Afghanistan: A rise in civilian deaths and foreign troop fatalities

December 7, 2008
By Harvey Thompson | World Socialist Web Site, Dec 6, 2008

During the month of November, a further seven British soldiers—including two Ghurkhas—were killed in fighting resulting from the US-led military occupation of Afghanistan.

On November 27, Tony Evans aged 20 and Georgie Sparks aged 19, both of J Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines, were on foot patrol north-west of Lashkar Gah, in Helmand province, when they came under attack from insurgent fighters armed with rocket-propelled grenades. Both marines died later from their injuries.

Their deaths brought the number of UK fatalities in Afghanistan to 128 since the British military joined the US-led invasion of the country in November 2001. Of these, 43 have been killed during 2008.

Over 1,000 service personnel in the occupation forces have now been killed in Afghanistan (the majority of these being US soldiers), according to the icasualties.org website. Significantly, more foreign troops have died in Afghanistan since May than in Iraq.

November also saw a continued rise in the numbers of Afghan civilians killed and injured as a result of US airstrikes. This year has seen the biggest rise in civilian casualties since the occupation began. Conservative estimates put the numbers of Afghans killed in violence related to the occupation in 2008 at around 4,000. At least one-third of these were civilians.

The deaths of civilians and the high-profile presence of occupying troops are bringing social and political resentments to a boiling point.

On November 28, protesters in the Afghan capital of Kabul pelted police with stones after British troops shot dead a local civilian and injured three others. An eyewitness told Reuters that British soldiers opened fire on a minibus. Kabul’s police chief, Mohammad Ayoub Salangi, stated blithely that “A convoy of British Isaf troops were passing here and they had a misunderstanding with a civilian vehicle.”

The body was wrapped in white cloth and put into the back of a taxi and driven away from the scene as the crowd chanted, “Death to Bush, death to America.”

People then threw stones at local police before being dispersed.

In a separate protest the day before, a crowd of Afghans gathered outside the United Nations headquarters in Kabul to demonstrate against civilian deaths in air strikes.

Such is the anger over the mounting civilian causalities from the air-strikes that Afghan President Hamid Karzai felt compelled to denounce the actions of the occupation forces. On November 26, he told a news conference that he would bring down US planes bombing villages if it were in his power.

“We have no other choice, we have no power to stop the planes, if we could, if I could … we would stop them and bring them down,” he said. “We have no radar to stop them in the sky, we have no planes… I wish I could intercept the planes that are going to bomb Afghan villages, but that’s not in my hands.”

Continued >>

Afghanistan: Another Untold Story

December 7, 2008

By Michael Parenti | Information Clearing House, Dec 5, 2008

Barack Obama is on record as advocating a military escalation in Afghanistan. Before sinking any deeper into that quagmire, we might do well to learn something about recent Afghan history and the role played by the United States.

Less than a month after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US leaders began an all-out aerial assault upon Afghanistan, the country purportedly harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. More than twenty years earlier, in 1980, the United States intervened to stop a Soviet “invasion” of that country. Even some leading progressive writers, who normally take a more critical view of US policy abroad, treated the US intervention against the Soviet-supported government as “a good thing.” The actual story is not such a good thing.

Some Real History

Since feudal times the landholding system in Afghanistan had remained unchanged, with more than 75 percent of the land owned by big landlords who comprised only 3 percent of the rural population. In the mid-1960s, democratic revolutionary elements coalesced to form the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). In 1973, the king was deposed, but the government that replaced him proved to be autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular. It in turn was forced out in 1978 after a massive demonstration in front of the presidential palace, and after the army intervened on the side of the demonstrators.

The military officers who took charge invited the PDP to form a new government under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a poet and novelist. This is how a Marxist-led coalition of national democratic forces came into office. “It was a totally indigenous happening. Not even the CIA blamed the USSR for it,” writes John Ryan, a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, who was conducting an agricultural research project in Afghanistan at about that time.
The Taraki government proceeded to legalize labor unions, and set up a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, a literacy campaign, and programs that gave ordinary people greater access to health care, housing, and public sanitation. Fledgling peasant cooperatives were started and price reductions on some key foods were imposed.

The government also continued a campaign begun by the king to emancipate women from their age-old tribal bondage. It provided public education for girls and for the children of various tribes.

A report in the San Francisco Chronicle (17 November 2001) noted that under the Taraki regime Kabul had been “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs—-in the 1980s, there were seven female members of parliament. Women drove cars, traveled and went on dates. Fifty percent of university students were women.”

The Taraki government moved to eradicate the cultivation of opium poppy. Until then Afghanistan had been producing more than 70 percent of the opium needed for the world’s heroin supply. The government also abolished all debts owed by farmers, and began developing a major land reform program. Ryan believes that it was a “genuinely popular government and people looked forward to the future with great hope.”

But serious opposition arose from several quarters. The feudal landlords opposed the land reform program that infringed on their holdings. And tribesmen and fundamentalist mullahs vehemently opposed the government’s dedication to gender equality and the education of women and children.

Because of its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies the Taraki government also incurred the opposition of the US national security state. Almost immediately after the PDP coalition came to power, the CIA, assisted by Saudi and Pakistani military, launched a large scale intervention into Afghanistan on the side of the ousted feudal lords, reactionary tribal chieftains, mullahs, and opium traffickers.

A top official within the Taraki government was Hafizulla Amin, believed by many to have been recruited by the CIA during the several years he spent in the United States as a student. In September 1979, Amin seized state power in an armed coup. He executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.

It should be noted that all this happened before the Soviet military intervention. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publicly admitted–months before Soviet troops entered the country–that the Carter administration was providing huge sums to Muslim extremists to subvert the reformist government. Part of that effort involved brutal attacks by the CIA-backed mujahideen against schools and teachers in rural areas.

