Peace and Justice Post

 U.S. Commander Says Pakistan Now Welcoming Bigger U.S. Role Inside Country

Wiredispatch.com

ROBERT BURNS
AP News

Jan 16, 2008 10:47 EST

Pakistan is taking a more welcoming view of U.S. suggestions for using American troops to train and advise its own forces in the fight against anti-government extremists, the commander of U.S. forces in that region said Wednesday.
Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of U.S. Central Command, said he believes increased violence inside Pakistan in recent months has led Pakistani leaders to conclude that they must focus more intensively on extremist al-Qaida hideouts near the border with Afghanistan.

He called this an important change from Pakistan’s traditional focus on India as the main threat to its security, and it meshes with Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ recent comment that al-Qaida terrorists hiding in the border area are increasingly aiming their campaign of violence at targets inside Pakistan.

Keep reading . . .

NEW YORK – As the world marked the sixth anniversary of the arrival of the first orange-jumpsuit-clad prisoners at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, human rights groups are attempting to focus public and congressional scrutiny on what some are calling “the other Gitmo”.

It is a prison located on the U.S. military base at base in the ancient city of Bagram near Charikar in Parvan, Afghanistan. The detention centre was set up by the U.S. military as a temporary screening site after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban. It currently houses some 630 prisoners — close to three times as many as are still held at Guantanamo.

In 2005, following well-documented accounts of detainee deaths, torture, and “disappeared” prisoners, the U.S. undertook efforts to turn the facility over to the Afghan government. But thanks to a series of legal, bureaucratic and administrative missteps, the prison is still under U.S. military control. And a recent confidential report from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has reportedly complained about the continued mistreatment of prisoners.

Keep reading . . .

Source: Axis of Logic

By Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Jan 16, 2008, 04:42

On Tuesday morning, 15 January 2008, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) killed 17 Palestinians, including 5 civilians, and wounded at least 30 others, 5 of whom are in a serious condition, during an incursion into the al-Shojaeya and al-Zaytoun neighborhoods of east Gaza City. The incursion continued until noon. Preliminary investigations conducted by PCHR indicate that most of the victims were killed by tank shells, and that IOF troops used excessive lethal force without regard for the lives of Palestinian civilian living in the affected areas.

PCHR strongly condemns these latest crimes, and continues to be gravely concerned about the escalation of attacks by IOF against the Gaza Strip. PCHR calls upon the international community to immediately intervene in order to stop these crimes, as well as repeated Israeli threats to invade the Gaza Strip en masse, which will undoubtedly cause even more destruction, including deaths and injuries, to the Palestinian civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

Continued . . .

The Washington Times, January 16, 2007

By John Phillips

Students walked past a banner decrying the planned address by Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican´s positions on scientific issues yesterday at the University of Rome La Sapienza.

---

ROME — Pope Benedict XVI yesterday abruptly canceled a visit to Rome”s leading university in the face of security fears because of vociferous opposition to the trip from physics professors and undergraduates who accuse the pontiff of opposing free scientific inquiry.

The conservative German pope had been scheduled to visit University of Rome La Sapienza tomorrow to inaugurate the academic year in ceremonies marking its foundation 705 years ago.
Science students opposed to the visit announced an “anti-clerical week” at the prestigious institution, the scene of clashes between militants from the left and right and the police in the 1960s and ’70s.

The students, calling themselves the Physics Collective, charge on a Web site that Benedict “condemns centuries of scientific and cultural growth by affirming anachronistic dogmas such as Creationism, while attacking scientific free thought and promoting mandatory heterosexuality.”
The Vatican last night said that “following well-known developments over recent days,” the Holy See “decided it was better to do without” the papal visit. Benedict will send his planned speech to university authorities to be read on his behalf but will not deliver it personally, the statement said.

Keep reading . . .

 RINF.com, January 14, 2008

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga says global intelligence agencies assert the 9/11 attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad.

