V.I. Kiernan: Marxist historian who opposed Imperialism

June 19, 2009

Bhupendra Yadav | Economic and Political Weekly,  June 13 – 19, 2009

Kiernan pictured at Cambridge in 1935 with the Indian communists Savitri and Somnath Chibber

Kiernan pictured at Cambridge in 1935 with the Indian communists Savitri and Somnath Chibber

Victor Gordon Kiernan (1913-2009), like many other Marxist scholars, stood resolutely with labour in its contest for hegemony with capital, sang paeans to the peasants and condemned imperialism. His unique niche among historians, however, is assured by two things. First, he pioneered a study of cultural imperialism. He was interested in knowing what imperialism meant for its victims and which attitudes shaped it in the metropolis. Second, Kiernan was among the very few who understood the language and idiom spoken in the south Asian subcontinent. He was among the earliest translators of the sublime Urdu poetry of Allama Iqbal and Faiz Ahmed Faiz.

View Full Article

Protests marking Suu Kyi birthday

June 19, 2009

BBCNews, June 19, 2009

Image of Aung San Suu Kyi on European Parliament"s building at Place du Luxembourg, 18/06

The European Union is taking part in the campaign to free Ms Suu Kyi

Activists across the world are marking the 64th birthday of Burma’s detained opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, with vigils and protests.

Celebrities including author Salman Rushdie and actors George Clooney and Julia Roberts have signed an online petition demanding that she be freed.

The European Union has also renewed its calls for her “unconditional release”.

Burma’s military rulers have held the Nobel Peace Prize winner under house arrest for most of the past 19 years.

She is currently on trial for breaking the terms of her detention.

Aung San Suu Kyi was charged after an American man swam to the house where she is being held, and stayed there overnight.

Insein jail

Observers say the charges – which carry a maximum punishment of five years in jail – are designed to keep Ms Suu Kyi imprisoned until after a general election which the junta has scheduled for next year.

While she is on trial, Ms Suu Kyi is imprisoned in Rangoon’s Insein jail – a notorious facility where many political prisoners are held.

Protesters in at least 20 cities – from Geneva to Kuala Lumpur – are marking her birthday with calls for her to be set free.

The BBC’s Jonathan Head, in Bangkok, says one of the most poignant events was the small celebration at the Rangoon headquarters of her political party, the National League for Democracy.

Her supporters there released balloons and small birds, and made offerings of food to Buddhist monks in her honour.

Burmese exile groups have launched a website called “64 for Suu” and invited celebrities, politicians and members of the public to send a 64-word birthday message to Ms Suu Kyi.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s supporters in Manila made a birthday cake and and spelled out the words “not guilty” with hundreds of red roses

In his message, British tycoon Richard Branson called her a “shining light for us all”.

Another message came from a group of female Nobel Peace Prize laureates including Guatemalan rights activist Rigoberta Menchu and US anti-landmine campaigner Jody Williams.

They said: “Your imprisonment and trial are a stark illustration of the brutality and lawlessness of the Burmese military regime.”

European Union leaders also joined the chorus of celebrities, activists and political leaders calling for Ms Suu Kyi’s release.

“Unless she is released, the credibility of the 2010 elections will be further undermined and the EU will respond with appropriate measures,” a European Council draft statement said.

Ms Suu Kyi has been under house arrest and banned from seeing all but a small group of people for 13 of the past 19 years.

Senate Passes $106 Billion War Funding Bill

June 19, 2009

Despite Predictions, Opposition Never Materialized

by Jason Ditz,  Antiwar.com, June 18, 2009

Despite predictions that the “emergency” war funding bill would face a battle in the Senate similar to the one it saw in the House of Representatives, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill with no new alterations, at a vote of 91-5.

Sen. Gregg with President Obama

Earlier in the week the House of Representative passed the bill 226-202, and that was only after weeks of haranguing Democratic Congressmen who opposed the bill to change their vote in the name of loyalty to President Obama. Even then, many expressed dissatisfaction with the bill.

Not so in the Senate, where there was considerable complaining that the bill contained a lot of superfluous funding for things that had nothing to do with the war but the only serious challenge came when Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) tried to strip a $1 billion provision. When that failed, what remained of the opposition seemed to dry up entirely. The five no votes included 3 Republicans, Sens. DeMint, Enzi and Coburn, Independent Sen. Sanders, and Democratic Sen. Feingold.

That $1 billion was set aside for a “cash for clunkers” program to subsidize the purchase of new cars. The measure was unsurprisingly praised by the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. Other complaints, including the massive loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had been expected to be a major issue, as it was in the House of Representatives, but at the end of the day it doesn’t appear to have cost the bill any votes.