In late 1979, the seriously besieged PDP government asked Moscow to send a contingent of troops to help ward off the mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla fighters) and foreign mercenaries, all recruited, financed, and well-armed by the CIA. The Soviets already had been sending aid for projects in mining, education, agriculture, and public health. Deploying troops represented a commitment of a more serious and politically dangerous sort. It took repeated requests from Kabul before Moscow agreed to intervene militarily.

Jihad and Taliban, CIA Style

The Soviet intervention was a golden opportunity for the CIA to transform the tribal resistance into a holy war, an Islamic jihad to expel the godless communists from Afghanistan. Over the years the United States and Saudi Arabia expended about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan. The CIA and its allies recruited, supplied, and trained almost 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself. Among those who answered the call was Saudi-born millionaire right-winger Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.

After a long and unsuccessful war, the Soviets evacuated the country in February 1989. It is generally thought that the PDP Marxist government collapsed immediately after the Soviet departure. Actually, it retained enough popular support to fight on for another three years, outlasting the Soviet Union itself by a year.

Upon taking over Afghanistan, the mujahideen fell to fighting among themselves. They ravaged the cities, terrorized civilian populations, looted, staged mass executions, closed schools, raped thousands of women and girls, and reduced half of Kabul to rubble. In 2001 Amnesty International reported that the mujahideen used sexual assault as “a method of intimidating vanquished populations and rewarding soldiers.’”

Ruling the country gangster-style and looking for lucrative sources of income, the tribes ordered farmers to plant opium poppy. The Pakistani ISI, a close junior partner to the CIA, set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA’s arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland became the biggest producer of heroin in the world.

Largely created and funded by the CIA, the mujahideen mercenaries now took on a life of their own. Hundreds of them returned home to Algeria, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kashmir to carry on terrorist attacks in Allah’s name against the purveyors of secular “corruption.”

In Afghanistan itself, by 1995 an extremist strain of Sunni Islam called the Taliban—heavily funded and advised by the ISI and the CIA and with the support of Islamic political parties in Pakistan—fought its way to power, taking over most of the country, luring many tribal chiefs into its fold with threats and bribes.

The Taliban promised to end the factional fighting and banditry that was the mujahideen trademark. Suspected murderers and spies were executed monthly in the sports stadium, and those accused of thievery had the offending hand sliced off. The Taliban condemned forms of “immorality” that included premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality. They also outlawed all music, theater, libraries, literature, secular education, and much scientific research.

The Taliban unleashed a religious reign of terror, imposing an even stricter interpretation of Muslim law than used by most of the Kabul clergy. All men were required to wear untrimmed beards and women had to wear the burqa which covered them from head to toe, including their faces. Persons who were slow to comply were dealt swift and severe punishment by the Ministry of Virtue. A woman who fled an abusive home or charged spousal abuse would herself be severely whipped by the theocratic authorities. Women were outlawed from social life, deprived of most forms of medical care, barred from all levels of education, and any opportunity to work outside the home. Women who were deemed “immoral” were stoned to death or buried alive.

None of this was of much concern to leaders in Washington who got along famously with the Taliban. As recently as 1999, the US government was paying the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official. Not until October 2001, when President George W. Bush had to rally public opinion behind his bombing campaign in Afghanistan did he denounce the Taliban’s oppression of women. His wife, Laura Bush, emerged overnight as a full-blown feminist to deliver a public address detailing some of the abuses committed against Afghan women.

If anything positive can be said about the Taliban, it is that they did put a stop to much of the looting, raping, and random killings that the mujahideen had practiced on a regular basis. In 2000 Taliban authorities also eradicated the cultivation of opium poppy throughout the areas under their control, an effort judged by the United Nations International Drug Control Program to have been nearly totally successful. With the Taliban overthrown and a Western-selected mujahideen government reinstalled in Kabul by December 2001, opium poppy production in Afghanistan increased dramatically.

The years of war that have followed have taken tens of thousands of Afghani lives. Along with those killed by Cruise missiles, Stealth bombers, Tomahawks, daisy cutters, and land mines are those who continue to die of hunger, cold, lack of shelter, and lack of water.

Continued >>

Drawing the Future From the Past

December 7, 2008

By Channapha Khamvongsa | Foreign Policy in Focus, Dec 5, 2008

The bombing was relentless. From 1964 to 1973, the United States dropped more than 2 million tons of ordnance on Laos. That’s a planeload of bombs every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years. Laos has the unfortunate distinction of being the most heavily bombed country in the history of the world.

“In the area of Xieng Khoang, the place of my birth, there was health, good earth, and fine weather,” one survivor, a 33-year-old man, recalls of that period. “But then the airplanes came, bombing the rice fields and the forests, making us leave our land and rice fields with great sadness. One day a plane came bombing my rice field as well as the village. I had gone very early to harrow the field. I thought, ‘I am only a village rice farmer, the airplane will not shoot me.’ But that day truly it did shoot me and wounded me together with my buffalo, which was the source of a hundred thousand loves and a hundred thousand worries for me.”

For nearly three decades, the U.S. secret war in Laos and the impact of the most massive bombing campaign in the world was nearly forgotten. For those who remembered, the events seemed surreal. They witnessed the reckless destruction of a people and their land, and careful efforts by the U.S. government to conceal it. For those too young to know, gathering information and knowledge of this history was scattered and fragmented. It seemed the secret war in Laos and its aftermath would remain a secret.

