Archive for the ‘USA’ Category

If you’re disillusioned with Obama, you don’t understand how he won

January 18, 2010

The distance between the aspirations he raised and his record a year on is the distinction between the electoral and the political

Gary Younge, The Guardian/UK, January 17, 2010

You’ve got to feel sorry for the Democratic ­Senate leader, Harry Reid. In 1995, when it seemed Colin Powell might run for president, Powell explained his ­appeal to white voters thus: “I speak reasonably well, like a white person”, and, visually, “I ain’t that black”.

More than a decade later, Reid said almost the same thing about Barack Obama, arguing that the presidential candidate owed his success in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and the fact that he spoke “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”.

Continues >>

Mubarak’s Iron Wall

January 17, 2010
Jeremy Salt, The Palestine Chronicle, Jan. 17, 2010
Mubarak is a rented president for the US and Israel, not for his own people.

Early in the 20th century the Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky wrote of the ‘iron wall’ that would have to be built between the settlers and the indigenous people of Palestine, whom he knew would resist the attempt to take their land to the end. What he meant by an ‘iron wall’ was the force the Zionists would have to use to subdue the Palestinians if they were to take their land. He did not actually mean a wall according to the dictionary definition of such a structure but that is what has now been built across the West Bank to pen the Palestinians up like the wild animals the Israeli historian Benny Morris says they are.

Indeed, the Palestinians have been ghettoised by a variety of walls and ‘fences’. There is the monstrous ‘separation ‘ wall weaving in and out of the rapidly disappearing ‘green line’ separating Palestinian land which had been occupied before the 1967 war from that which was occupied during it. The Gazans live in what has been described as the world’s largest open air prison. It could also be likened to a game reserve. Every season is open season and no weapon is banned. The Gazans are enclosed by the sea on one side, patrolled by the Israeli navy so that that fishing boats cannot get out and relief boats cannot get in. They face an Israeli fence on two other sides and a  concrete barrier on the border with Egypt. This is now being reinforced  by Husni Mubarak’s ‘iron wall’ of steel plates driven deep underground, destroying the tunnels through which Gazans have been supplied with desperately needed  food, fuel and medicine.

Choked since the beginning of the blockade in 2006, the Gazans are now to be throttled by international decree. This is the crime being committed by Israel, the US and Egypt, with the ‘international community’ lining up behind them with expressions of understanding of the need for the Gazans to be punished. Their torment is one of the great scandals of our age. They have been locked up in the strip for the past sixty years. They have been massacred and bombarded from the beginning.

People forget if they ever knew that the majority of Gazans are not native to this part of Palestine. They were driven there by Zionist militias in 1948. The attacks on civilians ordered by David Ben-Gurion in the 1950s and the massacres organised by Ariel Sharon in the 1970s lie buried under the weight of more murderous attacks. In the last two decades the Gazans (and Palestinians elsewhere) have been subjected to ‘targeted assassinations’ (i.e. premeditated murder by a state) and the destruction by land, sea and air of schools, apartment blocks and government buildings. The killing of children reached its apogee (or should we assume worse is yet to come?) during the onslaught of December 2009-January 2010 when more than 400 were killed, blown to bits in artillery and air assaults and shot dead by snipers.  These children had to die so Ehud Olmert could prove he was a tough guy. They had to die because the blockade imposed in 2006 after the election of the Hamas government had not brought the Palestinians to their knees.

The ‘international community’ does not mean you or me. It means Gordon Brown, Nicholas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Silvio Berlusconi, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and numerous other politicians lining up to defend Israel no matter what it does. They could understand why Israel had to attack Gaza in 2008. It was all those tunnels and all those rocket attacks that were the source of the problem and not 60 years of occupation. They could understand why Israel had to attack Lebanon in 2006, killing about the same number of people as they killed in Gaza three years later, although one or two of the fainthearted may have murmured ‘disproportionate’ as the newspapers published photographs of the bodies of children being lifted out of destroyed buildings. They are so understanding of Israel that Gordon Brown is promising to protect Israeli government ministers and military commanders from war crimes prosecution by changing the law. They are so understanding of Israel that the US Congress is going to close down Arab media outlets Israel does not like. They are so understanding of Israel that they can perfectly understand why it might have to launch air attacks on active nuclear installations in Iran. They are so understanding of Israel that they think the Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes (including the bombing of UN buildings and Gaza’s main hospital) and crimes against humanity in Gaza is unbalanced and unfair.

