Uighurs claim 400 killed in unrest in western China

July 10, 2009

Correspondents in Urumqi and Beijing | The Australian, July 9, 2009

POLICE killed 400 Uighurs in the capital of China’s Xinjiang region during ethnic unrest there, exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer claimed yesterday.

Ms Kadeer said Uighur sources within “East Turkestan”, the separatist name for the northwest region, had told her 400 Uighurs had died “as a result of police shootings and beatings” in Urumqi since violence erupted there on Sunday.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal Asia, the president of the World Uighur Congress said unrest was spreading across the region and unconfirmed reports indicated more than 100 Uighurs had been killed in Kashgar, another major city in Xinjiang.

Continued >>

The Two-state Solution, Israeli-style

July 10, 2009

Charity, checkpoints and client rulers

By Jonathan Cook in Ramallah | Information Clearing House, July 9, 2009

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, has been much criticised in Israel, as well as abroad, for failing to present his own diplomatic initiative on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to forestall US intervention.

Mr Netanyahu may have huffed and puffed before giving voice to the phrase “two states for two peoples” at Sunday’s cabinet meeting, but the contours of just such a Palestinian state — or states — have been emerging undisturbed for some time.

In fact, Mr Netanyahu appears every bit as committed as his predecessors to creating the facts of an Israeli-imposed two-state solution, one he and others in Israel’s leadership doubtless hope will eventually be adopted by the White House as the “pragmatic” — if far from ideal — option.

Continued >>

The changing shape of struggle in China

July 10, 2009

David Whitehouse analyzes the upheaval shaking Western China.

Socialist Worker, July 9, 2009

Uighur women protesters challenge Chinese riot police during demonstrations in western Xinjiang province (Peter Parks | AFP)Uighur women protesters challenge Chinese riot police during demonstrations in western Xinjiang province (Peter Parks | AFP)

LONG-SIMMERING grievances of China’s Muslim Uighur minority boiled over on June 6 after Chinese police attacked a peaceful demonstration in Urumqi, the capital of China’s vast western province of Xinjiang.

By the end of the evening, 158 people had been killed and 800 injured, according to Chinese officials. Official sources indicated that ethnic Chinese individuals and businesses owned by members of China’s ethnic Han majority were the main victims in the riots, but days later, officials still refused to give an ethnic breakdown of the dead or say how many had been killed by police.

Following the riot, security forces put the cities of Xinjiang under lockdown and held at least 1,500 in detention amid ominous reports of retaliatory violence by mobs of Han Chinese–who now form the majority in most of the province’s cities.

Full article

Escalation Scam: Troops in Afghanistan

July 10, 2009

Norman Solomon, The Huffington Post, July 9, 2009

The president has set a limit on the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. For now.

That’s how escalation works. Ceilings become floors. Gradually.

A few times since last fall, the Obama team has floated rising numbers for how many additional U.S. soldiers will be sent to Afghanistan. Now, deployment of 21,000 more is a done deal, with a new total cap of 68,000 U.S. troops in that country.

But “escalation” isn’t mere jargon. And it doesn’t just refer to what’s happening outside the United States.

“Escalation” is a word for a methodical process of acclimating people at home to the idea of more military intervention abroad — nothing too sudden, just a step-by-step process of turning even more war into media wallpaper — nothing too abrupt or jarring, while thousands more soldiers and billions more dollars funnel into what Martin Luther King Jr. called a “demonic suction tube,” complete with massive violence, mayhem, terror and killing on a grander scale than ever.

As war policies unfold, the news accounts and dominant media discourse rarely disrupt the trajectory of events. From high places, the authorized extent of candor is a matter of timing.

Lots of recent spin from Washington has promoted the assumption that President Obama wants to stick with the current limit on deployments to Afghanistan. Soon after pushing supplemental war funds through Congress, he’s hardly eager to proclaim that 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan may not be enough after all.

But no amount of spin can change the fact that the U.S. military situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. It would be astonishing if plans for add-on deployments weren’t already far along at the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, the White House is reenacting a macabre ritual — a repetition compulsion of the warfare state — carefully timing and titrating each dose of public information to ease the process of escalation. The basic technique is far from new.

In the spring and early summer of 1965, President Lyndon Johnson decided to send 100,000 additional U.S. troops to Vietnam, more than doubling the number there. But at a July 28 news conference, he announced that he’d decided to send an additional 50,000 soldiers.

Why did President Johnson say 50,000 instead of 100,000? Because he was heeding the advice from something called a “Special National Security Estimate” — a secret document, issued days earlier about the already-approved new deployment, urging that “in order to mitigate somewhat the crisis atmosphere that would result from this major U.S. action . . . announcements about it be made piecemeal with no more high-level emphasis than necessary.”