But then a remarkable set of drawings and eyewitness accounts came to light. Laotian villagers put their memories on paper in the 1970s to depict the secret bombing of their country. This trove of reminiscences became the inspiration for Legacies of War. Founded by Laotian Americans in 2004, the project raises awareness about the history of the Vietnam War-era bombing in Laos. Using a unique combination of art, culture, education, community organizing, advocacy, and dialogue, Legacies of War also works for the removal of unexploded bombs in Laos, to provide space for healing the wounds of war, and to create greater hope for a future of peace.
A Secret War, a People Scattered

When the United States withdrew from Indochina, the “Secret War” in Laos was lost to history. But the legacy of the war lives on. Up to 30% of the cluster bombs dropped by the United States in Laos failed to detonate, leaving extensive contamination from unexploded ordnance (UXO) in the countryside. That translates into 78 to 130 million unexploded bomblets. Over one-third of the land in Laos is contaminated. These “bombies,” as the Lao now call them, have killed or maimed more than 34,000 people since the war’s end, and continue to claim more innocent victims every day. About 40% of accidents result in death, and 60% of the victims are children. UXO remains a major barrier to the safety, health, livelihoods, and food security of the people of Laos.

The war also displaced up to one-third of the Lao population. Nearly 750,000 would eventually become refugees in France, Australia, and Canada, among other countries. Over 350,000 refugees from Laos came to the United States after having experienced war, destruction, death, imprisonment, family separation, loss of homeland, loss of identity, and loss of control over their destinies. Many had undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. But these weren’t things Laotian refugees had the luxury to contemplate, for basic economic survival trumped all other needs.
Drawing on the Past

Between December 1970 and May 1971, Fred Branfman, an American, and Boungeun, a Lao man, collected illustrations and narratives in the Vientiane refugee camps, where bombing victims fled. The drawings and narratives represent the voiceless, faceless, and nameless who endured an air war campaign committed in secrecy. Drawn in pencil, pens, crayons, and markers, they are raw and stark, reflecting the crude events that shaped their reality. The simplicity of the narration and drawings emphasize the illustrators’ identities as ordinary villagers who bore witness to a devastating event.

For instance, an 18-year-old woman remembers, “In the year 1967, my village built small shelters in the forest and we had holes in the bamboo thicket on top of the hill. It was a place to which we could flee. But there were two brothers who went out to cut wood in the forest. The airplanes shot them and both brothers died. Their mother and father had just these two sons and were both in the same hole with me. I think with much pity about this old father and mother who were like crazy people because their children had died.”

Each of the illustrations demonstrates the violence of warfare. However, the images of blood and death are contradicted by the memories of the scenic and peaceful village life these survivors once lived. Scenes show farmers tending to their rice fields, monks praying at the temple, women going to the market, and children playing in the schoolyard. The drawings capture the very moments when their lives and society were forever altered. The illustrations and narratives are at the heart of the Legacies of War National Traveling Exhibition, which is accompanied by historical photos, maps and other relevant documents to give context to the decade-long bombings.

Only a small circle of individuals knew of the existence of these illustrations. The pictures hadn’t been seen in decades, not since the end of the war. A fortuitous meeting between me and Institute for Policy Studies director John Cavanagh led to the return of the illustrations to the Lao American community. In the last several years, thousands of visitors have seen the illustrations through the Legacies of War traveling exhibit and other community forums. Although most Laotian Americans didn’t experience the same horrors depicted in the drawings, the illustrations invoke memory of their own stories of refuge, survival, and resilience.

The reaction to the drawings was instructive to Legacies’ work. Initially considered an artifact, the illustrations have become a living document. One at a time, each drawing tells the story of a survivor. Although the illustrations were from four decades ago, they inspire others to share their stories, contributing to a collective narrative that began long ago in Laos, but continues today through the voices of Laotian Americans.

Following a viewing of the illustrations at an exhibit in Lowell, Massachusetts, a Lao woman in the audience stood up to speak at a community forum, “The illustrations made me remember. I have not shared, not even with my family because I didn’t think it was important. When I was a young woman in Laos, I worked as a nurse to help people hurt by the bombing. Every day, the airplanes would come: Boom! Boom! Boom! And then one day, it came so close to us, we had to hide in the cave and we hear right outside the cave, the sound so loud. It scared me so much. I feel so lucky I did not die. The pictures made me remember. I am so sad that today, people in Lao are still being hurt and dying from these bombs.” The woman, whose husband had spoken on several occasions about his experience, had never shared hers. The illustrations and community forum gave her a chance to tell her story for the first time in 30 years. Today, she remains engaged in educating people in the Boston-area about the bombing and its aftermath.

These new voices and stories are captured in various ways through Legacies of War: interactive exhibition pieces, community programs, oral history interviews, theater performance pieces, and new commissioned works of art. Based on oral histories collected from Laotian refugees and their descendents, the Refugee Nation theater piece reveals connections between U.S. and Southeast Asian history, and the unique challenges faced by political refugees and their American children. Touching on themes of identity, globalization, and activism, it brings a Laotian voice to a growing part of the Asian-American Diaspora that is yet to be included in the American experience. <

The integration of storytelling, art, and performance are critical in breaking the silence. By creating multiple access points of engagement, Legacies of War facilitates the connection of personal stories to a collective experience in recognition that we are not alone in our experiences, that we are connected to a larger narrative and a larger context. The acknowledgement of a shared journey and struggle could lead to collective strength and power.

Since the end to the U.S. wars in Southeast Asia, many other wars have been waged, in other parts of the world, in new terrain, villages, and communities. Yet, the wars in Southeast Asia lingers. And for the people living in Laos as well as those who became refugees, the lingering impact of war remains ever present in their daily lives. Although war and conflict created the refugee community, they don’t have to define it. Through the transformative power of stories, art, and performance, Laotian Americans are evolving from victim to agency of change. “Now that I know about the secret war,” said a Lao American student in Seattle, “I have to do something about the horrible things that are still happening to people. As Americans, we must do something.”

