Peace and Justice Post

By Gareth Porter | War In Iraq, July 2, 2008

WASHINGTON – New arguments by analysts close to Israeli thinking in favor of United States strikes against Iran cite evidence of Iranian military weakness in relation to the US and Israel, and even raise doubts that Iran is rushing to obtain such weapons at all.

The new arguments contradict Israel’s official argument that it faces an “existential threat” from an Islamic extremist Iranian regime determined to get nuclear weapons. They suggest that Israel, which already has as many as 200 nuclear weapons, views Iran from the position of the dominant power in the region rather than as the weaker state in the relationship.

The existence of a sharp imbalance of power in favor of Israel and the United States is the main premise of a recent analysis by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) suggesting that a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is feasible. Chuck Freilich, a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center on Science and International Affairs, has also urged war against Iran on such a power imbalance.

All three have close ties to the Israeli government. WINEP has long promoted policies favored by Israel, and its founding director, Martin Indyk, was previously research director of the leading pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Freilich is a former Israeli deputy national security adviser.

These analysts, all of whom are pushing for a US, rather than an Israeli attack, argue that Iran’s power to retaliate for a US attack on its nuclear facilities is quite limited. Equally significant, they also emphasize that Iran is a rational actor that would have to count the high costs of retaliation. That conclusion stands in sharp contrast to the official Israeli line that Iran cannot be deterred because of its alleged apocalyptic Islamic viewpoint on war with Israel.

Continued . . .

Muslims in Indian-administered Kashmir charged that the transfer was an attempt to tip the Hindu-Muslim ratio of the area in favor of Hindus. The protests have widened to support for independence.

The land transfer, which was seen by some as an attempt to change the Muslim-Hindu ratio in this Muslim-majority area, sparked huge – sometimes violent – protests in the capital, Srinagar. The protests, in which four people were killed and hundreds injured, were the biggest in Kashmir for years.

The Associated Press reported on Monday that protesters had dismissed the government’s claim that it would renege on transferring the land and vowed to continue with the protests.

By Sunday, the protests appeared to have evolved into pro-independence agitations.

“Our protests will continue until we achieve freedom from Indian domination,” Mirwaiz Omer Farooq, head of the moderate faction All Parties Hurriyat Conference, told a crowd of protesters in Srinagar. The crowd chanted “We reject Kashmir’s auction” and “We want freedom.”

Greater Kashmir, a local newspaper, elaborated upon the separatist leader’s motivations.

Mirwaiz termed the present struggle as peoples’ movement. “The resentment of people is not only against land occupation, but also against cultural, political and army aggression of New Delhi in Kashmir. It is sentiment for Azadi (freedom) and New Delhi should without any further delay address the basic issue. Even if the land transfer order is revoked, sentiment of Azadi will remain,” he added.

The government had originally said it would transfer 99 acres of forest land to the Amarnath Shrine Board, which manages a Hindu shrine in the area, saying it was necessary to build huts and toilets for the many pilgrims that visit the area.

Each year, thousands of Hindus trek to a Kashmir cave, situated at an altitude of 3,800 meters (2.3 miles), which they believe is an abode of the god Shiva. Last year, 400,000 pilgrims visited the cave, staying in tents and prompting the government to find new ways to accommodate them.

The BBC reported the view of separatists who believe that the land transfer “was part of a ‘conspiracy to settle non-local Hindus in the valley with a view to reducing the Muslims to a minority’.”

The Hindu, an Indian daily, reported that the situation was a little calmer on Sunday after the authorities imposed a curfew in Srinagar. The police had used batons and tear gas against protesters, who had responded by throwing stones. But the report also hinted at more trouble to come.

As the authorities imposed “undeclared curfew” with stringent security measures, the level of protests came down but the Mirwaiz led a protest in downtown and demanded the revocation of the land order. He said a sea of people would throng the city on Tuesday in response to a “Srinagar Chalo” call by the Action Committee on Land Transfer (ACALT).

The Kashmir Observer reported on Sunday that the situation remained tense, and that life was becoming increasingly difficult for some in the area.

However in more volatile areas where pro-freedom sentiments have traditionally been high, police failed to keep youth off the roads. The protesters, mostly young and teenagers, burned tires, created road blocks and held noisy protests chanting ‘favourite’ slogan – Ham Kya Chahtay: Azadi or “we want freedom”.

Similar reports have come in from other major towns where for last seven days people are observing a spontaneous strike.

