Op-ed columnist for The New York Times, Nicholas D Kristof reflects on the military-related spending by the USA.
"We face wrenching budget cutting in the years ahead, but there’s one huge area of government spending that Democrats and Republicans alike have so far treated as sacrosanct.
It’s the military/security world, and it’s time to bust that taboo. A few facts:
• The United States spends nearly as much on military power as every other country in the world combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It says that we spend more than six times as much as the country with the next highest budget, China.
• The United States maintains troops at more than 560 bases and other sites abroad, many of them a legacy of a world war that ended 65 years ago. Do we fear that if we pull our bases from Germany, Russia might invade?
• The intelligence community is so vast that more people have “top secret” clearance than live in Washington, D.C.
• The U.S. will spend more on the war in Afghanistan this year, adjusting for inflation, than we spent on the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War combined."
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Life goes - very happily thank you - for Wall St.
Some bankers may have teetered a couple of years back, but they are riding high, very high, on Wall St. as 2010 ends and they look to 2011.
"The statistics tell the story: From the outset of 2009 to this past summer, Wall Street banks and other financial players—trade groups, insurance companies, real estate brokerages, and more—spent more than $500 million lobbying Congress on financial reform. That's $1.4 million a day. These firms' main goal: undercutting, if not outright killing, tough new regulations to prevent the next financial crisis."
***
"Now, two years after the greatest financial meltdown in generations, a cataclysm still fresh in the minds of many, you'd think Wall Street would shy away from its high-flying, Ferrari-dealer days.
Quite the opposite. In November, the Times reported on its front page that the lavish party days seemed to be back in fashion. Paired with a video showing Ferraris and Lamborghinis roaring through New York City's financial district, the story described a 1,000-person Halloween party hosted by a Goldman Sachs investment analyst at a swanky Manhattan night club (with rapper Lil' Kim performing) and a Playboy-themed birthday shindig in Hong Kong for the head of Bank of America Asia Pacific. Reservations at posh restaurants were up. So, too, were rentals in the Hamptons. "Two years after the onset of the financial crisis," the Times wrote, "the stock market is recovering and Wall Street's moneyed elite are breathing easier again."
"The statistics tell the story: From the outset of 2009 to this past summer, Wall Street banks and other financial players—trade groups, insurance companies, real estate brokerages, and more—spent more than $500 million lobbying Congress on financial reform. That's $1.4 million a day. These firms' main goal: undercutting, if not outright killing, tough new regulations to prevent the next financial crisis."
***
"Now, two years after the greatest financial meltdown in generations, a cataclysm still fresh in the minds of many, you'd think Wall Street would shy away from its high-flying, Ferrari-dealer days.
Quite the opposite. In November, the Times reported on its front page that the lavish party days seemed to be back in fashion. Paired with a video showing Ferraris and Lamborghinis roaring through New York City's financial district, the story described a 1,000-person Halloween party hosted by a Goldman Sachs investment analyst at a swanky Manhattan night club (with rapper Lil' Kim performing) and a Playboy-themed birthday shindig in Hong Kong for the head of Bank of America Asia Pacific. Reservations at posh restaurants were up. So, too, were rentals in the Hamptons. "Two years after the onset of the financial crisis," the Times wrote, "the stock market is recovering and Wall Street's moneyed elite are breathing easier again."
Hilary & Co......Enough grandstanding!
The just concluded "trial" - er, well Russian style - and conviction in Moscow of Mikhail Khodorkovsky has drawn almost universal condemnation throughout the West. As it should. But shouldn't Hilary Clinton and Western Governments be looking in their own backyards first before firing off criticism of the Russians?
"But shouldn’t Clinton put a sock in it? The USA is still squatting in Cuba overseeing the continuing festering mess caused by one of the biggest boils on the face of human rights – yes, Guantanamo is approaching a decade of incarcerating men without charge or trial. At least Khodorkovsky had his day in an open court and can appeal.
Instead of sticking her nose in to other country’s courts, perhaps the US Secretary of State would care to look into her own backyard and tell us why one of her soldiers was given a mere nine month sentence earlier this month after shooting unarmed civilians in Afghanistan?
And after he's served his sentence US army medic Robert Stevens can still remain in the army, ruled the military hearing. His defense was that he and other soldiers were purely acting on orders from a squad leader during a patrol in March in Kandahar.
Five of the 12 soldiers named in the case are accused of premeditated murder in the most serious prosecution of atrocities by US military personnel since the war began in late 2001. Some even collected severed fingers and other human remains from the Afghan dead as war trophies before taking photos with the corpses.
By comparison, just a few months earlier, Dr Aafia Siddiqui, was given 86 years for attempting to shoot US soldiers … the alleged incident happened while she was in US custody, in Afghanistan. She didn’t shoot anyone although she was shot at point blank range by the soldiers. The critically injured Pakistani citizen was then renditioned for a trial in New York. The hearing was judged to be illegal and out of US jurisdiction by many international lawyers.
Did Clinton have anything to say about that? Did any of the foreign ministers in the West raise these issues on any public platform anywhere in the world?"
"But shouldn’t Clinton put a sock in it? The USA is still squatting in Cuba overseeing the continuing festering mess caused by one of the biggest boils on the face of human rights – yes, Guantanamo is approaching a decade of incarcerating men without charge or trial. At least Khodorkovsky had his day in an open court and can appeal.
Instead of sticking her nose in to other country’s courts, perhaps the US Secretary of State would care to look into her own backyard and tell us why one of her soldiers was given a mere nine month sentence earlier this month after shooting unarmed civilians in Afghanistan?
And after he's served his sentence US army medic Robert Stevens can still remain in the army, ruled the military hearing. His defense was that he and other soldiers were purely acting on orders from a squad leader during a patrol in March in Kandahar.
Five of the 12 soldiers named in the case are accused of premeditated murder in the most serious prosecution of atrocities by US military personnel since the war began in late 2001. Some even collected severed fingers and other human remains from the Afghan dead as war trophies before taking photos with the corpses.
By comparison, just a few months earlier, Dr Aafia Siddiqui, was given 86 years for attempting to shoot US soldiers … the alleged incident happened while she was in US custody, in Afghanistan. She didn’t shoot anyone although she was shot at point blank range by the soldiers. The critically injured Pakistani citizen was then renditioned for a trial in New York. The hearing was judged to be illegal and out of US jurisdiction by many international lawyers.
Did Clinton have anything to say about that? Did any of the foreign ministers in the West raise these issues on any public platform anywhere in the world?"
The Obama Administration is wrong, yet again
One might of thought that in the era of WikiLeaks we are all living in that politicians might be a tad more guarded in issuing statements and making pronouncements which can easily be challenged. Take the recent Obama statements on the situation in Afghanistan. On the whole positive. Others, better equipped to make a judgment-call say otherwise - clearly and absolutely!
"Recent upbeat assessments by the White House on the Afghanistan war have been called into question by analysts and aid groups on the ground, who say the security situation has been getting worse.
Challenging statements this month by US President Barack Obama and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, a security expert who works with aid groups in Afghanistan said Taliban insurgents had been expanding their reach across the country.
''It is our opinion that the situation is a lot more insecure this year than it was last year,'' said Nic Lee, director of the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office.
While US-led forces have driven insurgents out of their strongholds in southern Afghanistan, Taliban advances in the rest of the country may have offset those gains.
Insurgent attacks have jumped at least 66 per cent this year, according to the NGO Safety Office. And security analysts say Taliban shadow governors still exert control in all but one of the country's 34 provinces.
A recent United Nations analysis also concluded that security was deteriorating in growing pockets across the country. For instance, the UN's World Food Program has stopped sending its own trucks along the road that links Kabul to Bamiyan, one of the country's safest regions, because a bomb killed four of its staff on the route in July".
"Recent upbeat assessments by the White House on the Afghanistan war have been called into question by analysts and aid groups on the ground, who say the security situation has been getting worse.
Challenging statements this month by US President Barack Obama and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, a security expert who works with aid groups in Afghanistan said Taliban insurgents had been expanding their reach across the country.
''It is our opinion that the situation is a lot more insecure this year than it was last year,'' said Nic Lee, director of the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office.
While US-led forces have driven insurgents out of their strongholds in southern Afghanistan, Taliban advances in the rest of the country may have offset those gains.
Insurgent attacks have jumped at least 66 per cent this year, according to the NGO Safety Office. And security analysts say Taliban shadow governors still exert control in all but one of the country's 34 provinces.
A recent United Nations analysis also concluded that security was deteriorating in growing pockets across the country. For instance, the UN's World Food Program has stopped sending its own trucks along the road that links Kabul to Bamiyan, one of the country's safest regions, because a bomb killed four of its staff on the route in July".