Another victim, a 37-year old woman, reflects, “Our lives became like those of animals desperately trying to escape their hunters . . . Human beings, whose parents brought them into the world and carefully raised them with overflowing love despite so many difficulties, these human beings would die from a single blast as explosions burst, lying still without moving again at all. And who then thinks of the blood, flesh, sweat and strength of their parents, and who will have charity and pity for them?…In reality, whatever happens, it is only the innocent who suffer. And as for other men, do they know all the unimaginable things happening in this war?”
Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies

Channapha Khamvongsa, the executive director of Legacies of War, is a Foreign Policy In Focus contributor.

Ban these pernicious weapons

December 7, 2008

Obama must reverse US policy and sign the convention against cluster munitions

There were some noticeable absentees as 100 countries gathered in Oslo this week to sign a treaty banning cluster munitions. While 18 of the 26 Nato countries were on board, the world’s superpowers – the US, Russia and China – were all no-shows.

Why does the US, with its long tradition of human rights and international moral leadership, refuse to join this cause? Cluster munitions, after all, are inherently indiscriminate weapons, scattering “bomblets” over wide areas and leaving behind deadly “duds” that act as de facto landmines killing civilians long after war ends.

The US stayed away from Oslo partly because the Pentagon is rather attached to its cluster bombs. During the Vietnam war, the US military dumped thousands of them on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The US also used cluster bombs in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, dismissing the many civilian casualties as collateral damage.

In the 1970s, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Sweden and several other small countries called for tighter regulation of cluster munitions, horrified by their impact on civilians in southeast Asia. But US “military experts” scoffed at such suggestions and cast aspersions on data, gathered by Sweden, revealing cluster bombs’ human impact.

Indeed, the Pentagon has long been loath to give up weapons, even seemingly contemptible ones, if they give US troops the slightest battlefield advantage. Despite considerable international consensus that the military value of landmines is outweighed by their devastating humanitarian effects, the Pentagon continues to assert its prerogative to stockpile and deploy mines.

The Bush administration has reinforced this tendency, given its particular aversion to international constraints on the US military, whether on the treatment of POWs or deployment of anti-ballistic missiles. They often felt multilateral treaties posed a threat to US sovereignty.

For anti-cluster bomb campaigners, the question now is whether the incoming US administration will act differently. Barak Obama won the election claiming he would bring change to Washington. But will he change US cluster munitions policy?

Though Obama is currently non-commital on the cluster munitions ban – a spokesperson said he would “carefully review the new treaty” – he believes in multilateralism and, as a senator, voted for restrictions on US cluster munitions use.

“In general, I strongly support international initiatives to limit harm to civilians caused by conventional weapons,” Obama said in September. “As president, I will help lead the way on these issues.”

However, with his anti-Iraq war stance, he may be nervous to seem soft on national security, an epithet often leveled at the Democrats. Obama’s party has unpleasant memories of Clinton’s clashes with the Pentagon over homosexuals in the military and may want to avoid an early battle with the defence establishment.

To overcome resistance to the cluster bomb ban, Obama should argue that signing the treaty would represent a small step toward reinstating US global credibility and good will, following eight years of disregard for humanitarian constraints on war, multilateral institutions and international opinion.

Joining the Cluster Munitions Convention would demonstrate that the US is willing to reassert its international moral leadership and use its immense power with benevolence, magnanimity and restraint. Such symbolic action may be far more potent than any weapon of war.

Fidel Castro: The great crisis of the 1930s

December 6, 2008

Reflections of Fidel | Granma, Dec 1, 2008

IT is a difficult subject to explain, although it seems very simple. The U.S. Federal Reserve system was created in 1913 as the result of capitalism in full development. Salvador Allende, a man we all remember as from our era, had turned about 15 years old.

World War I broke out in 1914, when the heir prince to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in the heart of central and southern Europe, was assassinated in Sarajevo. Canada was still a British colony. The GB pound sterling had the privilege of being the currency used internationally. The basic metal used to make it was gold, as it had been for more than 1,000 years in the capital of the Roman empire of the east, Constantinople. Those who began the bloody battles against Muslims in the Near East, brandishing religious pretexts, were feudal knights of the Christian kingdoms of Europe, whose real purpose was to control trade routes and other mundane, more vulgar goals that could be addressed on another occasion.

The United States began to participate in World War I toward the end, in 1917, two years after the sinking of the Lusitania, which was carrying U.S. passengers who had departed from New York. It was sunk by torpedoes fired from a German submarine with absurd instructions to attack a ship flying the flag of a distant, rich and potentially powerful country that, under the cover of supposed neutrality, intended to find a pretext to participate in the war on the side of Britain, France and their allies. The attack took place on May 7, 1915, as [the ship] was crossing the strait between Ireland and England. In the 20 minutes it took to founder, very few passengers were able to abandon ship; the 1,198 people who were still aboard perished.

The growth of the U.S. economy after that war was maintained continuously, except for cyclical crises that were resolved by the Federal Reserve system (FED), without more serious consequences.

On October 24, 1929, remembered in U.S. history as “Black Thursday,” the economic crisis broke out. The Reserve Bank of New York, which is based on Wall Street, just like other banks and corporations — according to the right-wing theorist and renowned U.S. economist Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics (1976), reacted “instinctively,” adopting the measures that he considered to be most correct: “of putting money into circulation.” The Reserve Bank in Washington, accustomed to the preeminence of its opinions, was able to finally impose the opposite idea. The secretary of the Treasury under President Hoover supported the Reserve Bank of Washington, and the one in New York ended up giving way. “But the worst was yet to come,” stated Friedman, who explains more clearly than any other eminent economist — some of them from the opposite tendency — the sequence of events, when he wrote, “Until the fall of 1930, the recession in economic activity, despite being serious, was not affected by financial difficulties or the petitions of depositors who were trying to withdraw their deposits. The character of the recession changed drastically when a series of bankruptcies in the Midwestern and southern United States weakened people’s confidence in banks and resulted in numerous attempts to convert bank deposits into cash.