This despite the fact that people are facing acute shortage of essential commodities, including vegetables, milk and bread because truck services bringing in such commodities from rural areas and from outside the state too have been grounded for past one week.

The political fallout of the controversy is likely to last longer than the protests themselves.

On Saturday night, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), a key partner in Jammu-Kashmir’s ruling coalition, which is led by the Congress party, withdrew its support of the government, saying it had not acted fast enough to quell the protests.

The Calcutta Telegraph later reported that Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad did not want his former allies in the PDP to rejoin the government, even though his government had been significantly weakened by their withdrawal.

Azad, who has accused the PDP of pushing the land deal and then doing an about-turn, today got the governor to accept the resignation of its ministers.

Other parties castigated the government for succumbing to pressure over the land transfer, according to the Indian television news channel NDTV.

CNN-IBN, another leading Indian news channel, said India’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had called for a general strike to protest the government’s decision to back down.

“The whole issue has been given a communal colour by the Congress and the PDP, and they are being supported by the National Conference in that. People in Jammu feel hurt,” state BJP In-charge, R P Singh said.

The government has said that, in the future, it will provide accommodations for pilgrims traveling to the sacred cave.

IRIN News

Photo: Masoud Popalzai/IRIN An armed guard travels with a WFP food consignment. WFP said it has suffered 40 attacks on its food aid trucks over the past 18 months KABUL, 30 June 2008 (IRIN) – Conflict and natural disasters have caused a “serious” and “deteriorating” humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and the aid community must scale up its efforts to meet the needs of vulnerable people, John Holmes, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, told IRIN in Kabul. Hear the radio version of this report in Dari or Pashto Holmes arrived in Afghanistan on 26 June for a four-day visit to get first-hand knowledge of the humanitarian problems there and assess the response capacity. “It [the humanitarian situation] is serious and I think it is deteriorating. We need to give it more attention and that’s why I am here,” Holmes said. Afghanistan – the fifth least developed country in the world – is facing multiple humanitarian challenges largely resulting from an intensifying conflict, drought and large-scale refugee repatriation from neighbouring countries. Humanitarian strategy needed While the Afghan government and donors are allocating more funding to development and institution-building in the country, Holmes said more resources are needed to respond to the emergency needs of millions of vulnerable people. “We need to have more of a humanitarian strategy, an action plan, than we had before. That’s very much on the agenda for us and I think that will need to go with more resource mobilisation. We need more resources,” said Holmes, adding that donors “will respond generously” to a “right kind of strategy and a right kind of scaling up of our activities”. International donors have spent over US$15 billion on rebuilding and humanitarian initiatives in Afghanistan over the past six years. But aid agencies such as Oxfam International have repeatedly said that aid money has not been used effectively and appropriately and as a result the needs of most Afghans had largely remained unmet. Holmes, who also heads the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said that aid agencies are “waking up” to the realities in Afghanistan and some of the humanitarian issues that had been “neglected” for a while after 2001 have regained importance. “No magic solution” Photo: Emmanuel Dunseath/IRIN “There is not a magic solution and while the conflict is going on we have to work around the conflict. We cannot solve the conflict as humanitarians. What we can try to do is to help the victims of it.” John Holmes However, Holmes acknowledged the hazardous conditions in which aid agencies were trying to operate. Insecurity and attacks on humanitarian actors have been impeding aid agencies’ access to large swathes of the country, denying urgent assistance to thousands of people. The UN World Food Programme (WFP) said it has suffered 40 attacks on its food aid trucks over the past 18 months in which 1,000 metric tonnes of food, worth $800,000, have been lost. Consequent delays in aid delivery to vulnerable people across Afghanistan have caused frustration among some communities and aid agencies have been criticised for their inability to respond timely and effectively. “There is not a magic solution and while the conflict is going on we have to work around the conflict. We cannot solve the conflict as humanitarians. What we can try to do is to help the victims of it,” Holmes said, adding that attacks on WFP aid convoys were a “violation of international humanitarian law”. But he also stressed the need to engage with opposition groups purely for the purpose of facilitating the delivery of aid to volatile areas. Holmes said the humanitarian community does this in other countries and that it may become necessary in Afghanistan too. “It’s important that where, for example, there are vaccination campaigns which need to be conducted – particularly against polio, but also against other diseases – we are able to negotiate days of peace or days of tranquillity or humanitarian corridors so that those operations can proceed peacefully and without incident,” he said. ad/at/ed

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer

SF Gate, Monday, June 30, 2008

sfgate_get_fprefs(); (06-30) 14:44 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) —

President Bush on Monday signed legislation to pay for the war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of his presidency and beyond, hailing the $162 billion plan as a rare product of bipartisan cooperation.