Israel's treatment of Palestinian kids goes from bad to worse
From CommonDreams in relation to a report by an Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem:
"Jerusalem police "systematically violate the law" several times a day in their treatment of Palestinian kids who allegedly throw stones, a report from an Israeli human rights group charges. The routine: wake boys as young as 8 in the middle of the night, haul them in without their parents using violence and handcuffs, hold them for a week, sentence them to months of house arrest, which often means they miss school. Why do they keep doing it? What are their options?"
"Jerusalem police "systematically violate the law" several times a day in their treatment of Palestinian kids who allegedly throw stones, a report from an Israeli human rights group charges. The routine: wake boys as young as 8 in the middle of the night, haul them in without their parents using violence and handcuffs, hold them for a week, sentence them to months of house arrest, which often means they miss school. Why do they keep doing it? What are their options?"
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Top Ten Myths about Afghanistan, 2010
As the war in Afghanistan grinds on, and will do so into 2011 and beyond, Juan Cole, in his Informed Comment, lists the top 10 myths about Afghanistan for 2010. Just one of the 10 is a good example.....making it more than worthwhile reading the other 9.
7. The US presence in Afghanistan is justified by the September 11 attacks.
Fact: In Helmand and Qandahar Provinces, a poll found that 92% of male residents had never heard of 9/11.
7. The US presence in Afghanistan is justified by the September 11 attacks.
Fact: In Helmand and Qandahar Provinces, a poll found that 92% of male residents had never heard of 9/11.
For many around the world forget about learning to read and write
It should be the inalienable right of all people, especially children, to have enough food to eat and be properly clothed - and for children to receive at least a basic eduction. Sad to say, and perhaps all top predictably, far too many children around the world are missing out on an eduction.
"Despite widespread commitments on paper to the second Millennium Development Goal - the provision of universal primary education by 2015 - 72 million children remain out of school. More worryingly, 39 million (54 per cent) of these children reside in conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS), where they face multiple pressures in terms of lack of access to basic rights, and an accompanying unwillingness on the part of international donors or even local governments to place an emphasis on providing education.
As a result, one in three children in CAFS do not go to school, compared to one in 11 in other low-income countries, according to data compiled by the UK-based charity Save the Children (STC)."
"Despite widespread commitments on paper to the second Millennium Development Goal - the provision of universal primary education by 2015 - 72 million children remain out of school. More worryingly, 39 million (54 per cent) of these children reside in conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS), where they face multiple pressures in terms of lack of access to basic rights, and an accompanying unwillingness on the part of international donors or even local governments to place an emphasis on providing education.
As a result, one in three children in CAFS do not go to school, compared to one in 11 in other low-income countries, according to data compiled by the UK-based charity Save the Children (STC)."
Monday, December 27, 2010
Re Israel: Aah, the penny is dropping!
It is an undeniable fact that the Israel Lobby is so strong in the USA, as also elsewhere, that allegiance and unquestioning loyalty and support for Israel is a given. So, are the comments below from a usual supporter of Israel - no lesser figure than the editor of The New Yorker - to be taken as a sign of frustration with Israel and that steadfast support being shaken? Take it as read that Remick will be accused as "a self-hating Jew".
David Remick in an interview with Yediot:
"Do you see a certain change in the US Jewish community?
A new generation of Jews is growing up in the US. Their relationship with Israel is becoming less patient and more problematic. They see what has happened with the Rabbinical Letter [proscribing rental and sale of property to Arabs -- DR], for example. How long can you expect that they’ll love unconditionally the place called Israel [sic]? You’ve got a problem. You have the status of an occupier since 1967. It’s been happening for so long that even people like me, who understand that not only one side is responsible for the conflict and that the Palestinians missed an historic opportunity for peace in 2000, can’t take it anymore.
“The US administration is trying out of good will to get a peace process moving and in return Israel lays out conditions like the release Jonathan Pollard. Sorry, it can’t go on this way. The Jewish community is not just a nice breakfast at the Regency. You think it’s bad that a US President is trying to make an effort to promote peace? That’s what’s hurting your feelings? Give me a break, you’ve got bigger problems. A shopping list in exchange for a two month moratorium on settlement construction? Jesus [sic].”
David Remick in an interview with Yediot:
"Do you see a certain change in the US Jewish community?
A new generation of Jews is growing up in the US. Their relationship with Israel is becoming less patient and more problematic. They see what has happened with the Rabbinical Letter [proscribing rental and sale of property to Arabs -- DR], for example. How long can you expect that they’ll love unconditionally the place called Israel [sic]? You’ve got a problem. You have the status of an occupier since 1967. It’s been happening for so long that even people like me, who understand that not only one side is responsible for the conflict and that the Palestinians missed an historic opportunity for peace in 2000, can’t take it anymore.
“The US administration is trying out of good will to get a peace process moving and in return Israel lays out conditions like the release Jonathan Pollard. Sorry, it can’t go on this way. The Jewish community is not just a nice breakfast at the Regency. You think it’s bad that a US President is trying to make an effort to promote peace? That’s what’s hurting your feelings? Give me a break, you’ve got bigger problems. A shopping list in exchange for a two month moratorium on settlement construction? Jesus [sic].”
Snow = chaos for those living in a parallel universe
"What we are witnessing on either side of the Channel is the double whammy of a debt-ridden public sector making cuts wherever it can and a bonus-addicted private sector making cuts wherever it’s profitable — with the resultant disaster foisted on a general public now so cowed and coddled and fearful and risk-averse in the age of terror and technology that an inch or two of snow sends everyone into a blind panic.
Add to that dismal stew a pinch of global warming, which some people, including Matthews, apparently took to mean the end of European winters, and you end up with the current farce. Europe, thy name is pitiful. When the budgetary cuts really bite next year, all bets are off."
So writes Roger Cohen, op-ed writer for the IHT and The New York Times as he reflects in his latest column "Snow! Hit the Panic Button" on how London and Paris airports ground to a halt because of severe snow conditions the other day. How was this allowed to happen? he asks. Hasn't it snowed before? And don't other countries cope with these conditions and situations too?
Add to that dismal stew a pinch of global warming, which some people, including Matthews, apparently took to mean the end of European winters, and you end up with the current farce. Europe, thy name is pitiful. When the budgetary cuts really bite next year, all bets are off."
So writes Roger Cohen, op-ed writer for the IHT and The New York Times as he reflects in his latest column "Snow! Hit the Panic Button" on how London and Paris airports ground to a halt because of severe snow conditions the other day. How was this allowed to happen? he asks. Hasn't it snowed before? And don't other countries cope with these conditions and situations too?
America no longer a country of optimism
Oh dear, with all the hype surrounding the lead up and then Obama taking office, it seems that whatever optimism was out there has evaporated so badly to the extent that people are now less optimistic than they were in surveys taken during the Great Depression. All of this doesn't augur well not only for the USA but also the rest of the world.
An op-ed piece from Reuters:
"Optimism is so deeply embedded in the American national psyche that it withstood the Great Depression in the 1930s and a string of recessions since then. But in the era some economists call “the new normal” in America, optimism is fading.
So say public opinion polls that ask Americans how they see the future, theirs and their country’s. One recent survey, by the respected Pew Research Center, found that depression era Americans were more optimistic about economic recovery in the near future than people questioned in a Pew poll this October, when only 35 percent said they expected better economic conditions in a year’s time. In response to a similar question in 1936 and 1937, about half expected general business conditions to improve over the next six months.
The phrase “new normal” was coined by PIMCO, one of the world’s biggest investment funds, and is shorthand for an American future that includes lowered living standards, slow growth and high unemployment. Joblessness now stands at 9.8 percent, up from 9.6 percent in October. Add workers who have given up looking for jobs and people forced to work part time and the rate climbs to 17 percent, a powerful reason for declining optimism.
But it’s not the only one. A slew of studies, surveys and reports show that a growing number of Americans – some surveys say more than half – no longer believe that their country is a land of unlimited opportunity, where all it takes to rise to success is hard work and determination."
An op-ed piece from Reuters:
"Optimism is so deeply embedded in the American national psyche that it withstood the Great Depression in the 1930s and a string of recessions since then. But in the era some economists call “the new normal” in America, optimism is fading.
So say public opinion polls that ask Americans how they see the future, theirs and their country’s. One recent survey, by the respected Pew Research Center, found that depression era Americans were more optimistic about economic recovery in the near future than people questioned in a Pew poll this October, when only 35 percent said they expected better economic conditions in a year’s time. In response to a similar question in 1936 and 1937, about half expected general business conditions to improve over the next six months.