Forty-four years later, something similar is underway with deployments of U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

Pilger: Mourn on the 4th of July

July 10, 2009

John Pilger | New Statesman, July 9, 2009

Liberals say that the United States is once again a “nation of moral ideals”, but behind the façade little has changed. With his government of warmongers, Wall Street cronies and polluters from the Bush and Clinton eras, Barack Obama is merely upholding the myths of a divine America

The monsoon had woven thick skeins of mist over the central highlands of Vietnam. I was a young war correspondent, bivouacked in the village of Tuylon with a unit of US marines whose orders were to win hearts and minds. “We are here not to kill,” said the sergeant, “we are here to impart the American Way of Liberty as stated in the Pacification Handbook. This is designed to win the hearts and minds of folks, as stated on page 86.”

Page 86 was headed WHAM. The sergeant’s unit was called a combined action company, which meant, he explained, “we attack these folks on Mondays and we win their hearts and minds on Tuesdays”. He was joking, though not quite. Standing in a jeep on the edge of a paddy, he had announced through a loudhailer: “Come on out, everybody. We got rice and candy and toothbrushes to give you.”

Silence. Not a shadow moved.

“Now listen, either you gooks come on out from wherever you are, or we’re going to come right in there and get you!”

The people of Tuylon finally came out and stood in line to receive packets of Uncle Ben’s Long Grain Rice, Hershey bars, party balloons and several thousand toothbrushes. Three portable, battery-operated, yellow flush lavatories were kept for the colonel’s arrival. And when the colonel arrived that evening, the district chief was summoned and the yellow flush lavatories were unveiled.

Full article >>

Tamil death toll ‘is 1,400 a week’ at Manik Farm camp in Sri Lanka

July 10, 2009

The Times /UK, July 10, 2009

A Tamil girl in a refugee camp in Cheddikulam in the northern district of Vavuniya

(Ishara S. Kodikara/AFP/Getty Images)

A Tamil girl at a refugee camp in the northern district of Vavuniya

Rhys Blakely in Mumbai


About 1,400 people are dying every week at the giant Manik Farm internment camp set up in Sri Lanka to detain Tamil refugees from the nation’s bloody civil war, senior international aid sources have told The Times.

The death toll will add to concerns that the Sri Lankan Government has failed to halt a humanitarian catastrophe after announcing victory over the Tamil Tiger terrorist organisation in May. It may also lend credence to allegations that the Government, which has termed the internment sites “welfare villages”, has actually constructed concentration camps to house 300,000 people.

Continued >>

Unorthodox Reflections Of A Revolutionary

July 9, 2009

By Christiana Voniati| Countercurrents.org, July 9, 2009

On my way to the “Kala Kathoumena” coffee shop, in the old city of Nicosia, I was wondering how a terrorist looks like. I had an appointment with Bill Ayers, whose radical organisation, in the 60’s, had accomplished what the terrorist mullahs failed to accomplish on 9/11: to bomb the US Capitol. During the presidential race that preceded Obama’s election, the 64 year old education theorist and Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois of Chicago had come under fierce attack from the American Right. They called him a “state enemy”, an “unrepentant terrorist” and “Obama’s political mentor”.

Continued >>

The Uighurs and China: lost and found nation

July 9, 2009

Yitzhak Shichor, Open Democracy, July 6, 2009

The broader roots of the eruption of protest in China’s far-west region of Xinjiang lie in the experience of the Uighur people under Beijing’s rule, says Yitzhak Shichor.

The reports of violence and deaths in the city of Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang province in northwest China, draw renewed attention to this comparatively neglected region of China and of central Asia. The exact details of what happened there on the night of 5-6 July 2009 are unclear and (inevitably) disputed, though the background may include the assaults on Uighur migrant workers at a toy factory in Guangdong province on 26 June (in which two are reported dead and dozens injured).

Continued >>

McNamara’s Evil Lives On

July 9, 2009
x

BlinkList this item BlinkList
del.icio.us this item del.icio.us
Digg this item Digg
Facebook this item Facebook
Fark this item Fark
Furl this item Furl
Google this item Google
LinkedIn this item LinkedIn
Mixx this item Mixx
MySpace this item MySpace
NewsVine this item NewsVine
NewsTrust this item NewsTrust
Propeller this item Propeller
Reddit this item Reddit
SphereIt this item SphereIt
StumbleUpon this item StumbleUpon
Technorati this item Technorati
TwitThis this item TwitThis
YahooMyWeb this item YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz this item YahooBuzz

Truthdig.com, Posted on July 7, 2009

McNamara and Johnson
AP photo

President Lyndon B. Johnson, right, confers with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in November 1963.

By Robert Scheer

Why not speak ill of the dead?