“This bill shows the American people that even in an election year, Republicans and Democrats can come together to stand behind our troops and their families,” Bush said in an Oval Office ceremony.

Bush made clear to thank members of both parties in Congress, singling out some sponsors of the long-delayed, compromise measure for praise. His positive comments contrasted with the confrontational tone that has dominated the debate between Congress and his administration over Iraq.

The legislation will bring to more than $650 billion the amount Congress has provided for the Iraq war since it began more than five years ago. For operations in Afghanistan, the total is nearly $200 billion, according to congressional officials.

Continued . . .

U.S. Offical Sees Two ‘Red Lines’ That Could Prompt Strike

Senior Pentagon officials are concerned that Israel could carry out an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the year, an action that would have enormous security and economic repercussions for the United States and the rest of the world.

Wearing protective clothes, an Iranian security person walks at a part of the Uranium Conversion Facility, just outside the city of Isfahan, 410 kilometers south of the capital Tehran, Iran, March 30, 2005.

(Vahid Salemi/AP Photo)

A senior defense official told ABC News there is an “increasing likelihood” that Israel will carry out such an attack, a move that likely would prompt Iranian retaliation against, not just Israel, but against the United States as well.

The official identified two “red lines” that could trigger an Israeli offensive. The first is tied to when Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility produces enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. According to the latest U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessments, that is likely to happen sometime in 2009, and could happen by the end of this year.

“The red line is not when they get to that point, but before they get to that point,” the official said. “We are in the window of vulnerability.”

The second red line is connected to when Iran acquires the SA-20 air defense system it is buying from Russia. The Israelis may want to strike before that system — which would make an attack much more difficult — is put in place.

Some Pentagon officials also worry that Israel may be determined to attack before a new U.S. president, who may be less supportive, is sworn in next January.

Pentagon officials believe the massive Israeli air force exercise in early June, first reported by the New York Times, was done to prepare for a possible attack. A senior official called it “not a rehearsal, but basic, fundamental training” required to launch an operation against Iran.

“The Israeli air force has already conducted the basic exercise necessary to tell their senior leadership, ‘We have the fundamentals down.’ Might they need some more training and rehearsals? Yes. But have they done the fundamentals? I think that is what we saw,” the official told ABC News, adding that if Israel moves closer to military action, he expects to see more exercises like the one conducted in early June.

Continued . . .

RINF.COM, Monday, June 30th, 2008

By ALISSA J. RUBIN

Iraqi government officials on Sunday criticized the American military for two recent attacks in which soldiers killed people who the government said were civilians.

One death occurred during a raid by American soldiers on Friday near Karbala; two days earlier, three people described by the Interior Ministry as bank employees on their way to work were shot and killed near the Baghdad airport when they tried to pass an American convoy.

An Iraqi government statement demanded that the soldiers be held accountable in Iraq. The issue is particularly delicate now because the two countries are negotiating a long-term security agreement and among the chief points of disagreement are whether the American military will be free to conduct operations and detain suspects and whether, if its soldiers kill civilians, they will have immunity from Iraqi law.

Currently soldiers can only be tried under American military law. However, there have been many shootings of Iraqi civilians by American soldiers and contractors, prompting Iraqi politicians to demand that they have a right to prosecute soldiers and contractors in their courts.

The reaction to the latest deaths signals that the Iraqi government is likely to push hard on the issue in the negotiations. These two shootings “are a violation of the law and an encroachment on Iraqi sovereignty,” said a statement from the General Command of the Iraqi armed forces. “We demand the coalition force to arrest their employees and refer them to the judiciary because their crimes were committed in cold blood.”

Continued . . .

John Pilger | Socialist Worker, July 1, 2008

THE BRITISH lawyer Gareth Peirce, celebrated for her defense of miscarriage of justice victims, wrote recently: “Over the years of the conflict, every lawless action on the part of the British state provoked a similar reaction: internment, ‘shoot to kill,’ the use of torture…brutally obtained false confessions and fabricated evidence. This was registered by the community most affected, but the British public, in whose name these actions were taken, remained ignorant.”

Referring to the conflict in Northern Ireland, she was drawing a comparison with “our new suspect community,” people of Muslim faith, against whom a vicious, sectarian and mostly unreported war is well under way.