The phrase “new normal” was coined by PIMCO, one of the world’s biggest investment funds, and is shorthand for an American future that includes lowered living standards, slow growth and high unemployment. Joblessness now stands at 9.8 percent, up from 9.6 percent in October. Add workers who have given up looking for jobs and people forced to work part time and the rate climbs to 17 percent, a powerful reason for declining optimism.
But it’s not the only one. A slew of studies, surveys and reports show that a growing number of Americans – some surveys say more than half – no longer believe that their country is a land of unlimited opportunity, where all it takes to rise to success is hard work and determination."
McCarthyism, and more, thrives in Iran
From The Daily Beast a report on growing McCarthyism in Iran. The "free" world - well, overlooking what WikiLeaks has thrown up - should be appalled by what is happening in Iran and protest loud and clear. It seems to be a country almost certainly headed to some sort of uprising by the populace. Bear in mind the very large proportion of the population is under the age of 30.
"When world-renowned filmmaker, Jafar Panahi, was sentenced to six years in prison earlier this week, the verdict reverberated both inside and outside Iran.
Not only did authorities in Tehran hand down an exceptionally harsh sentence, they also decreed that the 50-year-old Panahi will be banned from filmmaking, screenwriting and traveling abroad for the next 20 years. According to his relatives, Panahi has also been banned from talking to the media.
Along with Panahi, Muhammad Rasoulof, another filmmaker involved with Panahi’s movie, was also sentenced to six years in prison."
"When world-renowned filmmaker, Jafar Panahi, was sentenced to six years in prison earlier this week, the verdict reverberated both inside and outside Iran.
Not only did authorities in Tehran hand down an exceptionally harsh sentence, they also decreed that the 50-year-old Panahi will be banned from filmmaking, screenwriting and traveling abroad for the next 20 years. According to his relatives, Panahi has also been banned from talking to the media.
Along with Panahi, Muhammad Rasoulof, another filmmaker involved with Panahi’s movie, was also sentenced to six years in prison."
Sunday, December 26, 2010
An analysis of the response to the WikiLeaks
Trust Glenn Greenwald, lawyer and blogger at Salon, to "do" a thoughtful analysis on the WikiLeaks and the response.
"As revealing as the disclosures themselves are, the reactions to them have been equally revealing. The vast bulk of the outrage has been devoted not to the crimes that have been exposed but rather to those who exposed them: WikiLeaks and (allegedly) Bradley Manning. A consensus quickly emerged in the political and media class that they are Evil Villains who must be severely punished, while those responsible for the acts they revealed are guilty of nothing. That reaction has not been weakened at all even by the Pentagon's own admission that, in stark contrast to its own actions, there is no evidence -- zero -- that any of WikiLeaks' actions has caused even a single death. Meanwhile, the American establishment media -- even in the face of all these revelations -- continues to insist on the contradictory, Orwellian platitudes that (a) there is Nothing New™ in anything disclosed by WikiLeaks and (b) WikiLeaks has done Grave Harm to American National Security™ through its disclosures.
It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded".
"As revealing as the disclosures themselves are, the reactions to them have been equally revealing. The vast bulk of the outrage has been devoted not to the crimes that have been exposed but rather to those who exposed them: WikiLeaks and (allegedly) Bradley Manning. A consensus quickly emerged in the political and media class that they are Evil Villains who must be severely punished, while those responsible for the acts they revealed are guilty of nothing. That reaction has not been weakened at all even by the Pentagon's own admission that, in stark contrast to its own actions, there is no evidence -- zero -- that any of WikiLeaks' actions has caused even a single death. Meanwhile, the American establishment media -- even in the face of all these revelations -- continues to insist on the contradictory, Orwellian platitudes that (a) there is Nothing New™ in anything disclosed by WikiLeaks and (b) WikiLeaks has done Grave Harm to American National Security™ through its disclosures.
It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded".
No winners here
Rannie Amiri, an indpendent Middle East commentator, writing on CounterPunch records who he thinks the people of the year were in the Middle East. It doesn't make for happy reading.
The 2010 Middle East People of the Year are:
"The Palestinians in Gaza, desperate to let the world know that nearly two years after the end of the 2008-2009 war, the cruel embargo on the territory persists; the siege by air, land and sea continues; and the impoverished population is still held captive in their land.
The Bahraini Shia, the island’s indigent and marginalized majority, ruled by the wealthy Sunni al-Khalifa royal family who routinely orders an imported security service to round up and torture democracy and human rights advocates. Excluded from government, the public sector and law enforcement by overt sectarian discrimination, they have risked life and limb to protest their disenfranchised state.
The Egyptians, who have suffocated under a repressive U.S.-backed regime that has governed by Emergency Law for 30 years and stifled the freedom of expression, assembly and press. The inability to replace their parliamentary representatives by a fair ballot this year makes voting a cruel reminder that the “status quo” is the only candidate ever up for election.
The Iraqis, who endured seven years of occupation and a few daily hours of electricity under a blistering summer sun as unrelenting as the explosions, bombings and suicide attacks that wracked cities and killed thousands. The simple will to stroll on neighborhood streets, take a trip to the market, drop the children off at school or attend Friday prayers are testaments to bravery that should put Iraqi politicians only interested in retaining power to shame.
The Saudi Ismaili, Shia and Sufi Muslims, harassed, arrested and jailed for practicing their religion or demanding the right to do so. The doors of their mosques have been sealed shut by the Interior Ministry as has the potential for civic and socioeconomic advancement. They are the “apostates” denied basic dignities enjoyed by other citizens.
The Yemenis of Saada governorate, who became the malnourished “internally displaced” refugees caught in the country’s long civil war. Pummeled by Saudi airstrikes to the north and shelled by Yemen’s army from the south, they suffered famine and destruction in a humanitarian catastrophe ignored by the world.
The 2010 Mideast People of the Year? The Oppressed."
The 2010 Middle East People of the Year are:
"The Palestinians in Gaza, desperate to let the world know that nearly two years after the end of the 2008-2009 war, the cruel embargo on the territory persists; the siege by air, land and sea continues; and the impoverished population is still held captive in their land.
The Bahraini Shia, the island’s indigent and marginalized majority, ruled by the wealthy Sunni al-Khalifa royal family who routinely orders an imported security service to round up and torture democracy and human rights advocates. Excluded from government, the public sector and law enforcement by overt sectarian discrimination, they have risked life and limb to protest their disenfranchised state.
The Egyptians, who have suffocated under a repressive U.S.-backed regime that has governed by Emergency Law for 30 years and stifled the freedom of expression, assembly and press. The inability to replace their parliamentary representatives by a fair ballot this year makes voting a cruel reminder that the “status quo” is the only candidate ever up for election.
The Iraqis, who endured seven years of occupation and a few daily hours of electricity under a blistering summer sun as unrelenting as the explosions, bombings and suicide attacks that wracked cities and killed thousands. The simple will to stroll on neighborhood streets, take a trip to the market, drop the children off at school or attend Friday prayers are testaments to bravery that should put Iraqi politicians only interested in retaining power to shame.
The Saudi Ismaili, Shia and Sufi Muslims, harassed, arrested and jailed for practicing their religion or demanding the right to do so. The doors of their mosques have been sealed shut by the Interior Ministry as has the potential for civic and socioeconomic advancement. They are the “apostates” denied basic dignities enjoyed by other citizens.
The Yemenis of Saada governorate, who became the malnourished “internally displaced” refugees caught in the country’s long civil war. Pummeled by Saudi airstrikes to the north and shelled by Yemen’s army from the south, they suffered famine and destruction in a humanitarian catastrophe ignored by the world.
The 2010 Mideast People of the Year? The Oppressed."
Saturday, December 25, 2010
The overlooked and under-appreciated heroes of 2010
As some in the world sit down to celebrate Xmas cheer and the new year is around the corner, what better way than reflect on those who in 2010 were overlooked for what they did or perhaps seen as under-achievers. Well, Johann Hari, writing in The Independent has taken on the task.....
"Who did we under-appreciate in 2010? In the endless whirr of 24/7 corporate news, the people who actually make a difference are often trampled in the stampede to the next forgettable news-nugget like Lady Gaga's meat-dress. So in the final moments of this year, let's look at a few people who deserved more of our attention."
Continue reading here to see Hari's list.
"Who did we under-appreciate in 2010? In the endless whirr of 24/7 corporate news, the people who actually make a difference are often trampled in the stampede to the next forgettable news-nugget like Lady Gaga's meat-dress. So in the final moments of this year, let's look at a few people who deserved more of our attention."