Obama whitewashes foreign policy

June 19, 2009

By Teo Ballve | The Advoacte,  June 19, 2009

President Obama is trying to whitewash the history of U.S. foreign policy.

In two major speeches in the last month, he has spun a fairy tale.

At the National Archives on May 21, Obama claimed, “From Europe to the Pacific, we’ve been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law.” And in Cairo, Egypt, just two weeks later, Obama said, “America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. … America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.”

These assertions ring entirely hollow in Latin America, where the reverse is true: Washington propped up tyrannical leaders and bankrolled murderous armies. Under the iron fist of these U.S.-backed regimes, the region’s torture chambers rang with the cries of innocent victims.

As Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza ruthlessly ruled his country like a colonial coffee plantation, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt reportedly said of his ally: “Somoza may be a son of a b—-, but he’s our son of a b—-.”

Intervention sometimes came at the behest of influential U.S. companies, as in Guatemala. In 1950, President Jacobo Arbenz won a landslide election and moved ahead with a land reform program aimed at breaking up large landholdings.

The reforms sat uneasily with executives from the United Fruit Co. (today, Chiquita), which owned vast, feudal-like fruit plantations throughout the country. The company collaborated with the CIA and the State Department to orchestrate Arbenz’s overthrow in 1954. What followed were a succession of military governments and a crescendo of violent conflict that ultimately claimed more than 200,000 Guatemalan lives.

After the socialist Salvador Allende won the presidency of Chile in 1970, national security adviser Henry Kissinger declared, “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.”

Three years later, Chile’s Gen. Augusto Pinochet overthrew Allende with the support of the U.S. government. Pinochet then helped band together his fellow South American dictators. They formed a coordinated campaign of state terrorism, called “Operation Condor,” against leftist sympathizers. The U.S. ambassador to Paraguay at the time suggested the campaign was receiving key intelligence support from the Pentagon.

A common tactic practiced by the military in these dirty wars was to throw drugged, yet alive and conscious, prisoners out of aircraft over the ocean. Not even pregnant women were spared from electric shocks to genitalia and waterboarding.

As Congress became concerned over the intensifying repression carried out by U.S. allies, Kissinger assured his nervous Argentine counterparts: “Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported.” Those “friends” killed 30,000 innocent people in Argentina alone.

In Central America, where civil wars broke out, the destruction was even greater. The CIA and the Pentagon worked with death squads in the name of U.S. national security. In El Salvador, where Washington spent $6 billion trying to defeat rebels, 75,000 lost their lives.

Today, Washington still disregards human rights abuses in its military alliances. Colombia’s army is drenched in scandal over its execution of 1,600 innocent civilians, who were later claimed as rebels killed in combat. The United Nations has called political murder at the hands of the army “widespread and systematic.” Nevertheless, Obama’s first foreign appropriations budget has slated $270 million in military aid to Colombia.

At the National Archives, Obama made a veiled criticism of the Bush administration’s policies.

“We went off course,” Obama said.

As U.S. involvement in Latin America shows, the truth is that the ship went off course a long time ago. Acknowledging this would be the first step toward steering it straight again.

Teo Ballve is a writer for Progressive Media Project, affiliated with The Progressive magazine.

Tony Blair told: ‘Come clean on torture’

June 19, 2009

Morning Star Online, Thursday 18 June 2009

by Louise Nousratpour

Politicians and legal experts queued up today to warn ex-prime minister Tony Blair that his knowledge and tolerance of torture during the Iraq war made him unfit to continue as Middle East peace envoy.

The Guardian newspaper alleged that Mr Blair was aware of instructions given to agents regarding torture in the aftermath of the September 11 2001 World Trade Centre attacks.

The policy offered guidance to MI5 and MI6 officers who were questioning prisoners around the world in the event that they complained of being tortured by the US military.

Officers were apparently given instructions that they must not “be seen to condone” torture or “engage in any activity yourself that involves inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners.”

But the guidance made it clear that they were under no obligation to stop prisoners from being tortured.

“Given that they are not within our custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this,” the policy stated.

Law professor and QC Philippe Sands said that the guidelines breached the UN convention against torture.

Referring to ministers’ reluctance to disclose information about alleged torture of former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed, legal charity Reprieve director Clive Stafford Smith said: “We now know why the Foreign Secretary was so insistent on keeping this torture policy from the British people.

“It has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the immoral decisions made at the highest level of government.”