As Peirce points out, “internment, discredited and abandoned in Northern Ireland,” now allows, not 42 days, but the “indefinite detention without trial of foreign nationals, the ‘evidence’ to be heard in secret with the detainee’s lawyer not permitted to see the evidence against him.”

Those snatched from their homes in Britain following September 11, 2001, have all but vanished into an Anglo-American gulag, which in this country joins Belmarsh Prison, where people are consigned to oblivion, with Broadmoor psychiatric prison, where they are sent as they go mad, and with Kafkaesque versions of “home” where others are interred under “control orders.”

One such home prisoner, wrote Peirce, “a man without arms, was left alone and terrified, unable to leave the flat or to contact anyone without committing a criminal offense, subject to a curfew and allowed no visits unless approved in advance by the Home Office.” Going into the garden, arranging a plumber, speaking to a child’s teacher, all require permission. The families go mad, too.

Preferring “a quick death…to a slow death here,” one man who took a risk and returned to Algeria has been lost in the subcontracted gulag, where his new torturers have given the British government “assurances” and are themselves reassured by the fact that BP, the ethical oil company, has sunk $12 billion into getting oil out of Algeria’s Southern Sahara. Jordan, another subcontractor, is held economically afloat by the U.S. so George W. Bush’s “renditions” and torture can proceed there.

No British court has found any of these people guilty of any crime, but as Tony Blair, a genuine prima facie criminal, put it so well, “the rules of the game have changed.”

Continued . . .

By Thalif Deen | Inter Press Service News

Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, addresses a press conference concerning his findings during a country-wide visit to the U.S. Credit:UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 30 (IPS) – After a two-week fact-finding tour of U.S. prison and detention facilities, a U.N. human rights investigator has blasted the administration of President George W. Bush for a rash of shortcomings in the country’s flawed justice system and continued violations of the rule of law.

Unleashing a stinging barrage of attacks, Professor Philip Alston, the U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary and arbitrary executions, singles out the existence of racism in the application of the death penalty in the United States, and the lack of transparency in the deaths of prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility housing suspected terrorists.

Alston, a professor at the New York University School of Law and an outspoken critic of human rights abuses worldwide, also complains about the non-availability of information on civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the refusal of the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute private security contractors who commit unlawful killings.

During his 14-day tour of the United States at the invitation of the administration, he met with federal and state officials, judges and civil society groups in New York, Washington DC, Alabama and Texas.

Alston was particularly critical of the state of Texas which has refused to review the cases of foreign nationals on death row, most of whom had been deprived of the right to consular assistance from their home countries.

Continued . . .

An Israeli attack would be disastrous, but sanctions won’t work. Dialogue with the US is our best hope of avoiding a nuclear Iran

• 
• • Shirley Williams
  • guardian.co.uk, Monday June 30, 2008

I share Jonathan Freedland‘s concern about the danger of an attack by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the catastrophic consequences likely to follow. A military attack on Iran could not be a copy of the “surgical strike” against the Osirik reactor in Iraq in 1981. Natanz is close to a large new oil refinery and to Isfahan, Iran’s magnificent world heritage city. The “collateral damage” from a military strike, to use the dry language of the military that describes the destruction of human beings and of history, would be terrible.

It is not yet clear that Iran wants a nuclear weapon. It is certainly quite a long way from achieving one on its own. It stubbornly affirms its right, under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to enrich uranium for civil energy purposes. What is absolutely clear, as Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the IAEA, has repeatedly said, is that it wants the recognition and respect its long, proud history and its role in the region deserve. That has to mean, sooner or later, recognition by the US. The absence of any diplomatic relations for 28 years between these two countries has contributed hugely to mutual misunderstanding.

Freedland’s recommendation for preventing Iran developing nuclear weapons is “sharper sticks and juicier carrots”. The present sharp sticks are not very sharp. On a recent week-long visit to Iran, I could find few consequences of sanctions except difficulty in using credit cards – and even that was got around by the more enterprising traders, who had set up an effective bypass via the ever helpful Dubai. Financial sanctions on trade and investment would be more effective but open to even more evasion by those disinclined to cooperate.

As for juicier carrots, the offer of US engagement in negotiations in return for a freeze on (rather than a suspension of) nuclear enrichment might just work. Even then, time would be needed to establish a dialogue with Iran’s complex layers of leadership. The US should ask the shaky government of Israel, in return for years of loyal American support, to stay its hand.

AFP,