Continue reading here to see Hari's list.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Afghanistan Report: The things not said or questioned
Stephen Walt, writing his blog on FP, rightly points to the things left unsaid or unanswered in the Obama Administration's recent report and assessment of the war in Afghanistan.
"But what's missing in all this role-playing was a clear and convincing statement of costs and benefits. For all the talk of defeating al Qaeda (which isn't in Afghanistan any more), or preventing "safe havens," the administration scrupulously avoided the question of whether the money spent, lives lost, and presidential time consumed is worth it in terms of advancing core American interests. While parsing the evidence that it is making progress, the administration carefully avoids the question of whether the resources devoted to achieving something that might be defined as "success" are worth spending. Similarly, it avoids asking whether the costs of disengagement would be all that significant; it simply assumes that getting out would lead to catastrophe. So it just repeats the usual affirmations that "we must...." and "we will...." while avoiding the far more important issue of whether we should. Our German allies appear to have asked themselves that question, and come up with a different answer."
"But what's missing in all this role-playing was a clear and convincing statement of costs and benefits. For all the talk of defeating al Qaeda (which isn't in Afghanistan any more), or preventing "safe havens," the administration scrupulously avoided the question of whether the money spent, lives lost, and presidential time consumed is worth it in terms of advancing core American interests. While parsing the evidence that it is making progress, the administration carefully avoids the question of whether the resources devoted to achieving something that might be defined as "success" are worth spending. Similarly, it avoids asking whether the costs of disengagement would be all that significant; it simply assumes that getting out would lead to catastrophe. So it just repeats the usual affirmations that "we must...." and "we will...." while avoiding the far more important issue of whether we should. Our German allies appear to have asked themselves that question, and come up with a different answer."
A retrograde step. Obama does it again
For a man who campaigned as he did for the presidency - and in the process was sharply critical of the Bush Administration's policies - and as a lawyer to boot, Obama has turned out to be a great disappointment . In many respects he is worse than George Bush. We now learn that Obama is going to permit indefinite detention without trial. Two words for it - disgraceful and scandalous!
"The Obama administration, ProPublica's Dafna Linzer first reported, is about to issue an executive order that gives shape, contour and future life to indefinite detention for Guantánamo detainees. The order will provide for the continual detention of several dozen detainees – who will have access lawyers in order to periodically contest their detention.
On one level, we shouldn't be surprised. In what has become a signature method of the Obama administration, the bad news was trotted out as an idea well ahead of time. In May of 2009, President Obama let it be known that indefinite detention was among the options that the administration would likely embrace in its efforts to close Guantánamo. Now, as their calculation may have predicted, what was once an unsavoury idea barely causes a ripple in the fabric of public opinion. Overshadowed by the continuing focus on the economy, and reflecting a growing callousness towards civil liberties issues in the "war on terror", the public will likely greet the announcement with numbness.
But there is more to be worried about than meets the eye. The problem is not just the disturbing fact that the Obama policy perpetuates a piece of the Bush detention regime. Indefinite detention was the very heart of the Bush policy. The idea that the United States could hold individuals, refuse to classify them in any recognised legal category and thereby deny them rights, was the doorway to a host of unacceptable policies, including enhanced interrogation techniques, excessive periods of solitary confinement (apart from interrogation), disappearances to "black sites", and most of all, the refusal to confront squarely the distinction between guilt and innocence. The several dozen individuals whom the Obama administration intends to hold are among those they believe there is insufficient evidence to convict. If the judgment of guilt is not certain, then these men cannot be tried."
"The Obama administration, ProPublica's Dafna Linzer first reported, is about to issue an executive order that gives shape, contour and future life to indefinite detention for Guantánamo detainees. The order will provide for the continual detention of several dozen detainees – who will have access lawyers in order to periodically contest their detention.
On one level, we shouldn't be surprised. In what has become a signature method of the Obama administration, the bad news was trotted out as an idea well ahead of time. In May of 2009, President Obama let it be known that indefinite detention was among the options that the administration would likely embrace in its efforts to close Guantánamo. Now, as their calculation may have predicted, what was once an unsavoury idea barely causes a ripple in the fabric of public opinion. Overshadowed by the continuing focus on the economy, and reflecting a growing callousness towards civil liberties issues in the "war on terror", the public will likely greet the announcement with numbness.
But there is more to be worried about than meets the eye. The problem is not just the disturbing fact that the Obama policy perpetuates a piece of the Bush detention regime. Indefinite detention was the very heart of the Bush policy. The idea that the United States could hold individuals, refuse to classify them in any recognised legal category and thereby deny them rights, was the doorway to a host of unacceptable policies, including enhanced interrogation techniques, excessive periods of solitary confinement (apart from interrogation), disappearances to "black sites", and most of all, the refusal to confront squarely the distinction between guilt and innocence. The several dozen individuals whom the Obama administration intends to hold are among those they believe there is insufficient evidence to convict. If the judgment of guilt is not certain, then these men cannot be tried."
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
On the road......
MPS is hitting the road.....and subject to not being snowed in somewhere, plane delays and all the rest of the fun which goes with travel [take the body scans at US airports as but one example] MPS will continue posting regularly from around the globe - and, perhaps, with a foreign flavor to boot.
Islamophobia in 2010
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Daily Beast, the Nation, the Huffington Post, the Independent Film Channel, Salon.com, Al Jazeera English, and other publications. He is a writing fellow for the Nation Institute and author of the bestselling book Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party (Nation Books).
He takes up the subject of what he describes as an islamophobic crusade in a piece on TomDispatch:
"Nine years after 9/11, hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country. With it has gone an outburst of arson attacks on mosques, campaigns to stop their construction, and the branding of the Muslim-American community, overwhelmingly moderate, as a hotbed of potential terrorist recruits. The frenzy has raged from rural Tennessee to New York City, while in Oklahoma, voters even overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure banning the implementation of Sharia law in American courts (not that such a prospect existed). This campaign of Islamophobia wounded President Obama politically, as one out of five Americans have bought into a sustained chorus of false rumors about his secret Muslim faith. And it may have tainted views of Muslims in general; an August 2010 Pew Research Center poll revealed that, among Americans, the favorability rating of Muslims had dropped by 11 points since 2005."
He takes up the subject of what he describes as an islamophobic crusade in a piece on TomDispatch:
"Nine years after 9/11, hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country. With it has gone an outburst of arson attacks on mosques, campaigns to stop their construction, and the branding of the Muslim-American community, overwhelmingly moderate, as a hotbed of potential terrorist recruits. The frenzy has raged from rural Tennessee to New York City, while in Oklahoma, voters even overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure banning the implementation of Sharia law in American courts (not that such a prospect existed). This campaign of Islamophobia wounded President Obama politically, as one out of five Americans have bought into a sustained chorus of false rumors about his secret Muslim faith. And it may have tainted views of Muslims in general; an August 2010 Pew Research Center poll revealed that, among Americans, the favorability rating of Muslims had dropped by 11 points since 2005."
The latest Q & A with the man of the moment, Julian Assange
A Q & A with Julian Assange, now holed up, on restricted bail, in a mansion in freezing London.
A typical Q & A:
"Do you see yourself as a journalist or crusader?
I see myself predominantly as a publisher. That's quite an interestingly play, but has been done in the US. Removing the political protection that journalists afford one another and the legal protection that the First Amendment affords publishers throws up the question: "Am I a journalist or what?" That is not really the question as far as law is concerned. The law is interested in "am I a publisher or not". And without doubt, I am a publisher and editor. I still do some writing. I have been promoted up into managing other people. Hence, the best description would be publisher and editor-in-chief."
Continue reading here.
A typical Q & A:
"Do you see yourself as a journalist or crusader?
I see myself predominantly as a publisher. That's quite an interestingly play, but has been done in the US. Removing the political protection that journalists afford one another and the legal protection that the First Amendment affords publishers throws up the question: "Am I a journalist or what?" That is not really the question as far as law is concerned. The law is interested in "am I a publisher or not". And without doubt, I am a publisher and editor. I still do some writing. I have been promoted up into managing other people. Hence, the best description would be publisher and editor-in-chief."
Continue reading here.
Obama: His year in the Middle East
Juan Cole, expert in Middle East affairs, writing on truthdig, assesses Obama's successes and failure in the Middle East during 2010:
"This was the year, then, that Iran again won the struggle for influence in Iraq; the year the Israelis sabotaged a revived peace process; the year Iran went on thumbing its nose at the international community with regard to its nuclear enrichment program; and the year that the government in Afghanistan lost a good deal of its credibility. Obama should get credit for good intentions, and talking directly to the major principals. But he appears never to have appreciated the lessons taught by Jimmy Carter at Camp David in 1978, which is that a big geopolitical breakthrough can be accomplished only if the president inserts himself directly into the negotiations and lays his own political capital on the line. Obama has seemed relatively distant from these pressing Middle East issues, and farmed some of them out to subordinates. They are not the sort of problems that can be resolved in that way."
