and biological arsenals. Israel sees nuclear weapons as an existential guarantee in a hostile environment.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said he hoped the Obama administration did not concede too much to Israel.

“One hopes that the price for such concessions is Israeli agreement to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and an acceptance of the long-term goal of a Middle East weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone,” he said. “Otherwise, the Obama administration paid too much, given its focus on a world free of nuclear weapons.”

Israeli Arabs hold protest strike against racist policies

October 2, 2009
Google.com, Oct 1, 2009

(AFP)

ARABA, Israel — Arab Israelis staged a general strike on Thursday to protest what organisers called “racist” policies and to mark the ninth anniversary of demonstrations at which police killed 13 Arabs.

The strike culminated in a rally in the northern Israel village of Araba, where thousands of people chanted “with our blood, with our souls, we will protect you Palestine.”

A woman carried a picture of her young son who died in October 2000 when Israeli police killed 13 Arab Israelis who took part in protests that broke out days after the Palestinian uprising, or intifada, started.

“The government is run by gangsters, not statesmen,” the 58-year-old said.

Continues >>

Kashmiris’ revolt against Indian occupation and military terror

October 2, 2009

The Socialist Worker, October 2, 2009

Arundhati Roy is the renowned author of the novel The God of Small Things, for which she won the prestigious Booker Prize in 1997. But Roy is equally well known as a determined social movement activist and leading voice of the global justice movement.

Roy’s new collection of essays, titled Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers, examines the dark side of democracy in her native India. It looks at how religious majoritarianism, cultural nationalism and neo-fascism simmer just beneath the surface in a country that projects itself as the world’s largest democracy.

Here, we republish an essay from the book that provides a brilliant account of the summer 2008 uprising against Indian occupation by the people of Kashmir–a disputed region partitioned between India and Pakistan, and subject to Indian military rule in the section it controls.

Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers | Arundhati Roy

FOR THE past sixty days or so, since about the end of June, the people of Kashmir have been free. Free in the most profound sense. They have shrugged off the terror of living their lives in the gun-sights of half a million heavily armed soldiers, in the most densely militarized zone in the world.

Continues >>

Communists slam Iranian repression

October 2, 2009
Morning Star Online, October 1, 2009
by Tom Mellen

The international communist movement slammed Tehran on Wednesday over its bloody post-election crackdown, while rejecting Western efforts to exploit the crisis as an excuse for “humanitarian intervention.”

At an extraordinary meeting in Damascus, representatives of 52 communist and workers’ parties from 43 countries around the world expressed concern about the “comprehensive political crisis” that has engulfed Iran since the June presidential elections.

Delegates from as far afield as Bolivia, Slovakia, Palestine, the US, Sudan, Iraq, Russia and Ireland condemned the theocratic authorities for arresting over 4,000 protesters and torturing detainees.

Continues >>

Gandhi’s birthday marked with opulence by Montblanc

October 2, 2009

Gandhi, as a non-violent activist, would perhaps have approved of the commemorative pen – though perhaps not its price

gandhiGandhi, whose birth is commemorated today by Montblanc

For Mahatma Gandhi, one of history’s best known non-violent activists, the pen was indeed mightier than the sword. But a luxury, limited-edition fountain pen created by Montblanc, the luxury Swiss penmaker, to commemorate the 140th anniversary of his birth today, has caused controversy for being at odds with Gandhi’s simpler side.

Continues >>

Starting Another Year of War in Afghanistan

October 2, 2009

by Norman Solomon, CommonDreams.org, Oct 1, 2009

October 2009 has begun with the New York Times reporting that “the president, vice president and an array of cabinet secretaries, intelligence chiefs, generals, diplomats and advisers gathered in a windowless basement room of the White House for three hours on Wednesday to chart a new course in Afghanistan.”

As this month begins the ninth year of the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, “windowless” seems to be an apt metaphor. The structure of thought and the range of options being debated in Washington’s high places are notably insular. The “new course” will be a permutation of the present course.

While certainty is lacking, steely resolve is evident. An unspoken mantra remains in effect: When in doubt, keep killing. The knotty question is: Exactly who and how?

News accounts are filled with stories about options that mix “counterinsurgency” with “counterterrorism.” The thicker the jargon in Washington, the louder the erudite tunes from the latest best and brightest — whistling past graveyards, to be filled by people far away.

In the White House, there’s no indication of a pane that’s facing the pain in Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, where the U.S. government continues to bring gifts: a dollar’s worth of warfare for a dime’s worth of everything else.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

The letter was neatly printed with a blue pen. “I’ve been fed up and damaged,” it said. “My hope is that from you and all entrepreneurs and all who have compassion, I respectfully ask you to help me for God’s sake. I’m downtrodden. I hope you understand my situation.”

The situation, living in a squalid camp for refugees in Kabul, was desperate. “I am Sayed Ali — from Geresh district of Helmand province.”

Moments after handing me the letter, he grabbed it out of my hands. A controlled rage flooded his voice. Pashto words cascaded, and a translator tried to keep up.

Sayed Ali said that he’d given other letters to officials and nothing changed. Month after month in this forsaken camp, little more than ditches and improvised tents.