“On December 11, 1930, the Bank of the United States closed. It was the critical date. It was the largest commercial bank ever to collapse in U.S. history.”

In the month of December 1930 alone, 352 banks closed their doors. “The FED could have reached a better solution by making a large-scale buyout on the market of public debt securities.

“In September 1931, the date on which Britain abandoned the gold standard, it followed a policy that was even more negative.

“The system reacted after two years of hard repression, increasing that type of interest to a level never reached in its history.”

We should take into account that Friedman is reflecting an opinion that still predominates in official U.S. circles almost 80 years later.

“In 1932, the FED, under pressure from Congress, ended its period of sessions and immediately canceled its buying program.

“The final episode was the bank panic of 1933.

“Fear intensified during the interregnum between Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected on November 8, 1932, but whose inauguration did not take place until March 4, 1933. The first did not wish to take any drastic measures without the cooperation of the new president, while Roosevelt, for his part, did not want to assume any responsibilities until he was sworn in.”

The episode reminds us of what is happening today with the president elected in the recent November 4 elections, less than a month ago, Barack Obama, who will succeed Bush on January 20, 2009. Only the period of interregnum has changed; in the 1930s, it was no more than 117 days, and currently it is no more than 77.

Right during the peak of the economic boom, according to Friedman, there were as many as 25,000 banks in the United States. At the start of 1933, the number had gone down to 18,000.

“When President Roosevelt decided to end the bank closure, 10 days after it had begun” — Friedman said — “something less than 12,000 banks were authorized to open their doors, to which only 3,000 were added later. Therefore, altogether, about 10,000 of the 25,000 banks existing in 1929 disappeared during those four years, via a process of bankruptcy, merger or liquidation.

“The closure of businesses, falling production and growing unemployment all fueled nervousness and fear.

“Once the depression was underway, it spread to other countries and, of course, there was a reflexive influence; another example of the realignment so omnipresence in a complex economy,” Friedman concludes.

The world of 1933 that he referred to in his book is nothing at all like today’s, which is totally globalized, comprising more than 190 states represented at the UN, whose inhabitants are all being threatened by dangers that scientists — even the most optimistic, cannot ignore, and that a growing number of people know about and agree on, including prominent U.S. politicians.

The echo of the repercussion of the current crisis can be seen in the desperate efforts of major world leaders.

The Xinhua agency reports that President Hu Jintao of the People’s Republic of China, a country that has experienced sustained, two-digit growth in recent years, warned yesterday that “China is under growing pressure because of its enormous population, limited resources and environmental problems.” It is the only country that we know has hard currency reserves of almost $2 trillion. The Chinese president lists “a series of essential steps for protecting the fundamental interests of the population and protecting the environment in the strategy of industrialization and modernization of China.” He said, finally, that “with the propagation of the financial crisis, world demand for products has been considerably reduced.”

With these words from the leader of the most populated country on the planet, it is not necessary to add more arguments concerning the profundity of the current crisis.

Fidel Castro Ruz

November 30, 2008

Obama Could End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

December 6, 2008

Will He Meet the Challenge?

Counterpunch, Dec 5 / 7, 2008

By YINON COHEN and NEVE GORDON

As Barack Obama enters the oval office he will face a series of daunting challenges. One of these is confronting the age old Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has been seriously, yet unsuccessfully, tackled by every American president since Jimmy Carter. The inability to reach a peaceful solution has not only had fatal repercussions for the people residing in Israel and the Occupied Territories, but has also been detrimental to Middle East stability and to vital US interests in the region.

In recent years, some of the hurdles facing those political leaders who want to reach a peace agreement based on the two-state solution have only grown. The Palestinians are in the midst of an internal fray between the old-guard of Fatah and the fundamentalist Hamas ideologues, and currently there is no agreed upon leadership with which one can negotiate. The Israeli political arena has also become much more polarized, and, it will be practically impossible for whichever party wins the upcoming elections to sign a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians, not least because the settler movement and its supporters will control a critical block in the Knesset.

Obama, however, has a crucial advantage over his predecessors. Several years of political negotiations (from the Madrid conference in 1991, through Oslo, Camp David, Taba, and Annapolis) alongside the publication of different initiatives (from the Geneva Initiative and the Saudi Plan to the Nussaiba and Ayalon Plan) have clarified what it would take to reach a peace settlement between the warring sides.

The two-state solution entails three central components.

1) Israel’s full withdrawal to the 1967 border with possible 1 per 1 land swaps so that ultimately the total amount of land that was occupied will be returned.

2) Jerusalem’s division according to the 1967 borders with certain land swaps to guarantee that each side has control over its own religious sites and large neighborhoods. Both these clauses entail the dismantlement of Israeli settlements and the return of the Jewish settlers to Israel.

3) The acknowledgment of the right of return of all Palestinians but with the following stipulation: While all Palestinians will be able to return to the fledgling Palestinian state, only a limited number agreed upon by the two sides will be allowed to return to Israel; those who cannot exercise this right or, alternatively, choose not to, will receive full compensation.

While the conditions that need to be satisfied in order to reach a peace agreement are well known and even though most political leader understand that the only way to provide real security for the two peoples is by signing a comprehensive agreement, years of negotiations have produced only limited results. The cruel irony is that the majority of Jews and Palestinians in the region support the two-state solution, but, nonetheless, the two parties cannot reach an agreement because sizable minorities in both camps reject this solution. These minorities have managed to hijack the respective political arenas and have succeeded in creating a deadlock that can only be overcome if the international community, and particularly the US, assumes a more interventionist role.