"This was the year, then, that Iran again won the struggle for influence in Iraq; the year the Israelis sabotaged a revived peace process; the year Iran went on thumbing its nose at the international community with regard to its nuclear enrichment program; and the year that the government in Afghanistan lost a good deal of its credibility. Obama should get credit for good intentions, and talking directly to the major principals. But he appears never to have appreciated the lessons taught by Jimmy Carter at Camp David in 1978, which is that a big geopolitical breakthrough can be accomplished only if the president inserts himself directly into the negotiations and lays his own political capital on the line. Obama has seemed relatively distant from these pressing Middle East issues, and farmed some of them out to subordinates. They are not the sort of problems that can be resolved in that way."
No knowledge base there
It is always frightening to realise how inward looking Americans can be. And, all too sadly - no doubt because they are so poorly served by the media, across the board - most Americans are lamentably ignorant about what is happening outside their own borders.
The New York Times reports on the latest survey by the Pew Research Centre on what Americans are having "served up"to them news-wise:
"As the Obama administration conducted an Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy review this month, the news media did too, and the coverage came peppered with question marks.
The same week that ABC News scheduled a series of segments titled “Afghanistan: Can We Win?,” Katie Couric of the “CBS Evening News” devoted six minutes to a special report, “Can This War Be Won?”
A recent headline atop New York magazine repeated a question asked by dozens of opinion writers this year — and last year, and the year before — “Why Are We in Afghanistan?”
The questions reflect the complex nature of the Afghan war, and of the news coverage.
The grueling war there, where a day rarely goes by without an allied casualty, is like a faint heartbeat, accounting for just 4 percent of the nation’s news coverage in major outlets through early December, according to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, an arm of the Pew Research Center.
That is down slightly from last year, when the war accounted for 5 percent."
The New York Times reports on the latest survey by the Pew Research Centre on what Americans are having "served up"to them news-wise:
"As the Obama administration conducted an Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy review this month, the news media did too, and the coverage came peppered with question marks.
The same week that ABC News scheduled a series of segments titled “Afghanistan: Can We Win?,” Katie Couric of the “CBS Evening News” devoted six minutes to a special report, “Can This War Be Won?”
A recent headline atop New York magazine repeated a question asked by dozens of opinion writers this year — and last year, and the year before — “Why Are We in Afghanistan?”
The questions reflect the complex nature of the Afghan war, and of the news coverage.
The grueling war there, where a day rarely goes by without an allied casualty, is like a faint heartbeat, accounting for just 4 percent of the nation’s news coverage in major outlets through early December, according to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, an arm of the Pew Research Center.
That is down slightly from last year, when the war accounted for 5 percent."
2011 isn't looking too good for 100 US cities
If you thought that things are looking up in the American economy, think again. A financial pundit predicts that up to 100 American cities could go bust in 2011.
"More than 100 American cities could go bust next year as the debt crisis that has taken down banks and countries threatens next to spark a municipal meltdown, a leading analyst has warned.
Meredith Whitney, the US research analyst who correctly predicted the global credit crunch, described local and state debt as the biggest problem facing the US economy, and one that could derail its recovery.
"Next to housing this is the single most important issue in the US and certainly the biggest threat to the US economy," Whitney told the CBS 60 Minutes programme on Sunday night.
"There's not a doubt on my mind that you will see a spate of municipal bond defaults. You can see fifty to a hundred sizeable defaults – more. This will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of defaults."
"More than 100 American cities could go bust next year as the debt crisis that has taken down banks and countries threatens next to spark a municipal meltdown, a leading analyst has warned.
Meredith Whitney, the US research analyst who correctly predicted the global credit crunch, described local and state debt as the biggest problem facing the US economy, and one that could derail its recovery.
"Next to housing this is the single most important issue in the US and certainly the biggest threat to the US economy," Whitney told the CBS 60 Minutes programme on Sunday night.
"There's not a doubt on my mind that you will see a spate of municipal bond defaults. You can see fifty to a hundred sizeable defaults – more. This will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of defaults."
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Human Rights Watch: On Israel's discriminatory and harsh policies
The Israelis will in their customary manner take a stick to the latest Human Rights Watch Report on its treatment of the Palestinians - but it cannot be ignored by any fair-minded person in the way it details the widespread discrimination and harsh treatment meted out to the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
"Israeli policies in the West Bank harshly discriminate against Palestinian residents, depriving them of basic necessities while providing lavish amenities for Jewish settlements, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The report identifies discriminatory practices that have no legitimate security or other justification and calls on Israel, in addition to abiding by its international legal obligation to withdraw the settlements, to end these violations of Palestinians' rights.
The 166-page report, "Separate and Unequal: Israel's Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories," shows that Israel operates a two-tier system for the two populations of the West Bank in the large areas where it exercises exclusive control. The report is based on case studies comparing Israel's starkly different treatment of settlements and next-door Palestinian communities in these areas. It calls on the US and EU member states and on businesses with operations in settlement areas to avoid supporting Israeli settlement policies that are inherently discriminatory and that violate international law.
"Palestinians face systematic discrimination merely because of their race, ethnicity, and national origin, depriving them of electricity, water, schools, and access to roads, while nearby Jewish settlers enjoy all of these state-provided benefits," said Carroll Bogert, deputy executive director for external relations at Human Rights Watch. "While Israeli settlements flourish, Palestinians under Israeli control live in a time warp - not just separate, not just unequal, but sometimes even pushed off their lands and out of their homes."
"Israeli policies in the West Bank harshly discriminate against Palestinian residents, depriving them of basic necessities while providing lavish amenities for Jewish settlements, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The report identifies discriminatory practices that have no legitimate security or other justification and calls on Israel, in addition to abiding by its international legal obligation to withdraw the settlements, to end these violations of Palestinians' rights.
The 166-page report, "Separate and Unequal: Israel's Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories," shows that Israel operates a two-tier system for the two populations of the West Bank in the large areas where it exercises exclusive control. The report is based on case studies comparing Israel's starkly different treatment of settlements and next-door Palestinian communities in these areas. It calls on the US and EU member states and on businesses with operations in settlement areas to avoid supporting Israeli settlement policies that are inherently discriminatory and that violate international law.
"Palestinians face systematic discrimination merely because of their race, ethnicity, and national origin, depriving them of electricity, water, schools, and access to roads, while nearby Jewish settlers enjoy all of these state-provided benefits," said Carroll Bogert, deputy executive director for external relations at Human Rights Watch. "While Israeli settlements flourish, Palestinians under Israeli control live in a time warp - not just separate, not just unequal, but sometimes even pushed off their lands and out of their homes."
Monday, December 20, 2010
The dangers of being a blogger
The life of a blogger can be downright dangerous if he or she is in the "wrong" country. William Fisher, writing on truthout, highlights the plight, some of it more than severe, of some bloggers in various countries around the world.
"Nay Phone Latt's treatment (in Burma) is emblematic of a deadly virus sweeping across the world and spreading its pathogens to any place where an authoritarian, totalitarian government holds power. These despots have quickly learned the contemporary Internet social networking techniques used by their subjects and have moved in with a heavy hand to suppress these free expressions."
Read the complete piece here.
"Nay Phone Latt's treatment (in Burma) is emblematic of a deadly virus sweeping across the world and spreading its pathogens to any place where an authoritarian, totalitarian government holds power. These despots have quickly learned the contemporary Internet social networking techniques used by their subjects and have moved in with a heavy hand to suppress these free expressions."
Read the complete piece here.
Obama takes on board more mercenaries than Bush
Obama is a puzzle. Here is the one-time law professor who promised all manner of things in the election campaign - and in the process was more than critical of George Bush for most of his actions - and now we learn that he, Obama, has outsourced more counter-insurgency work than even Bush did. More of the Blackwaters of this world!
"Without much notice or debate, the Obama administration has greatly expanded the outsourcing of key parts of the U.S.-led counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East and Africa, and as a result, for its secretive air war and special operations missions around the world, the U.S. has become increasingly reliant on a new breed of specialized companies that are virtually unknown to the American public, yet carry out vital U.S. missions abroad."
"Without much notice or debate, the Obama administration has greatly expanded the outsourcing of key parts of the U.S.-led counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East and Africa, and as a result, for its secretive air war and special operations missions around the world, the U.S. has become increasingly reliant on a new breed of specialized companies that are virtually unknown to the American public, yet carry out vital U.S. missions abroad."