He added: “When Binyam Mohamed was questioned by a British agent, he thought his torture would surely end. Instead, the agent was apparently under instructions from Number 10 to abandon Binyam to his fate.”

Liberal Democrat shadow foreign secretary Edward Davey said: “Surely Tony Blair cannot remain Middle East Envoy when he is accused of breaking the UN convention against torture.”

Secret CIA File Tests Obama’s Pledge

June 18, 2009

By Jason Leopold | Consortiumnews.com, June 18, 2009

President Barack Obama’s promise of a more open government faces a new test this week as his administration weighs whether to release details of a May 2004 internal CIA report about the agency’s use of torture, including how at least three detainees were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The secret findings of CIA Inspector General John Helgerson led to eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department for homicide and other misconduct, but those cases languished as Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly intervened to constrain Helgerson’s inquiries.

Heavily redacted portions of Helgerson’s report were released to the American Civil Liberties Union in May 2008 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, but the ACLU appealed the Bush administration’s extensive deletions and the Obama administration agreed to respond to that appeal by Friday.

Continued >>

Shame: The ‘Anti-War’ Democrats Who Sold Out

June 18, 2009

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted June 17, 2009.

In a historic vote, only 30 of 256 Democrats stood against $100 billion for more war.

In a vote that should go down in recent histories as a day of shame for the Democrats, on Tuesday the House voted to approve another $106 billion dollars for the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and increasingly Pakistan). To put a fine point on the interconnection of the iron fist of U.S. militarism and the hidden hand of free market neoliberal economics, the bill included a massive initiative to give the International Monetary Fund billions more in U.S. taxpayer funds.

What once Democrats could argue was “Bush’s war,” they now officially own. In fact, only five Republicans voted for the supplemental (though overwhelmingly not on the issue of the war funding). Ron Paul, who made clear he was voting against the war, was a notable exception.

Continued >>

US Drone Attack Kills 13 in South Waziristan

June 18, 2009
Secondary Strike Killed Most of the Victims
by Jason Ditz,  Antiwar.com, June 18, 2009

US drones launched an apparent attack on a compound near South Waziristan’s capital of Wana today, killing at least 13 people and wounding an unknown number of others. Four missiles were said to be fired at a compound belonging to a suspected commander in the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

The initial strike on the compound only killed one person, according to residents. The bulk of the toll came when locals rushed to the scene to help rescue the wounded trapped under the rubble, and the drone fired more missiles on them. It is unclear how many of the slain were civilians, but given the nature of the secondary strike it seems likely to be significant.

It is the second US drone strike this week, and comes at a time when the Pakistani military is just beginning what is being touted as a massive military offensive against the Mehsud tribe in South Waziristan and the TTP in general.

After a month of military buildup and seeing the destruction wrought in the Swat Valley by a similar venture, the bulk of South Waziristan has been emptied out as tribesmen in rural areas flock to the comparative safety of camps in the nearby North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The remaining residents are generally centered around the region’s few towns which likely explains why the compound, so near to Wana, still had occupants.

British Red Cross: Urgent appeal for civilians suffering in Pakistan crisis

June 18, 2009
British Red Cross

17 June 2009

As the monsoon season threatens to make conditions worse, the British Red Cross has launched an urgent appeal to help civilians affected by the fighting in Pakistan. Group of men carrying their belongings through a camp

As the conflict in the Swat Valley and Lower Dir region continues, thousands more people have joined the 2.5 million who have already fled their homes with the bare minimum of belongings. Some camps are now at full capacity, forcing new arrivals to pitch tents or makeshift shelters along roadsides and on any available land. Meanwhile, the civilians still caught in the fighting are virtually cut off from basic healthcare, food and water.The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Pakistan Red Crescent are providing help, including emergency shelter, medical aid, food and other provisions to both those displaced and those trapped by the fighting. The ICRC is currently the only aid agency able to operate in the Swat Valley and Dir regions.

Urgent funding needed

Despite generous support received so far, the Red Cross still needs an extra £37 million, as there is no sign of an end to the fighting and conditions for civilians are deteriorating.

Ros Armitage, British Red Cross conflict operations manager, said: “The monsoon season begins in July, and here we have a situation where thousands upon thousands of people are living with host families or in tents, or shelters made from whatever materials they can lay their hands on.

”The money raised through the new appeal will help the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement provide food, basic household items and critical medical services, not only to those in camps but those with host families and also to the civilian population trapped in the conflict areas, where no other agencies are reaching.”