With determination and political boldness Obama can neutralize the rejectionist minorities and resolve this bloody conflict once and for all. We believe that he can achieve this objective if his administration adopts the following strategy: First, the White House needs to draft a proposal using the abovementioned guidelines. Second, the draft proposal should be submitted to the two sides so that each one can suggest minor alterations. Third, the Obama administration will have to hammer out a final proposal (i.e., the Obama plan). Finally, this proposal should be publicized and brought to a referendum in both Israel and the Occupied Territories, with the US and international community applying pressure by declaring that the two parties will be rewarded if they support the initiative and penalized if they do not. Thus, the majority of the people on each side, and not the local leadership or a rejectionist minority, will decide whether or not to accept the peace plan.

Obama’s political vision has engendered hope not only in the United States, but, as his appearance in Berlin and the post-election jubilations suggest, in the various populations of the world. Our expectation is that he will make good on his promise for change and introduce a courageous initiative that will bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians. He has both an opportunity and a responsibility to do so.

Yinon Cohen is Yerushalmi Professor of Israel and Jewish Studies, Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York.

Neve Gordon is the chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, and is the author of Israel’s Occupation, University of California Press, 2008. His website is www.israelsoccupation.info

INDIA/PAKISTAN: Kashmiri Leaders Aghast at Mumbai Massacre

December 6, 2008

By Athar Parvaiz | Inter Press Service

SRINAGAR, Dec 5 (IPS) – Political leaders in Jammu and Kashmir, a bone of contention between India and Pakistan for more than 60 years, are aghast at last week’s carnage in the Indian port city of Mumbai, carried out by armed men who apparently sailed in from the Pakistani port of Karachi.

Many here believe that renewed hostility between the South Asian giants, set off by the sea-borne attacks in which 200 people died, may prove to be a setback for their peaceful movement for an independent or autonomous Kashmir.

“Violence is nowhere acceptable now; you have to hammer home your argument cogently, not through violent means, if you want the support of the international community,’’ Aktar Hussein, a student at the Kashmir University, told IPS.

At least 10 gunmen targeted the financial hub’s main railway station, two luxury hotel complexes, a Jewish centre and a hospital with automatic fire, grenades and explosives. Barricading themselves inside the two hotels and the Jewish centre, they fought off Indian commandos for more than three days from late on Nov. 26 to Nov. 29.

Counterterrorism officials in the United States have supported the contention of Indian authorities that the attackers were linked to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (soldiers of god) militant group, which is based in Pakistan but has been fighting Indian rule in Kashmir.

And, on Tuesday, while on a visit to Pakistan, U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said Islamabad had been given sufficient evidence to take action.

Young people like Hussein recognise that the discourse over a settlement of the Kashmir issue changed dramatically after the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Demonstrably, for them, peaceful mass protests in the Srinagar valley — against the parcelling out of land to a Hindu shrine board — have not only gleaned positive results but also won international praise.

The peaceful phase of the movement against Indian rule began after an estimated 50,000 people died in an armed struggle that lasted for 18 years but began petering out after the 9/11 attacks.

“Kashmiris were just rejoicing over the discovery of an effective way of struggle when the terror strikes occurred in Mumbai… these could have a bearing on the resolution of Kashmir issue,’’ says Kashmir University professor Noor Ahmad Baba.

Almost unanimously, the terror strikes in Mumbai have evoked strong reactions from political parties in Jammu and Kashmir, with the leaders of both separatist and mainstream groups in the state condemning them.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the tallest of the hard line separatists, termed the strikes an ‘‘anti-human’’ act. “The perpetrators are the enemies of humanity,’’ he said and called for an internationally observed, independent probe into the attack.

Even Kashmiri militant groups based in the Pakistan-administered part of the territory have expressed shock at the attack. Salah-u-Din, who heads the United Jihad Council (UJC), a conglomerate of more than one dozen active militant outfits in Kashmir, termed the attacks as “reprehensible” in a statement.

“We would never allow any militant group in Kashmir to carry out such an inhuman attack,’’ Salah-u-Din said in a statement faxed from Muzzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan administered Kashmir where he is based.

The chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Mohammad Yasin Malik, called the terror strikes “a heinous crime against humanity” while talking with IPS over telephone from a hospital in the Indian capital, where he is undergoing treatment.

Jamaat-e-Islami, a religio-political organisation in Kashmir, called the attacks ‘’anti-Islamic.’’ “We condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Our sympathies are with those who have lost their loved ones in these terror strikes.”

The leaders of mainstream political parties have condemned the attacks in more forcefully. “Such gory acts are not only outrageous, but inhuman as well,” said former chief minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed who heads the regional, People’s Democratic Party.

Another former chief minister, Farooq Abdullah, who is the patron of the National Conference, the other main regional party of Kashmir, declared that in no way were the strikes ‘’in the interest of Kashmiris and their freedom struggle.’’

“This (Mumbai attack) doesn’t seem to be the handiwork of militants who are active in Kashmir,” said one political observer who preferred to remain anonymous and refused to say anything more about it.

Indian Kashmir is presently undergoing staggered elections for the state assembly. Two of the seven phases, scheduled to culminate on Dec. 28, have already been completed and the third phase of polling is slated for Dec. 7.

The first two phases were remarkably peaceful and saw large voter turnouts, although the elections are being held in the backdrop of intra-regional friction and anti-India sentiments since June when the controversy over the land transfer erupted.