Sunday, December 19, 2010
It looks more and more like apartheid, says an Israeli
Nothing new in people accusing Israel having an apartheid regime in place. How else to describe roads for the exclusive use of Israelis? - and not Palestinians - and laws which actively discriminate against non-Israelis or don't confer the same benefits as those available to Israeli citizens.
From an op-ed piece in Forward, a Jewish publication out of the USA, by an Israeli military historian:
"Keeping all these facts in mind — and provided that Israel maintains its military strength and builds a wall to stop suicide bombers — it is crystal-clear that Israel can easily afford to give up the West Bank. Strategically speaking, the risk of doing so is negligible. What is not negligible is the demographic, social, cultural and political challenge that ruling over 2.5 million — nobody knows exactly how many — occupied Palestinians in the West Bank poses. Should Israeli rule over them continue, then the country will definitely turn into what it is already fast becoming: namely, an apartheid state that can only maintain its control by means of repressive secret police actions.
To save itself from such a fate, Israel should rid itself of the West Bank, most of Arab Jerusalem specifically included. If possible, it should do so by agreement with the Palestinian Authority; if not, then it should proceed unilaterally, as the — in my view, very successful — withdrawal from Gaza suggests. Or else I would strongly advise my children and grandson to seek some other, less purblind and less stiff-necked, country to live in."
From an op-ed piece in Forward, a Jewish publication out of the USA, by an Israeli military historian:
"Keeping all these facts in mind — and provided that Israel maintains its military strength and builds a wall to stop suicide bombers — it is crystal-clear that Israel can easily afford to give up the West Bank. Strategically speaking, the risk of doing so is negligible. What is not negligible is the demographic, social, cultural and political challenge that ruling over 2.5 million — nobody knows exactly how many — occupied Palestinians in the West Bank poses. Should Israeli rule over them continue, then the country will definitely turn into what it is already fast becoming: namely, an apartheid state that can only maintain its control by means of repressive secret police actions.
To save itself from such a fate, Israel should rid itself of the West Bank, most of Arab Jerusalem specifically included. If possible, it should do so by agreement with the Palestinian Authority; if not, then it should proceed unilaterally, as the — in my view, very successful — withdrawal from Gaza suggests. Or else I would strongly advise my children and grandson to seek some other, less purblind and less stiff-necked, country to live in."
Your mobile may be transmitting your private info
Nothing is secure anymore despite all the technology out there said to protect one from preying eyes or downright hacking of data bases.
Now The Wall Street Journal reports in "Your Apps Are Watching You" that iPhones and Androids may be sharing their secrets with third parties.
"Few devices know more personal details about people than the smartphones in their pockets: phone numbers, current location, often the owner's real name—even a unique ID number that can never be changed or turned off.
These phones don't keep secrets. They are sharing this personal data widely and regularly, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found.
An examination of 101 popular smartphone "apps"—games and other software applications for iPhone and Android phones—showed that 56 transmitted the phone's unique device ID to other companies without users' awareness or consent. Forty-seven apps transmitted the phone's location in some way. Five sent age, gender and other personal details to outsiders.
The findings reveal the intrusive effort by online-tracking companies to gather personal data about people in order to flesh out detailed dossiers on them."
Now The Wall Street Journal reports in "Your Apps Are Watching You" that iPhones and Androids may be sharing their secrets with third parties.
"Few devices know more personal details about people than the smartphones in their pockets: phone numbers, current location, often the owner's real name—even a unique ID number that can never be changed or turned off.
These phones don't keep secrets. They are sharing this personal data widely and regularly, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found.
An examination of 101 popular smartphone "apps"—games and other software applications for iPhone and Android phones—showed that 56 transmitted the phone's unique device ID to other companies without users' awareness or consent. Forty-seven apps transmitted the phone's location in some way. Five sent age, gender and other personal details to outsiders.
The findings reveal the intrusive effort by online-tracking companies to gather personal data about people in order to flesh out detailed dossiers on them."
They just don't get it! And then there is the blinker-appoach
Officialdom just doesn't get it. In an age of easy access to media, and now the dimension of the Wikileaks, one might have thought that government personal, politicians and officials, have realised that obfuscation and evasion is simply not acceptable. The public won't accept it any more.
Of course in the situation of the State Department briefing in this clip, it is obvious that the USA simply doesn't want "to go there" - that is, address a very touchy subject relating to Israel. Watch and squirm.
Of course in the situation of the State Department briefing in this clip, it is obvious that the USA simply doesn't want "to go there" - that is, address a very touchy subject relating to Israel. Watch and squirm.
You will empathise
Assuming severe weather isn't going to disrupt your travel plans this holiday season this piece by Stephen Walt on his blog on FP - and not writing on politics this time - will resonate with anyone who has had to negotiate airports and flying in general, especially in the US.
"Jet travel still strikes me as slightly miraculous, and despite having visited over forty countries, I still get a certain gee-whiz feeling whenever I'm headed for the international terminal at Logan airport (even though the terminal itself is nothing for Boston to boast about).
As you've probably noticed, however, the Powers That Be are doing their best to destroy that pleasant tingle of anticipation. Just when you thought they couldn't find another way to make air travel more annoying and degrading, somebody comes up with a new method to drive us crazy. So having just flown twelve-plus hours from Boston to Kuwait (via London), I'm going to indulge in a short rant: the Top Five Things that Make Air Travel Infuriating."
Keep reading here.
"Jet travel still strikes me as slightly miraculous, and despite having visited over forty countries, I still get a certain gee-whiz feeling whenever I'm headed for the international terminal at Logan airport (even though the terminal itself is nothing for Boston to boast about).
As you've probably noticed, however, the Powers That Be are doing their best to destroy that pleasant tingle of anticipation. Just when you thought they couldn't find another way to make air travel more annoying and degrading, somebody comes up with a new method to drive us crazy. So having just flown twelve-plus hours from Boston to Kuwait (via London), I'm going to indulge in a short rant: the Top Five Things that Make Air Travel Infuriating."
Keep reading here.
And you thought you were safe!
From CommonDreams a piece which should not assure you that you are safe as you travel this holiday season. It's all smoke and mirrors."TSA screeners at Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport were apparently too busy checking out the neighborhood junk to notice a guy's loaded .40 caliber handgun in his computer bag, which he inadvertently carried onto his flight. Officials said after the incident screeners got "remedial instruction" - presumably, as in: "This is a gun." Recent tests show that screeners miss most of this stuff. Are we feeling safe yet?"
Freedom! Just don't protest, even if you are a kid
The fall-out post 9/11 continues. Politicians still don't get it! You can't simply label everything terrorism, or the like, and try and prevent protests about this or that, however peaceful - unless your not democracy that is. It seems that even kids are are being warned off protesting, as Johann Hari explains in this piece in The Independent:
"So now we know. When our politicians complained over the past few decades, in a low, sad tone, that our young people were “too apathetic” and “disengaged”, it was a lie. A great flaring re-engagement of the young has take place this year. With overwhelmingly peaceful tactics, they are demanding policies that are supported by the majority of the British people – and our rulers are trying to truncheon, kettle and intimidate them back into apathy.
Here’s one example of the intimidation of peaceful protest by the young that is happening all over Britain. Nicky Wishart is a 12-year-old self-described “maths geek” who lives in the heart of David Cameron’s constituency. He was gutted when he found out his youth club was being shut down as part of the cuts: there’s nowhere else to hang out in his village. He was particularly outraged when he discovered online that Cameron had said, before the election, that he was “committed” to keeping youth clubs open. So he did the right thing. He organized a totally peaceful protest on Facebook outside Cameron’s constituency surgery. A few days later, the police arrived at his school. They hauled him out of his lessons, told him the anti-terrorism squad was monitoring him and threatened him with arrest.
The message to Nicky Wishart and his generation is very clear: don’t get any fancy ideas about being an engaged citizen. Go back to your X-Box and X-Factor, and leave politics to the millionaires in charge."
"So now we know. When our politicians complained over the past few decades, in a low, sad tone, that our young people were “too apathetic” and “disengaged”, it was a lie. A great flaring re-engagement of the young has take place this year. With overwhelmingly peaceful tactics, they are demanding policies that are supported by the majority of the British people – and our rulers are trying to truncheon, kettle and intimidate them back into apathy.
Here’s one example of the intimidation of peaceful protest by the young that is happening all over Britain. Nicky Wishart is a 12-year-old self-described “maths geek” who lives in the heart of David Cameron’s constituency. He was gutted when he found out his youth club was being shut down as part of the cuts: there’s nowhere else to hang out in his village. He was particularly outraged when he discovered online that Cameron had said, before the election, that he was “committed” to keeping youth clubs open. So he did the right thing. He organized a totally peaceful protest on Facebook outside Cameron’s constituency surgery. A few days later, the police arrived at his school. They hauled him out of his lessons, told him the anti-terrorism squad was monitoring him and threatened him with arrest.