Two weeks later, in mid-September, I met with a few staffers and members of Congress; some of the most progressive on Capitol Hill. But when I talked about the refugees I saw in Kabul — many of them homeless because of U.S. bombing in southern Afghanistan — the discussion couldn’t seem to get anywhere.

In the air was an unspoken message: Desperate refugees are routine in war. That’s the way it is.

Washington doesn’t recognize Sayed Ali, with his suffering and his smoldering rage, or other Afghans in similar predicaments. An unspoken calculus in Washington figures that we owe them next to nothing. It’s a matter of priorities, you know.

Yes, there are plenty of photo ops and news reports on U.S. aid projects, happening in tandem with Army and Marines military maneuvers. But what’s budgeted to help rebuild Afghanistan is paltry compared to what’s spent on making war there.

“We proclaim moral principles when justifying our actions, but we wreak havoc and destruction on a backward, ancient world we do not understand,” retired U.S. Army colonel and author Douglas Macgregor wrote in Defense News on September 28. He added: “Our troops are not anthropologists or sociologists, they are soldiers and Marines who have been sent to impose America’s will on backward societies. The result is mutual hatred — not everywhere, but in enough places to feed what American military leaders like to call an ‘insurgency’ . . .”

U.S. media and politics are now awash in talk about getting smarter and shrewder in Afghanistan. The idea of setting a country right while waging war is a popular Washington fantasy. What it has to do with reality is another matter.

“I don’t want any foreigners building roads or big buildings for me when I am cleaning blood from my home,” a shopkeeper in Helmand province, Haji Dawood Khan, told a Financial Times reporter in late September. The newspaper quoted a businessman from Kandahar province, Mohammad Karigar, who said: “The more foreign troops there are, the more people will hate them.”

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

In Washington, few politicians or journalists mention that 90 percent of the U.S. government’s current spending in Afghanistan is for military operations.

There was plenty of money to pay for bombing Sayed Ali’s neighborhood in Helmand province, but there’s no money to ease his current desperation.

Sayed Ali is speaking for countless other people: “I respectfully ask you to help me for God’s sake.”

More than eight months have passed since the inaugural speech when Barack Obama told foreign leaders: “Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.” And so President Obama will be judged.

Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, is the author of many books including “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” He is co-chair of the national Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign. For video of his recent appearances on “Democracy Now” and C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” go to: www.normansolomon.com

Raina: Kashmir Ripe for Endgame?

October 1, 2009

By Badri Raina, ZNet, Oct 1, 2009

Badri Raina’s ZSpace Page

I

I have before me the full text of the report on Kashmir prepared by Beersman Paul, President, Human Rights Council, Geneva, submitted to the Council at its 12th session, 14th Sept.,-2nd October, 2009.

The report, which is titled “Belgian Association for Solidarity with Jammu & Kashmir: Solution Under the Indian Constitution,” encapsulates the interactions and findings of Mr. Beersman during his “study tour through Jammu & Kashmir State from June 30-July 27, 2009.

After a brief, factual introductory, Beersman lists the individuals and organizations he interviewed during what must clearly have been an exhausting job of fact-finding, covering all three provinces of the state of Jammu & Kashmir and most shades of opinion, although I do not find any entries either for Syed Ali Shah Geelani (the only separatist leader who holds fast to the objective of accession of the state with Pakistan, via, no doubt the formality of self-determination), for Yaseen Malik (JKLF, who steadfastly espouses “independence” from both India and Pakistan) or any interview with a Kashmiri Pandit spokesperson (remembering that the Pandits, at the other end of the spectrum, want the state’s accession to India to be unambiguously cemented.) The text can be accessed at http://basjak.org.

Hereunder is a bullet-point summation of the significant points made by some significant Valley leaders other than those whose allegiance to the accession with India remains firmly in place, often referred to as the “mainstream” parties and political groups. My catalogue is clearly not intended to reproduce the full text of what each individual/organization is recorded to have said in Beersman’s report, but to highlight what seem to me the chief concerns of each.

Continues >>

Multiple US Missile Strikes Kill 26 in Waziristan

October 1, 2009

Afghans, Arabs and Uzbeks Said Killed in Flurry of Attacks

by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com,  September 29, 2009

US drones have launched a flurry of attacks over the past 24 hours, one in South Waziristan and at least three others in North Waziristan in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), killing at least 18 people and injuring an unknown number of others.

The first attack, in South Waziristan Agency, came against the home of a man believed to have ties to Hakimullah Mehsud, who depending on which Pakistani government official you believe was either killed in a clash with a rival member of the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) or is the current leader of the TTP, having replaced Baitullah Mehsud. At least six were killed in the attack. Some of those killed were identified as Uzbek militants.

At least 12 others were killed in the second attack, when US drones fired at least four missiles on a home north of Miram Shah. Officials say all those killed in this attack were believed to be Afghans, and assume that they were in some way related to the Haqqani network. A third attack on a vehicle near Mir Ali killed eight, while the toll from a fourth attack was not readily available.

The latest attacks were the first since Friday, when a US drone attacked a compound also believed to be linked to the Haqqani faction. The US is reported threatening to escalate attacks across northern Pakistan, including potentially into the major city of Quetta.