Observers say that if animosities between India and Pakistan worsen, it could hamper the rest of the election process. “How can this process go on in a sensitive region like Kashmir, if the tension doesn’t ease off between India and Pakistan?” says Noor Baba.

Both the common people and the political leadership of Kashmir favour friendly ties between India and Pakistan, acutely aware that the three wars they fought over the territory have not produced any settlement and have only hardened positions.

Jewish settlers in Hebron shoot Palestinian men

December 6, 2008

B’Tselem footage shows settler shooting two Palestinian at close range
Link to this video

The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem has released graphic video footage showing settlers fighting with Palestinians in Hebron and shooting two men at close range in the hours after a settler house was evacuated by police yesterday.

The film, recorded by a Palestinian resident in Hebron, shows settlers attacking his house, which was in a valley close to the three-storey building where dozens of settlers were evicted by Israeli riot police. In the hours after the eviction, Jewish settlers rioted in Hebron, throwing stones at police and Palestinians and setting fire to Palestinian trees and attacking Palestinian homes. Most of the violence took place between the evicted house and the nearby hardline Jewish settlement of Kirya Arba.

The footage shows a settler firing a handgun and injuring two Palestinians, Hosni Abu Se’ifan, 40, who was hit in the chest and is now in a stable condition in hospital, and his father, Abd al-Hai Abu Se’ifan, 65, who was hurt in the arm. Others from the family then overpower the gunman until armed Israeli security guards from the Kiryat Arba settlement arrive and shoot several rounds over the heads of the Palestinians. The Abu Se’ifan family have frequently been targeted by settlers in the past.

B’Tselem handed the video to Israeli police in Hebron last night and was “demanding that the assailant is immediately brought to justice and that the involvement of the security guard be investigated”.

“Additionally, the security forces must investigate the failures that allowed settlers to riot throughout the afternoon and evening in Hebron’s Palestinian neighbourhoods,” the rights group said.

Since early last year B’Tselem has given out more than 100 small video cameras to Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank to allow them to record human rights abuses, and particularly the increasingly violent clashes with settlers. The group says the video recordings encourage accountability and are frequently used as evidence to bring cases against soldiers and settlers who break the law.

There are around 470,000 Jewish settlers living in the West Bank and east Jerusalem and their numbers are increasing every year, even though all settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law.

The settlers at the Hebron house claimed they had bought the building legally nearly two years ago from a Palestinian and said they had documents and videotape as proof. However, the Palestinian has since denied selling the building to the settlers and last month the Israeli supreme court said the house should be evacuated until the ownership dispute was settled. The 15 settler families were joined by dozens of supporters ahead of the eviction and the house quickly became their latest symbol of defiance against the Israeli government.

Iraq’s US security charade

December 5, 2008

By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Online Journal, Dec 5, 2008, 00:29

Email this article
Printer friendly page

World media rashly celebrated the “historic” security pact that allows for US troops to stay in Iraq for three more years after the Iraqi parliament ratified the agreement on Thursday, 27 November. The approval came one week after the Iraqi cabinet did the same.

Thousands of headlines exuded from media outlets, largely giving the false impression that the Iraqi government and parliament have a real say over the future of US troops in their country, once again playing into the ruse fashioned by Washington that Iraq is a democratic country, operating independently from the dictates of US Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker and the top commander of US troops in Iraq, General Ray Odierno. The men issued a joint congratulatory statement shortly after the parliamentary vote, describing it as one that would “formalise a strong and equal partnership” between the US and Iraq.

Jonathan Steel of the British Guardian also joined the chorus. “Look at the agreement’s text. It is remarkable for the number and scope of the concessions that the Iraqi government has managed to get from the Bush administration. They amount to a series of U-turns that spell the complete defeat of the neoconservative plan to turn Iraq into a pro-Western ally and a platform from which to project US power across the Middle East.”

Even Aljazeera.net English seemed oblivious to the charade. It assuredly wrote that the agreement “will end the 2003 invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. It is effectively a coming-of-age for the Iraqi government, which drove a hard bargain with Washington, securing a number of concessions — including a hard timeline for withdrawal — over more than 11 months of tough negotiations.”

Most attention was given to dates and numbers as if their mere mention were enough to compel the US government to respect the sovereignty of Iraq: 30 June 2009 is the date on which US forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities and January 2012 is the date for withdrawal from the entire country. Also duly mentioned is a hurried reference to opposition to the agreement represented in the “no” vote of the “followers of Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia leader,” which caused, according to the BBC “rowdy scenes of stamping, shouting and the waving of placards during the debate.”

The dismissal of the opposition as “followers” of this or that — portraying those who refuse to be intimidated by US pressure as a cultic, unruly bunch — also has its rewards. After all, only a real democracy can allow for such stark, fervent disagreements, as long as the will of the majority is honoured in the end.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali Al-Dabbagh knew exactly how to capitalise on the buzzwords that the media was eagerly waiting to hear. The success of the vote would constitute a “victory for democracy because the opposition have done their part and the supporters have done their part.”

Of course, there is nothing worth celebrating about all of this, for it’s the same charade that the Bush administration and previous administrations have promoted for decades, in Iraq and also elsewhere. “Real democracy” in the Third World is merely a means to a specific end, always ensuring the dominion of US interests and its allies. Those who dare to deviate from the norm find themselves the subject of violent, grand experiments, with Gaza being the latest example.

What is particularly interesting about the Iraq case is that news reports and media analysts scampered to dissect the 18-page agreement as if a piece of paper with fancy wording would in any way prove binding upon the US administration which, in the last eight years, has made a mockery of international law and treaties that have been otherwise used as a global frame of reference. Why would the US government, which largely acted alone in Iraq, violated the Geneva Conventions, international law and even its own war and combat regulations, respect an agreement signed with an occupied, hapless power constituted mostly of men and women handpicked by the US itself to serve the role of “sovereign”?