Although Osama bin Laden has confessed to launching the attacks, now all the European and American intelligence services are well aware that the attacks were planned by the CIA and the Zionists’ Mossad, Cossiga told Corriere della Sera.

The disastrous attack was aimed to put the Muslim world under powerful accusations and drum up support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the former Italian president added.

Cossiga first expressed doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley’s book titled 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in the USA as stating that, “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel.

He went on to add that the attack could not have been accomplished without penetration into the ranks of radar and flight security personnel.

Alternet, January 15, 2008

By Nina Burleigh, Huffington Post. Posted January 15, 2008.

Federal and state authorities are hotly pursuing an alleged rapist/killer Marine on the run in some southeastern state. Updates on the search crawl under the CNN feed all day. Meanwhile, the screen displays a different sort of heinous American criminal, at large in, of all places, Abu Dhabi. This one, unfortunately, is unlikely to be apprehended anytime soon.

Our Commander in Chief has been striding around the Middle East talking exactly like a man whose opinion carries some Solomonic weight, not like somebody who spent the last four years waging a “war on terror” that killed hundreds of thousands of Arab civilians and displaced millions more.

Dead civilians is the first and worst charge, real felonies if the world justice system worked. Add in the civil claims against him: squandering of international trust and belief in America, domestic economic wreckage, the revolting trampling of civil rights, the thieving of the treasury by no-bid cronies, and the unleashing of a grisly, vicious war that has (read yesterday’s gutsy New York Times report) made psychotic killers of our own young men, and we have a world-class criminal, on the loose.

Keep reading . . . 

Burials in the Sind

Counterpunch, January 14, 2008

By ROGER MORRIS

Benazir Bhutto was a precocious twenty-three-year-old in 1976 when she noticed Army Chief of Staff Zia ul-Haq come and go at the office of her father, Pakistani Prime Minister Zulficar Ali Bhutto. “A short, nervous, ineffectual-looking man,” she remembered the general, “whose pomaded hair was parted in the middle and lacquered to his head.” Along with the hair, Zia’s thick mustache and diffident manner seemed to Islamabad politicians a Punjabi version of English comedian Terry Thomas. “Bhutto’s butler” they called him.

Then, suddenly, in July 1977, Zia was no longer amusing when his junta arrested Ali Bhutto and his cabinet and imposed martial law. There followed more than a decade of military tyranny as Pakistan became, in Salman Rushdie’s phrase, “a nightmarish land.” That era and its sequels would be the setting of Benazir Bhutto’s political career, climaxing in her assassination December 27. She was emblematic of her country’s nightmare, and of the tortuous role in it of the United States. It is a history-forgotten, unseen, denied-that haunts us all.

Benazir was a year old in 1954 as Washington adopted Pakistan as its cold war client, lavishing the first of what would be billions on a military that by the end of the 1950s seized power amid the country’s chronic poverty and hostility with India. It was cozy, enduring patronage. Pentagon and CIA men shared with their Pakistani peers an occupational contempt for non-alignment and the hindrance of democratic politics. By 1959, the CIA had stationed an agent in Karachi to advise Pakistani generals on public relations practices that would be enabling military dictatorships to claim legitimacy nearly a half-century later.

Continued . . .

A Case Before the Nation

By Dr. Haider Mehdi | The Nation, January 15, 2008

People of Pakistan!

Let us, for the sake of deliberation and in good faith, give the benefit of the doubt to Gen.(retired) Pervez Musharraf and accept all of his claims: Yes, Benazir killed herself by hitting the car’s sunroof lever. Yes, she was warned not to hold a political rally. Yes, no state agency was involved in her gruesome murder. Yes, the Sharif brothers went into exile at their own request. Yes, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan was rightfully sacked. Yes, several civil society activists and lawyers deserve to be put in jail. Yes, Gen. (retd.) Pervez Musharraf is the best thing that has ever happened to Pakistan in its 60-year history. Yes, the General (retd.) has given unprecedented economic prosperity and political stability as well as true democracy to this country. Yes, the majority of Pakistanis are extremists and terrorists. Yes, Pakistan’s survival as a nation is dependent on American goodwill and fighting its war on terror. Yes, without the General (retd.), Pakistan has no future. Yes, the General (retd.) is the promised “messiah” and so on and so on.