Red Cross/Red Crescent response

This is the largest and fastest growing displacement in 15 years. Up to 120,000 people are living in camps but the vast majority are dispersed throughout North West Frontier Province and other parts of the country, staying with relatives or in rented accommodation, creating an economic burden on host communities.

The Pakistan Red Crescent, with support from the ICRC, is running nine camps for displaced people, including the Shah Mansoor camp in Swabi which hosts 20,000 people. In Peshawar, the ICRC surgical hospital is providing critical assistance to victims of the conflict.

The Movement has stepped up its support considerably and plans to help at least 380,000 displaced people in the coming weeks and months in the area affected by conflict and those who have fled from the conflict.

Find out more about the Pakistan crisis

Pakistan Crisis Appeal I would like to make a donation to the Pakistan Crisis Appeal

  • £20
  • £50
  • £100

Pakistan Crisis Appeal

  • £20
  • £50
  • £100

Join news think! - our news digest for teachers

related pages

Related pages

Pakistan Crisis Appeal

Funds needed as operations in Pakistan expand

Thousands of civilians endure extreme suffering in Pakistan conflict

Red Cross finds civilians in dire situation in Pakistan

Current emergencies

Recovering from emergencies

Preparing for disasters

Health and social care

Protecting people in conflict

Finding missing family

Where we work overseas

related sites

Related sites

ICRC – PakistanOpens in a new window

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies – PakistanOpens in a new window

The British Red Cross is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Register here for your free monthly newsletter. Delivered every month by email, you will receive Red Cross news updates from across the world and around the corner. To receive notification of disasters as they happen, make sure you sign-up for emergency alerts.

These Are Obama’s Wars Now

June 18, 2009
by Joshua Frank, Antiwar.com, June 18, 2009

On Monday the Democrat controlled House voted 226-202 to approve a rushed $106 billion dollar war spending bill, guaranteeing more carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan (and lately Pakistan) until September 30, 2009, which marks the end of the budget year. The Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill’s first draft last month, with the final vote on a compromised version to occur in the Senate sometime in the next couple of weeks.

The majority of opposition in the House came from Republicans who opposed an add-on to the bill that would open up a $5 billion International Monetary Fund line of credit for developing countries. This opposition in the House led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday to quip, “It’ll be interesting to see what happens here. Are my Republican colleagues [in the Senate] going to join with us to fund the troops? I hope so.”

No longer can the blame for the turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan rest at the feet of George W. Bush alone. This is now Obama’s War on Terror, fully funded and operated by the Democratic Party.

The bill that passed the House on Monday, once approved by the Senate, will not be part of the regular defense budget as it’s off the books entirely. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress has passed similar emergency spending bills to finance US military ventures in the Middle East. The combined “supplementals” are fast approaching $1 trillion, with 30% going to fund the war in Afghanistan.

In addition to the latest increase in war funds, Obama is also asking for an additional $130 billion to be added on to the defense budget for the new fiscal year starting on October 1. The president is upholding his campaign promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan, which also means increasing the use of remote controlled drone planes in neighboring Pakistan that are to blame for hundreds of civilian deaths since Obama took office last January.

Despite Obama’s historic (albeit rhetoric filled) speech in Cairo, the new Commander in Chief is still not about to radically change, let alone reform, the US’s long-standing role in the Middle East. A master of his craft, Obama is simply candy coating the delivery of US imperialism in the region.  Given the lack of opposition to Obama’s policies back home, it is becoming clear that he may well be more dangerous than his predecessor when it comes to the US’s motivations internationally.

Had Bush pushed for more military funds at this stage, the antiwar movement (if you can call it that) would have been organizing opposition weeks in advance, calling out the neocons for wasting our scarce tax dollars during a recession on a never-ending, directionless war. But since Obama’s a Democrat, a beloved one at that, mums the word.

Certainly a few progressive Democrats are dismayed by what the Obama administration is up to, but how many of these Democrats that are upset now will be willing to break rank and oppose their party when it matters most, like during the midterm elections coming up next year? Obama had the majority of antiwar support shored up while he ran for the presidency, with absolutely no demands put on his candidacy. And not surprisingly, antiwar progressives have little to show for their fawning support.

All this begs a few questions: If not now, when exactly will Obama’s policies be scrutinized with the same veracity that Bush’s were? When will the media end its love affair with Obama and hold his feet to the fire like they did Bush once the wheels fell off the war in Iraq? When will progressives see their issues as paramount and oppose Obama and the Democratic Party until they embrace their concerns?

If these questions are not answered soon, we are in many more years of war and bloodshed, funded by US taxpayers and approved by a Democrat controlled White House and Congress.