It’s also bewildering how some important details are so conveniently overlooked; for example, the fact that the Iraqi government can sign a separate agreement with the US to extend the deadline for withdrawal should the security situation deem such an agreement necessary. Instead, the focus was made on “concessions” obtained by the Iraqis regarding Iraq’s jurisdiction over US citizens and soldiers who commit heinous crimes while “off duty” and outside their military bases. This precisely means that the gruesome crimes committed in prisons such as Abu Ghraib and the willful shooting last year of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater mercenaries in Nisour Square in Central Baghdad is of no concern for Iraqis. And even when crimes that fall under Iraqi jurisdiction are reported, such matters are to be referred to a joint US-Iraqi committee. One can only assume that those with the bigger guns will always prevail in their interpretation of the agreement.

In fact, a major reason behind the delay in publishing the agreement in English (an Arabic version was first publicised) is the apparent US insistence on interpreting the language in a fashion that would allow for loopholes in future disagreements. But even if the language is understood with mutual clarity, and even if the Iraqi government were determined to stand its ground on a particular issue, who is likely to prevail: the US government with 150,000 troops on the ground and a massive imperial project whose failure will prove most costly to US interests in the Middle East, or the government of Nuri Al-Maliki, whose very existence is a US determination?

More than five years have passed since the US occupied Iraq, leaving in its wake a tragedy that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, destroyed civil society, thus allowing for the growth of one of the world’s most corrupt political regimes, and introducing the same terrorists to Iraq that the Bush administration vowed to defeat. Nothing has changed since then. The US attacked Iraq for its wealth and the strategic value of controlling such wealth. The Bush administration and their allies have tried many times to distract from this reality, using every political cover and charade imaginable. The facts remain the same, as does the remedy: The US must withdraw from Iraq without delay, allowing Iraqis to pick up the pieces and work out their differences as they have done for millennia.

Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle““ (Pluto Press, London).

A Message for the New President

December 5, 2008

Stop killing the Afghans

Source: Counterpunch

Come January, President-elect Barack Obama will confront the most difficult foreign policy crisis of his administration with the region-wide-war developing in Afghanistan. If he is to succeed, the new president must immediately change the tone of U.S. engagement. He can do this by first establishing a revised set of rules by which the United States must play, stressing the rule of international law and respect for civil and human rights. The president must then initiate these rules by announcing that the first priority of U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan is the preservation of human life. In other words, stop killing Afghanis.

1. Stop killing Afghanis. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has behaved as if it is at war with the Afghani people. Killing innocent Afghans is more than just ineffective; it defies the world’s sense of justice and morality while turning the Afghani people and the Islamic world even further against the United States.

2. Stop humiliating Afghan men and desecrating their homes. The U.S. military’s search-and-destroy tactics in rural Afghani villages have turned the countryside en masse against the U.S. presence.

3. Call in people with a better understanding of the problem from a diversity of the Afghani political perspective. Washington’s think tanks continue to mimic a failed British imperial policy that favors Pakistan and was, as long ago as 1870 referred to as “a folly and a crime.”

4. Help Afghanis in a way they can see and appreciate. Redirect the focus of U.S. government policy to serving basic needs like roads, irrigation systems and a viable secular education program. Activate and involve Afghani leadership at the local level. Empowering Afghanistan’s women will bring about Afghanistan’s economic recovery faster.

5. Declare the “global war on terror,” the “Long War” and the “global struggle against violent extremism” to be over. Wars are failed policy by other means. By definition, making war is failure—the making of failure on failure.

6. Address the conceptual blurring of goals. The long-term conflict between Pakistan and India underlies every security issue in the region. Make normalization of relations a priority by promoting a regional dialogue, which includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Iran. The United States must free itself of its pre-World War II mind-set that transforms all diplomacy into a Munich-style appeasement.

7. Address the issue of illegal narcotics where it counts. Afghani heroin now accounts for 93% of the world’s supply. A proposal by the Senlis Council, would see the conversion of Afghani opium into medicine, benefiting the Afghani farmer and removing it from the international black market.

8. Numerous “experts” recommend finding a place for the Taliban in a new Afghani government. Such recommendations ignore the reality that the Taliban are not indigenously Afghani and were created to destroy Afghanistan’s independence. Instead, conduct negotiations with the state sponsors of this Taliban terror, Pakistan’s army and its Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) while helping the Afghani people keep the warlords out of their government.

9. Set the record straight on American involvement in Afghanistan. The U.S. supported the Afghan drug trafficker and terrorist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar for ten years. Now he wants to be in the government. The United States cannot afford alliances with extremists like Hekmatyar whose campaign of terror continues to target moderate Afghanis.

10. Finally, reopen the national debate on U.S. identity that was silenced on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Resumption of this debate was overruled by the creation of the Cold War and the national security state in 1947 and edited out of the script by the events of 9/11.

The United States is in a fight for its life, not because of what happened on that day, but by the way the country responded to it. That response was at once wildly exaggerated, dangerously reckless, and, in the end, ineffective.

Enlist the people from within the institutions of government, academia and the public who understand this. Choose from those who have the courage to reflect on the mistakes of the past and ask, “Why did we fail Afghanistan? What can we do to succeed?”

Every president of the United States since Dwight D. Eisenhower has overlooked Afghanistan’s importance in favor of Pakistan’s self-interest. That process has resulted in denying Afghanistan’s people a just, modern and independent society in favor of an unjust, backward, and medieval one.

If Barack Obama wants to create a successful policy in Central Asia, he must give priority to what is good for Afghanistan.


Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are authors of “Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story,” which will be published in January by City Lights Books, www.citylights.com