Having admitted all that is claimed by the incumbent leader, the nation still needs some kind of criteria to evaluate the performance of its political leadership. After all, that is a common process in a democratically-run nation – and the General (retd.) asserts that present-day Pakistan is a true democracy shaped and gifted by him and supported by American benevolence.

Leadership performance evaluations are generally conducted within specifically defined frameworks. General characteristics attributed to political leadership are: vision, willing followers, influence, situational adaptability and communication excellence. These five concepts, though not giving a complete picture, present an underpinning of an effective political leadership. Can Musharraf’s performance be evaluated by the application of these five concepts? Perhaps these notions are too broad and the discussion could be a complex and lengthy process.

It would seem more appropriate to look at Musharraf’s performance within a more specific framework. One such perspective is the notion of charismatic political leadership. Is Musharraf a charismatic leader? Charisma, originally a Greek word, means divine gift, and scholars have attributed such a leader with “having considerable power over followers, especially in times of crisis.” A charismatic leadership is gifted with “(a) formulation of a strategic vision, (b) inspiration and empowerment of followers, and (c) superior articulation and impressive management skills.” Charisma is directly related to a leader’s behavior; it is an ability to tie the self-concepts of the followers in with the nation’s vision, goals, identity and purpose.

The questions are: Has the General (retd.) been able to invoke followers’ loyalty at a massive national level? Has he succeeded in inspiring and empowering the masses? Has Pervez Musharraf been successful in giving strategic goal-oriented visionary leadership to the nation? Has he proven effective in present-day national crisis management by acknowledging the self-concepts of the masses with their national vision, goals, identity and purpose? Has the General (retd.) demonstrated superior management skills at resolving the economic and political problematics faced by the nation? Does he enjoy considerable power over the masses by virtue of his personal behavior and attributes? Has he been able to positively influence the masses at large and provide the civil society in particular with a legendary and imaginative leap in political doctrine or ideology?

Unfortunately, the answers to all of these questions are not in the affirmative. The fact of the matter is that the nation, as a whole, is completely alienated from Musharraf’s political doctrines. Civil society is in turmoil like never before. State violence has reached unprecedented levels. Political chaos has reached unmanageable scales. The nation has been going through one crisis followed by another ever since the General (retd.) came to power some eight years ago. The era of confusion, national disarray and multiple political exigencies is a testament to the fact that the General (retd.) does not possess the credentials of a charismatic leader, nor has he the qualities that inspire people, empower followers or offer a vision, goal, identity or purpose to the nation.

Another conceptual framework in which a leader’s performance can be evaluated is to look at his/her management style. Management is a process of getting work done through others. It involves planning, organizing, leading and controlling, which are critical steps in getting the national agenda accomplished. A vital element in a political leader’s management style is that he/she uses influence rather than relying on authority or positional power to accomplish the desired end results. Concurrently, outstanding national leaders focus on political variation and accommodation of diverse points-of-view, inspire change and deal with national turbulence with imaginative innovation rather than relying on the status quo and constancy – the art of creating national harmony comes out of the craftsmanship to seek concord, congruity, peace and unison out of chaotic conditions — rather than the other way around.

