WikiLeaks shows America’s imperious attitude to Pakistan

December 9, 2010

The WikiLeaks US embassy cables reveal just how dangerously involved the Americans are in every aspect of Pakistan’s affairs

Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, Dec 1, 2010

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari addr

WikiLeaks cables report the rule of President Asif Ali Zardari (above) was constantly under harsh review by the US. Photograph: Ishara S Kodikara/AFP/Getty Images

Pakistan was already under the American hammer before the WikiLeaks crisis blew. But leaked US diplomatic cables published by the Guardian show the extraordinary extent to which Pakistan is in danger of becoming a mere satrapy of imperial Washington.

The US assault on Pakistani sovereignty, which is how these developments are widely viewed in the country, is multipronged. At one end of the spectrum, in the sphere of “hard power”, US special forces are increasingly involved, in one way or another, in covert military operations inside Pakistan.

These troops are being used to help hunt down Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in the tribal areas and co-ordinate drone attacks, as revealed by the Guardian’s Pakistan correspondent, Declan Walsh. Their activities come in addition to previous air and ground cross-border raids; and to the quasi-permanent basing of American technicians and other personnel at the Pakistani air force base from which drone attacks are launched.

Continues >>

Fatima Bhutto: A Flood of Drone Strikes

December 9, 2010

What the Wikileaks Revelations Tell Us About How Washington Runs Pakistan

by Fatima Bhutto, TomDispatch.com, Dec 10, 2010

With governments like Pakistan’s current regime, who needs the strong arm of the CIA? According to Bob Woodward’s latest bestseller Obama’s Wars, when Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari, an obsequiously dangerous man, was notified that the CIA would be launching missile strikes from drones over his country’s sovereign territory, he replied, “Kill the seniors. Collateral damage worries you Americans. It doesn’t worry me.”

Why would he worry?  When his wife Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan in 2007 to run for prime minister after years of self-imposed exile, she was already pledged to a campaign of pro-American engagement. She promised to hand over nuclear scientist and international bogeyman Dr. A.Q. Khan, the “father” of the Pakistani atomic bomb, to the International Atomic Energy Agency.  She also made clear that, once back in power, she would allow the Americans to bomb Pakistan proper, so that George W. Bush’s Global War on Terror might triumph.  Of course, the Americans had been involved in covert strikes and other activities in Pakistan since at least 2001, but we didn’t know that then.

This has been the promise that has kept Zardari, too, in power.

Continues >>

British ministers who legislate for war criminals to walk free in London

December 8, 2010

Stuart Littlewood, uruknet.info, Dec 7, 2010

Professor Richard Falk put it most eloquently: “The idea of Nuremberg after World War Two was that crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes are also offences against the whole of international society…” The law that was applied to surviving German criminals of World War Two would not be respected unless those who sat in judgment upheld it in relation to their own behaviour.

The UN Special Rapporteur was speaking in London at a parliamentary briefing on Universal Jurisdiction, the principles of which the British government intends to undermine for the benefit of its Israeli friends.

“Universal jurisdiction is part of the struggle against impunity for the Israeli military and the country’s political leaders,” said Falk. “That impunity has been possible both because Israel itself doesn’t impose accountability on those who perpetrate violations of international criminal law and because the US, and to some extent European countries, have given a geopolitical insulation to Israel in relation to its responsibilities as a sovereign state.”

The UN’s Goldstone report and the international law panel appointed after the Gaza flotilla incident also raised the issue of impunity and accountability. Falk feels that the most effective way of implementing international law is now through the activism of civil society and through national legal institutions.

Continues >>

China must end human rights crackdown in advance of Nobel award

December 8, 2010

> Liu Xiaobo maintains that his imprisonment violates China's own constitution

Liu Xiaobo maintains that his imprisonment violates China’s own constitution

© Private

Amnesty International is today calling on the Chinese government to end its intensifying crackdown on Chinese human rights activists ahead of the Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony in Oslo on 10 December.

Amnesty International and Chinese human rights groups have documented hundreds of cases of people being detained, interrogated, or arrested in advance of the event honouring jailed Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo.

“The Chinese government’s travel restrictions target not just human rights defenders, but also ordinary travellers who somehow trigger the government’s suspicion,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.

“This reaction violates Chinese law as well as China’s international obligations and constitutes a serious breakdown in the rule of law.”

Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo is currently serving an 11-year sentence for “inciting subversion of state power” for his part as the leading author behind “Charter 08”, a manifesto calling for the recognition of fundamental human rights in China.

Continues >>

Noam Chomsky: The Charade of Israeli-Palestinian Talks

December 8, 2010

By Noam Chomsky, In These Times, Dec 2, 2010

It is hardly a secret that for 35 years the U.S. and Israel have stood virtually alone in opposition to a consensus on a political settlement that is close to universal.

Washington’s pathetic capitulation to Israel while pleading for a meaningless three-month freeze on settlement expansion—excluding Arab East Jerusalem—should go down as one of the most humiliating moments in U.S. diplomatic history.

In September the last settlement freeze ended, leading the Palestinians to cease direct talks with Israel. Now the Obama administration, desperate to lure Israel into a new freeze and thus revive the talks, is grasping at invisible straws—and lavishing gifts on a far-right Israeli government.

The gifts include $3 billion for fighter jets. The largesse also happens to be another taxpayer grant to the U.S. arms industry, which gains doubly from programs to expand the militarization of the Middle East.

U.S. arms manufacturers are subsidized not only to develop and produce advanced equipment for a state that is virtually part of the U.S. military-intelligence establishment but also to provide second-rate military equipment to the Gulf states—currently a precedent-breaking $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, which is a transaction that also recycles petrodollars to an ailing U.S. economy.