They don’t understand why the Gazans are firing home-made missiles into Israel in response to massacres, targeted assassination and the destruction of infrastructure including sewage and water works. They are appalled. ‘Violence is not the way’. They say it all the time. The phrase rolls off Tony Blair’s tongue like softened honey. Violence is not the way unless it is Israeli violence, or their own violence, delivered daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Yemen coming up as a new target in their ‘war on terrorism’. This violence does not appeal them all.  Of course they are shocked by the war dead, but the war dead are their soldiers who have been killed and not the vast number of civilians killed by the war machine of which these soldiers are part. The ‘deaths’ of hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries in the last two decades is merely tragic or unfortunate. The torture of others, or their removal to third world countries so they can be tortured there is something they simply don’t talk about.

Now we have Mubarak’s steel wall. The ‘international community’ understands why it has to be built. Israel is facing an existential threat from these tunnels.  If the Gazans behave, if they hand back their captured Israeli soldier, if they accept Israel’s ‘right’ to exist on their stolen land,  if they accept that they have no right to go back to it, if they accept whatever demand Israeli makes,  if they accept that Israel has the right to attack and they have no right to defend themselves, with the paltry weapons they have, then of course the blockade will be lifted and they can have a bit more food and medicine depending on how they behave themselves.  Along with the steel wall shutting off the Palestinians is another wall Israel is going to build with Egypt’s consent along the Auja pocket, formerly a demilitarized zone seized by Israel decades ago.

Mubarak is not Egypt. The will of the country is not represented in his parliament and his government. He is a rented president, a president for the US and Israel, not for his own people. He is as much an extension of the US government as the company known as Blackwater until the murder of civilians by its contractors in Iraq caused such a scandal that it had to change its name. Mubarak is a contractor. He helps to run the Middle East for the US.  Egypt is his responsibility and those who would get in his way, Muslim activist or secular liberal, he crushes.

Were fair elections to be held in Egypt, Mubarak and his National Democratic Party would be finished. On the question of Palestine, whatever their other differences, there is no difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the secular opposition parties and movements. Outside the ranks of Mubarak’s party there is no support for the actions he has taken, including his recent prevention of the Viva  Palestina convoy from delivering aid to Gaza.  The Egyptian people are with the Palestinians and amongst them there is a deep sense of shame at what Mubarak is doing. This is the country of the revolution of 1952, the staunch defender of the Palestinians, of the Third World struggle against imperialism and colonialism, turned into a humiliating dish rag by the west’s satrap in the presidential palace in Cairo.

– Jeremy Salt is associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Previously, he taught at Bosporus University in Istanbul and the University of Melbourne in the Departments of Middle Eastern Studies and Political Science. Professor Salt has written many articles on Middle East issues, particularly Palestine, and was a journalist for The Age newspaper when he lived in Melbourne. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Israel and Egypt continue to Squeeze the Lifeblood out of the People of Gaza

January 17, 2010

Israeli Airstrikes and Tank Shelling and Egyptian Underground Walls and Maritime Blockade

by Ann Wright, CommonDreams.org, January 17, 2010

Two weeks ago, almost 2,000 internationals came to Egypt and Gaza in a massive show of civil society support for the people of Gaza.  1,362 persons representing 44 countries in the Gaza Freedom March and over 500 persons with the Viva Palestina Convoy let the people of Gaza know of their concern for the tragic consequences of the actions of their governments in support of the Israeli and Egyptian blockade.

Yet, two weeks later, with the apparent approval of governments (United States, European Community and Canada) who support the quarantine, blockade and siege of Gaza, Israel and Egypt have tightened the squeeze to wring the lifeblood out of the people of Gaza.

Continues >>

How to Think About China

January 16, 2010

Immanuel Wallerstein, Agence Global,   January 15, 2010

If one asks throughout the world the question, what do you think of the United States as a country and a world power, you will get very clear answers. Everyone has an opinion – North and South, rich and poor, men and women, politically on the right or the left, young and old. The opinions vary enormously from extremely favorable to extremely hostile. But people do feel they know how to think about the United States.

Thirty years ago, the same was probably true about China. But it is no longer true. Many people, perhaps even most people, around the world are no longer sure what they think about China as a country or as a world power. Indeed, it is a subject not only of uncertainty but of sharp debate. It is useful perhaps to review which issues people outside of China tend to debate when they discuss China. There are three principal ones.

Continues >>

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.

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.

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 >>

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.”

Yemen: Another US Battleground?

January 13, 2010

by Stephen Zunes, CommonDreams.org, Jan 12, 2010

The United States may be on the verge of involvement in yet another counterinsurgency war which, as is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, may make a bad situation even worse. The attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight by a Nigerian man was apparently planned in Yemen. There were alleged ties between the perpetrator of the Ft. Hood massacre and a radical Yemeni cleric, and an ongoing U.S.-backed Yemeni military offensive against al-Qaeda have all focused U.S. attention on that country.

Continues >>