Once again, unfortunately as it is, the General’s (retd.) leadership has offered none of the dynamism of a successful, innovative management style. The national agenda remains obscure under his leadership. The masses face unprecedented price hikes, inflation is sky-rocketing, the poverty level is increasing and the socio-economic gap in the society is widening. The law and order situation in the country has never been so bad. The national consciousness has been decimated by psychological pressures of oppressive cultural and political trends espoused by the incumbent regime. The nation has lost its bearings over its national identity and purpose by overwhelming capitalistic and foreign-dominated political policies and economic planning. The General (retd.) completely relies on his authority and positional power to alter national institutions, the constitution and the day-to-day running of state affairs. The common people are suffering and in agony like never before in the chronicles of this nation. We have come to live in most dangerous times under the present political dispensation engineered by the General’s (retd.) leadership. It is quite evident that the General (retd.) has not demonstrated the prowess of an outstanding leader in national management. It is a sad and unflattering commentary on Musharraf’s leadership.

The General (retd.) claims that his intentions have been thoroughly noble and conceived in the goodness of his heart and mind – “Pakistan First” has been his symbolic patriotic slogan.

A phrase attributed to an anonymous writer warns: “Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hardboiled egg.”

Albert Camus, the world renowned Algerian-French writer, extensively wrote on the French oppression of the Algerian populous. “The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”

On one hand, Vladimir Lenin combined ideological intentions with full-scale political actions by granting independence to Finland in appreciation of their national sentiments at the time of Bolshevik Revolution, without a bullet fired or a Finish citizen killed.

Americans, on the other hand, nearly obliterated by force an entire civilization and population of native American Indians – in pursuit of American national objectives. Ironically, the similar ideology of “the clash of civilizations” is at play in the contemporary political situation focusing on the premise: “accept Westernization or perish.”

There are lessons for the General (retd.) to learn in all of these historical events. Indeed, history is made of actions and not intentions – the General’s political actions have caused permanent and irreparable damage to the national edifice to an extent that it seems most appropriate for him to take an exit from the politics of the country. That would be an honorable course of action now.

I rest my case. The entire nation has to be the jury – in the end, it is the people of Pakistan who will be the judge.

Hold your breath – you may be in for surprises either way…!

General Suharto of Indonesia

By ALLAN NAIRN | Counterpunch, January 14, 2008

General Suharto of Indonesia is fading fast, the news bulletins say.

So when I came into the country, I started asking how people felt about their dying killer. (Body count, circa one million plus, overwhelmingly civilian).

The first man I ran into — near a coffee/ rice stall — though the radio blared the death watch, said nothing about it, until I raised it. “So much the better,” he smiled.
Even people I know well did not bother to mention it, though they know I follow politics.

One market lady had just described her own recent ailments — decades of squatting and pounding grain take a toll — when I asked about Suharto.

“Suharto?”, she said. “He ate too much money. He’s full. He ate so such that others can’t eat.”

She chuckled at her own joke. Everybody laughed. The mourning period should be over by lunchtime.

The New York Times, in 1993, after the East Timor massacres, said Suharto “r[a]n the country with a grandfatherly smile and an iron fist” and lamented that his “accomplishments are not widely known abroad.” (Philip Shenon, “Hidden Giant — A special report.; Indonesia Improves Life for Many But the Political Shadows Remain,” The New York Times, August 27, 1993.)

On earth, in Indonesia — below the towers of life-giving-or-taking wealth and distant killing decision — Suharto seemed to have been seen, on the one hand, as a small man, but on the other, as a menace.

You could talk corruption, but you could not mention the murders. You had to work hard to forget them. The government helped with “Clean Environment” laws that banned the surviving relatives from social contacts, on the theory that if they got around, their memories might pollute society.

A grandmother, when pressed, once told me about bodies bobbing in Sumatra rivers.

But, as a rule, people don’t like to talk about Suharto’s founding massacre, the one that was, in the words of James Reston of The Times, the “gleam of light in Asia” (June 19, 1966), and in the words of the CIA, which assisted, “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century” (for background see posting of November 8, 2007. “Duduk – Duduk, Ngobrol – Ngobrol. Sitting Around Talking, in Indonesia.”).

Continued . . .