Continues >>

One November’s Dead: The American War Dead Disappear into the Darkness

December 8, 2010

by Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch.com, Dec 7, 2010

America’s heroes?  Not so much.  Not anymore.  Not when they’re dead, anyway.

Remember as the invasion of Iraq was about to begin, when the Bush administration decided to seriously enforce a Pentagon ban, in existence since the first Gulf War, on media coverage and images of the American dead arriving home at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware?  In fact, the Bush-era ban did more than that.  As the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote then, it “ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers’ homecomings on all military bases.”

For those whose lives were formed in the crucible of the Vietnam years, including the civilian and military leadership of the Bush era, the dead, whether ours or the enemy’s, were seen as a potential minefield when it came to antiwar opposition or simply the loss of public support in the opinion polls.  Admittedly, many of the so-called lessons of the Vietnam War were often based on half-truths or pure mythology, but they were no less powerful or influential for that.

Continues >>

Why Are We in Afghanistan – Still?

December 7, 2010

by Tom Gallagher, CommonDreams.org, Dec 7, 2010

You have to wonder what it might take to get the man in the White House to acknowledge just how absurd the current U.S. military effort in Afghanistan has become. Would the president of Afghanistan himself telling us to start getting our troops out do it? Nah. How about the leader of the last country to send its army there telling us “Victory is impossible in Afghanistan”? Nope. Finding out that some of the guards who protect NATO bases were Taliban — but the top Taliban guy we’d been negotiating with actually wasn’t? Neither. A Hollywood agent might push this story as farce. But it’s real life and that qualifies it as tragedy.

Given that candidate Obama was so widely seen as a man of “new thinking,” one to deliver the country from tired old debates and morasses, one hoped President Obama would listen hard to what Mikhail Gorbachev had to say about the damage that a fruitless nine-years-plus war in Afghanistan can do to a country. But if so, no evidence yet.

Continues >>

Challenging Obama’s Anti-Progressivism

December 7, 2010

by Stephen Lendman, Dissident Voice,  December 7th, 2010

Believing Obama is progressive is like calling a cat a dog. Only the delusional think so. He’s, in fact, hard-right, a neocon, a warrior president, a corporatist pursuing anti-populist policies favoring wealth and privilege, not social justice when more than ever it’s needed.

He’s a fraud, an elitist, chosen years ago, then put on a fast track to power. Big monied interests love him. So do war profiteers and members of America’s aristocracy. He’s one of them.

Only the voting millions who backed him were defrauded. Will they awaken, finally understand, and express their ire publicly more strongly than in mid-term theatrics, throwing out bums for new ones? It’s high time. A year two Obama assessment is coming. Watch for it, parts I and II. A year one analysis can be accessed here and here.

Continues >>

Uruguay also recognize Palestinian state

December 7, 2010
Israeli anger as Uruguay joins Brazil and Argentina in recognizing an independent Palestinian state.
Middle East Online, Dec 7, 2010

More Latin American countries are expected to join

BUENOS AIRES – Argentina and Uruguay said Monday they were joining Brazil in recognizing an independent Palestinian state, earning praise from Palestinian officials but an immediate sharp rebuke from Israel.

Israel called the announcement by Buenos Aires “regrettable” and said it went against an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that such a state should only be recognized with Israeli approval.

The comments echoed criticism Israel made after Brazil started the South American movement on Friday by saying it recognized a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, before the Six Day War in which Israel seized Gaza and the West Bank.

Continues >>

After Brazil, Argentina recognizes Palestinian state

December 7, 2010
Argentine recognizes Palestine ‘as a free and independent state’ within borders defined in 1967.

Middle East Online, Dec 6, 2010

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner

BUENOS – Argentina said Monday it recognized a “free and independent” Palestinian state, days after Brazil drew sharp criticism from Israel and US lawmakers for taking the same step.

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner wrote to Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas saying her country recognizes a Palestine defined by 1967 borders, officials said.

“The Argentine government recognizes Palestine as a free and independent state within the borders defined in 1967,” Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman said, reading from the letter.

Israel has already reacted with “sadness and disappointment” to Brazil’s declaration on the issue, saying it breached a 1995 agreement it had with the Palestinian Authority that any Palestinian state should only come about through negotiations with it.

US lawmakers have called Brazil’s decision “severely misguided” and “regrettable.”

Western countries have agreed that any definition of a Palestinian state required Israeli approval. The United States has consistently protected Israel’s position in the UN Security Council.

Argentina’s move came after Brazil last Friday made public a letter it had sent also recognizing a Palestinian state including West Bank and Gaza, which Israel seized in the 1967 Six Day War and has occupied since.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who had sought a mediator role in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, made the decision shortly before he is to stand down on January 1 next year.

His protegee and former cabinet chief, Dilma Rousseff, has been elected to take over from him on pledges to pursue his policies.

Argentina said its recognition of a Palestinian state reflected a general consensus in Mercosur, the South American trade bloc.

Mercosur’s members are: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Venezuela’s membership is pending. Associate members are: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador Ecuador and Peru.

The announcements by Brazil and Argentina come as peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians teeter on the brink of collapse following the end of a temporary ban on Jewish settlement building in the West Bank.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Monday he did “not see any reason” to extend the settlement freeze.

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has said he will not return to negotiations while Israel continues to build on land the Palestinians want for their state.

He has repeatedly said he would explore other options if the peace talks collapse — including asking for UN recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.