The message to Nicky Wishart and his generation is very clear: don’t get any fancy ideas about being an engaged citizen. Go back to your X-Box and X-Factor, and leave politics to the millionaires in charge."
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Two humanitarians make a plea to end child marriages
Two stalwarts for humanity, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mary Robinson, make a plea to end child marriages. The argument is not only compelling but unassailable.
"Sadly, millions of girls worldwide have little or no choice about when and whom they marry. One in three girls in the developing world is married before she is 18 - one in seven before she is 15. The reasons vary: custom, poverty and lack of education all play a part. Boys are married young, too, but a far greater number of girls are affected and it has a much more devastating impact on their lives.
Because they are young, child brides are relatively powerless in their families and often lack access to health information. This makes them more vulnerable to serious injury and death in childbirth - the leading cause of death in girls aged 15 to 19 in the developing world.
We know that empowering girls is one of the most effective ways to improve the health and prosperity of societies. Child marriage perpetuates poverty by keeping girls, their children and their communities poor."
"Sadly, millions of girls worldwide have little or no choice about when and whom they marry. One in three girls in the developing world is married before she is 18 - one in seven before she is 15. The reasons vary: custom, poverty and lack of education all play a part. Boys are married young, too, but a far greater number of girls are affected and it has a much more devastating impact on their lives.
Because they are young, child brides are relatively powerless in their families and often lack access to health information. This makes them more vulnerable to serious injury and death in childbirth - the leading cause of death in girls aged 15 to 19 in the developing world.
We know that empowering girls is one of the most effective ways to improve the health and prosperity of societies. Child marriage perpetuates poverty by keeping girls, their children and their communities poor."
Friday, December 17, 2010
Oh yeah?
Credited to Lindsay Foyle, New Matilda
Do yourself a favour and subscribe to New Matilda. For an alternative and well-worth reading pieces with an analysis of things going on in the world you will find few better mags.
Depends on who you listen to: Obama v The Red Cross
Listen to Obama today and the message is that things are pretty well OK and on track in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, the International Red Cross has a different take, as The Age reports:
"Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated to its worst point since the overthrow of the Taliban nine years ago and is preventing aid groups from reaching victims, the International Committee of the Red Cross says.
''The sheer fact the ICRC has organised a press conference is an expression of us being extremely concerned of yet another year of fighting with dramatic consequences for an ever-growing number of people in … almost the entire country,'' said Reto Stocker, the head of the Red Cross in Kabul.
By every measure that the Red Cross tracks, the situation has worsened for civilian casualties, internal displacement and healthcare - all of it ''against the background of a proliferation of armed actors'', Mr Stocker said."
On the other hand, the International Red Cross has a different take, as The Age reports:
"Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated to its worst point since the overthrow of the Taliban nine years ago and is preventing aid groups from reaching victims, the International Committee of the Red Cross says.
''The sheer fact the ICRC has organised a press conference is an expression of us being extremely concerned of yet another year of fighting with dramatic consequences for an ever-growing number of people in … almost the entire country,'' said Reto Stocker, the head of the Red Cross in Kabul.
By every measure that the Red Cross tracks, the situation has worsened for civilian casualties, internal displacement and healthcare - all of it ''against the background of a proliferation of armed actors'', Mr Stocker said."
The WikiLeaks stir a hornet's nest
The ramifications and implications of the still on-going WikiLeaks continue. Who controls what? And if there are controls in place in relation to the web, why should there be and who ought to be the arbiter? Where does free speech come into all of this?
"The most important legacy of the WikiLeaks affair will almost surely be the rapidly escalating cyberwar that the group’s renegade disclosures have sparked. If you think you’re unaffected by unseen “battles” fought with keystrokes instead of bullets, you’re wrong.
At stake are issues of free speech, censorship, privacy, piracy, sovereignty and corporate power. We may know what we think about these concepts, but applying real-world logic to the Internet leads to unacceptable conclusions—such as sympathy for the goons in Iran or China who suppress anti-government political speech. This is, of course, out of the question. Which means sympathy for WikiLeaks nihilists who don’t deserve it."
****
"When Iranian protesters were challenging the thuggish regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs last year, censors managed to shut down television coverage. But the world learned what was happening via Facebook and Twitter. Likewise, those Internet sites—Facebook has more than 500 million users worldwide, and Twitter an estimated 200 million—are important conduits for pro-democracy advocates in places such as China and Cuba.
So who gives executives of private companies the right to decide that some unapproved speech will be encouraged and some will be suppressed? Do we want the people who run Amazon, PayPal, Facebook, Twitter or perhaps even—shudder—Microsoft, Apple or Google making political decisions on our behalf?
For my part, I don’t think I do. It seems to me that especially as Internet firms reach near-monopoly status, we should be increasingly uncomfortable with them making political decisions of any kind—even those with which we might agree.
I don’t particularly enjoy defending Assange, WikiLeaks or a bunch of irresponsible hackers. But I don’t want the companies that regulate interaction and commerce on the Internet deciding whose views are acceptable and whose are not. The “terms of service” agreement that should take precedence is the First Amendment."
"The most important legacy of the WikiLeaks affair will almost surely be the rapidly escalating cyberwar that the group’s renegade disclosures have sparked. If you think you’re unaffected by unseen “battles” fought with keystrokes instead of bullets, you’re wrong.
At stake are issues of free speech, censorship, privacy, piracy, sovereignty and corporate power. We may know what we think about these concepts, but applying real-world logic to the Internet leads to unacceptable conclusions—such as sympathy for the goons in Iran or China who suppress anti-government political speech. This is, of course, out of the question. Which means sympathy for WikiLeaks nihilists who don’t deserve it."
****
"When Iranian protesters were challenging the thuggish regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs last year, censors managed to shut down television coverage. But the world learned what was happening via Facebook and Twitter. Likewise, those Internet sites—Facebook has more than 500 million users worldwide, and Twitter an estimated 200 million—are important conduits for pro-democracy advocates in places such as China and Cuba.
So who gives executives of private companies the right to decide that some unapproved speech will be encouraged and some will be suppressed? Do we want the people who run Amazon, PayPal, Facebook, Twitter or perhaps even—shudder—Microsoft, Apple or Google making political decisions on our behalf?
For my part, I don’t think I do. It seems to me that especially as Internet firms reach near-monopoly status, we should be increasingly uncomfortable with them making political decisions of any kind—even those with which we might agree.
I don’t particularly enjoy defending Assange, WikiLeaks or a bunch of irresponsible hackers. But I don’t want the companies that regulate interaction and commerce on the Internet deciding whose views are acceptable and whose are not. The “terms of service” agreement that should take precedence is the First Amendment."
Watching Fox News makes one stupid
On one level not surprising but yet there is a stat which proves that watching Fox News makes one more stupid.
"Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.
So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day."
"Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.
So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day."
Immoral and inhuman
Cesar Chelala, MD, PhD, is an international public health consultant and an award-winning writer on human rights and foreign policy issues.
Writing in "Palestinian Children Vs. the IDF" on CommonDreams Chelala tackles head-on the often-repeated and now almost a mantra of the Israeli Defence Force how it is the most moral army in the world.
"The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is among the strongest armies in the world. According to Israeli Defense Minister Ehuda Barak, it is also one the most moral ones. One wouldn't know that for its treatment of Palestinian children. On December 13, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) stated that the Israeli military and police were violating Israeli law by detaining Palestinian children, some as young as seven years old, and interrogating them. This last denunciation follows an equally serious one of Palestinian children being sexually abused by Israeli police officers.
"They [the police] hit me and dragged along the floor. They handcuffed me with these plastic handcuffs which are very tight. I was very scared. Only when my father came they stopped," Muslim Odeh, an 11-year-old Palestinian, told the BBC. His charges were strongly denied by the Israeli police.
According to the Geneva-based Defence for Children International (DCI) they have 100 sworn affidavits from Palestinian children who said that they were mistreated by their Israeli captors. Fourteen among them say that they were sexually abused or threatened with sexual assault to pressure them into confession.
In 2009 alone, Defence of Children International (DCI) reviewed 100 sworn affidavits which showed 81% of them were coerced into confessions, 14% were kept in solitary confinement and 4% were sexually assaulted. DCI believes that these figures may understate the extent of the problem. Many parents don't complain to the authorities, since they feel that they cannot rely on the same system that abuses their children.