Robert McNamara, who died this week, was a complex man—charming even, in a blustery way, and someone I found quite thoughtful when I interviewed him. In the third act of his life he was often an advocate for enlightened positions on world poverty and the dangers of the nuclear arms race. But whatever his better nature, it was the stark evil he perpetrated as secretary of defense that must indelibly frame our memory of him.

To not speak out fully because of respect for the deceased would be to mock the memory of the millions of innocent people McNamara caused to be maimed and killed in a war that he later freely admitted never made any sense. Much has been made of the fact that he recanted his support for the war, but that came 20 years after the holocaust he visited upon Vietnam was over.

Is holocaust too emotionally charged a word? How many millions of dead innocent civilians does it take to qualify labels like holocaust, genocide or terrorism? How many of the limbless victims of his fragmentation bombs and land mines whom I saw in Vietnam during and after the war? Or are America’s leaders always to be exempted from such questions? Perhaps if McNamara had been held legally accountable for his actions, the architects of the Iraq debacle might have paused.

Instead, McNamara was honored with the Medal of Freedom by President Lyndon Johnson, to whom he had written a private memo nine months earlier offering this assessment of their Vietnam carnage: “The picture of the world’s greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 noncombatants a week, while trying to pound a tiny backward nation into submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one.”

He knew it then, and, give him this, the dimensions of that horror never left him. When I interviewed him for the Los Angeles Times in 1995, after the publication of his confessional memoir, his assessment of the madness he had unleashed was all too clear:

“Look, we dropped three to four times the tonnage on that tiny little area as were dropped by the Allies in all of the theaters in World War II over a period of five years. It was unbelievable. We killed—there were killed—3,200,000 Vietnamese, excluding the South Vietnamese military. My God! The killing, the tonnage—it was fantastic. The problem was that we were trying to do something that was militarily impossible—we were trying to break the will; I don’t think we can break the will by bombing short of genocide.”

We—no, he—couldn’t break their will because their fight was for national independence. They had defeated the French and would defeat the Americans who took over when French colonialists gave up the ghost. The war was a lie from the first. It never had anything to do with the freedom of the Vietnamese (we installed one tyrant after another in power), but instead had to do with our irrational Cold War obsession with “international communism.” Irrational, as President Richard Nixon acknowledged when he embraced détente with the Soviet communists, toasted China’s fierce communist Mao Tse-tung and then escalated the war against “communist” Vietnam and neutral Cambodia.

It was always a lie and our leaders knew it, but that did not give them pause. Both Johnson and Nixon make it quite clear on their White House tapes that the mindless killing, McNamara’s infamous body count, was about domestic politics and never security.

The lies are clearly revealed in the Pentagon Papers study that McNamara commissioned, but they were made public only through the bravery of Daniel Ellsberg. Yet when Ellsberg, a former Marine who had worked for McNamara in the Pentagon, was in the docket facing the full wrath of Nixon’s Justice Department, McNamara would lift not a finger in his defense. Worse, as Ellsberg reminded me this week, McNamara threatened that if subpoenaed to testify at the trial by Ellsberg’s defense team, “I would hurt your client badly.”

Not as badly as those he killed or severely wounded. Not as badly as the almost 59,000 American soldiers killed and the many more horribly hurt. One of them was the writer and activist Ron Kovic, who as a kid from Long Island was seduced by McNamara’s lies into volunteering for two tours in Vietnam. Eventually, struggling with his mostly paralyzed body, he spoke out against the war in the hope that others would not have to suffer as he did (and still does). Meanwhile, McNamara maintained his golden silence, even as Richard Nixon managed to kill and maim millions more. What McNamara did was evil—deeply so.

US Drone Strikes Kill at Least 60 in Pakistan

July 9, 2009

Twin Strikes Today Bring Total to Four Strikes, Nearly 100 Killed in Less than a Week

by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, July 08, 2009

US Predator drones launched a pair of missile attacks at two targets in South Waziristan today, killing at least 60 and wounding an unknown number of others. The attacks are the second and third in less than 24 hours, and the fourth in less than a week.

In the first attack, drones fired six missiles at a mountaintop training camp, killing 10. Later more drones fired missiles at several vehicles 12 miles east, killing at least 50.

Yesterday, the drones had attacked another compound, killing at least 16 and wounding around 30 others. On Friday, another strike killed 17. So far there are no reports that any high profile militants have been killed in any of the strikes.

Though the Obama Administration has dramatically ratcheted up the rate and severity of the strikes since President Obama’s inauguration, the level has risen even further in recent weeks. The latest escalation seems to be coinciding with the Pakistani military’s offensive in South Waziristan, though it is unclear what role, if any, the Pakistani government had in the selection of the most recent targets.