There are currently 340 children in Israeli jails, most of them convicted of throwing stones at the Israeli soldiers and police. Children's complaints of violence are disregarded, and no proceedings are taken against those responsible."
Writing in "Palestinian Children Vs. the IDF" on CommonDreams Chelala tackles head-on the often-repeated and now almost a mantra of the Israeli Defence Force how it is the most moral army in the world.
"The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is among the strongest armies in the world. According to Israeli Defense Minister Ehuda Barak, it is also one the most moral ones. One wouldn't know that for its treatment of Palestinian children. On December 13, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) stated that the Israeli military and police were violating Israeli law by detaining Palestinian children, some as young as seven years old, and interrogating them. This last denunciation follows an equally serious one of Palestinian children being sexually abused by Israeli police officers.
"They [the police] hit me and dragged along the floor. They handcuffed me with these plastic handcuffs which are very tight. I was very scared. Only when my father came they stopped," Muslim Odeh, an 11-year-old Palestinian, told the BBC. His charges were strongly denied by the Israeli police.
According to the Geneva-based Defence for Children International (DCI) they have 100 sworn affidavits from Palestinian children who said that they were mistreated by their Israeli captors. Fourteen among them say that they were sexually abused or threatened with sexual assault to pressure them into confession.
In 2009 alone, Defence of Children International (DCI) reviewed 100 sworn affidavits which showed 81% of them were coerced into confessions, 14% were kept in solitary confinement and 4% were sexually assaulted. DCI believes that these figures may understate the extent of the problem. Many parents don't complain to the authorities, since they feel that they cannot rely on the same system that abuses their children.
There are currently 340 children in Israeli jails, most of them convicted of throwing stones at the Israeli soldiers and police. Children's complaints of violence are disregarded, and no proceedings are taken against those responsible."
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The forgotten man
In all the hubbub about Wikileaks, the cables and Julian Assange, one person seemingly overlooked, and even forgotten, is the person said to have leaked all the material to WikiLeaks in the first place, Bradley Manning. Where is he and what has happened to him?
Glenn Greenwald reports on Salon on the utterly appalling - no, disgraceful! - condition in which Manning finds himself with no charges having been preferred against him.
"Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries."
***
"In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, prison officials now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation."
Glenn Greenwald reports on Salon on the utterly appalling - no, disgraceful! - condition in which Manning finds himself with no charges having been preferred against him.
"Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries."
***
"In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, prison officials now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation."
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Visa, Mastercard and Paypal help support illegal Israeli settlements
Now that Visa, Mastercard and PayPal have entered the political fray by stopping payments to WikiLeaks - not an illegal organisation to be remembered - they will need to justify how they facilitate funds being directed to organisations which are illegal and help fund the development of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Crikey reports on where the funds go with direct examples.
"Visa, Mastercard and PayPal all enable donations to be made to US-registered groups funding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law.
It appears at least one of the major credit cards also enables donations to an extremist Jewish group that has placed a bounty on the lives of Palestinians.
All three have in the last week ceased enabling donations to WikiLeaks. Neither Mastercard nor Visa have explained the basis for their decision to do so. PayPal has backed away from its initial claim that the US State Department told PayPal WikiLeaks had broken the law after the claim was discredited. This is the third occasion on which PayPal has suspended payment services for WikiLeaks.
Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. Another 100+ are “illegal outposts” even under Israeli law. All benefit from extensive support from the United States, channelled through a range of Jewish and right-wing Christian bodies, all of which have charitable status under US law. The International Crisis Group’s report on settlements in July 2009 identified the important role played by US charities. Israeli newspaper Haaretz has investigated the strong support provided via US charities, and Israeli peace groups have also targeted the generous support provided via private donations from the US and Canada."
Read on, here, to see the extent of where those monies go.
Crikey reports on where the funds go with direct examples.
"Visa, Mastercard and PayPal all enable donations to be made to US-registered groups funding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law.
It appears at least one of the major credit cards also enables donations to an extremist Jewish group that has placed a bounty on the lives of Palestinians.
All three have in the last week ceased enabling donations to WikiLeaks. Neither Mastercard nor Visa have explained the basis for their decision to do so. PayPal has backed away from its initial claim that the US State Department told PayPal WikiLeaks had broken the law after the claim was discredited. This is the third occasion on which PayPal has suspended payment services for WikiLeaks.
Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. Another 100+ are “illegal outposts” even under Israeli law. All benefit from extensive support from the United States, channelled through a range of Jewish and right-wing Christian bodies, all of which have charitable status under US law. The International Crisis Group’s report on settlements in July 2009 identified the important role played by US charities. Israeli newspaper Haaretz has investigated the strong support provided via US charities, and Israeli peace groups have also targeted the generous support provided via private donations from the US and Canada."
Read on, here, to see the extent of where those monies go.
WikiLeaks led revolution
John Pilger is no stranger to conflicts around the world and exposing what governments do - and mostly don't tell there citizenry.
As one of the most awarded journalists, commentators and film-makers in the world, Pilger is uniquely placed to challenge the shibboleths of what we know as day-to-day journalism
"That mindset that only authority can really determine the 'truth' on the news, that's a form of embedding that really now has to change," said Pilger, who has covered conflicts in Vietnam and Cambodia, written books and made several acclaimed documentaries.
"There's no question about the pressure on it to change coming from the internet and coming from WikiLeaks -- it will change," he added in the interview ahead of Tuesday evening's broadcast of his new film.
"That is the canker in all of this, it's the compulsion to quote, not necessarily believing the authority source. But then once you quote it and you put it out on the wires or you broadcast it, it takes on a sort of mantle of fact and that's where the whole teaching of journalism is wrong.
"Authority has its place, but the skepticism about authority must be ingrained in people."
As one of the most awarded journalists, commentators and film-makers in the world, Pilger is uniquely placed to challenge the shibboleths of what we know as day-to-day journalism
"That mindset that only authority can really determine the 'truth' on the news, that's a form of embedding that really now has to change," said Pilger, who has covered conflicts in Vietnam and Cambodia, written books and made several acclaimed documentaries.
"There's no question about the pressure on it to change coming from the internet and coming from WikiLeaks -- it will change," he added in the interview ahead of Tuesday evening's broadcast of his new film.
"That is the canker in all of this, it's the compulsion to quote, not necessarily believing the authority source. But then once you quote it and you put it out on the wires or you broadcast it, it takes on a sort of mantle of fact and that's where the whole teaching of journalism is wrong.
"Authority has its place, but the skepticism about authority must be ingrained in people."
Experts on Afghanistan write to Obama
The Telegraph publishes a timely letter from experts on Afghanistan to President Obama:
"To the President of the United States: Mr. President, We have been engaged and working inside Afghanistan, some of us for decades, as academics, experts and members of non-governmental organisations. Today we are deeply worried about the current course of the war and the lack of credible scenarios for the future. The cost of the war is now over $120 billion per year for the United States alone.
This is unsustainable in the long run. In addition, human losses are increasing. Over 680 soldiers from the international coalition – along with hundreds of Afghans – have died this year in Afghanistan, and the year is not yet over. We appeal to you to use the unparalleled resources and influence which the United States now brings to bear in Afghanistan to achieve that longed-for peace.
Despite these huge costs, the situation on the ground is much worse than a year ago because the Taliban insurgency has made progress across the country. It is now very difficult to work outside the cities or even move around Afghanistan by road. The insurgents have built momentum, exploiting the shortcomings of the Afghan government and the mistakes of the coalition. The Taliban today are now a national movement with a serious presence in the north and the west of the country. Foreign bases are completely isolated from their local environment and unable to protect the population. Foreign forces have by now been in Afghanistan longer than the Soviet Red Army."
Continue reading here.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports on two reports just in on Afghanistan, neither of which paint a positive picture of things in Afghanistan, let alone in Pakistan.
"To the President of the United States: Mr. President, We have been engaged and working inside Afghanistan, some of us for decades, as academics, experts and members of non-governmental organisations. Today we are deeply worried about the current course of the war and the lack of credible scenarios for the future. The cost of the war is now over $120 billion per year for the United States alone.
This is unsustainable in the long run. In addition, human losses are increasing. Over 680 soldiers from the international coalition – along with hundreds of Afghans – have died this year in Afghanistan, and the year is not yet over. We appeal to you to use the unparalleled resources and influence which the United States now brings to bear in Afghanistan to achieve that longed-for peace.
Despite these huge costs, the situation on the ground is much worse than a year ago because the Taliban insurgency has made progress across the country. It is now very difficult to work outside the cities or even move around Afghanistan by road. The insurgents have built momentum, exploiting the shortcomings of the Afghan government and the mistakes of the coalition. The Taliban today are now a national movement with a serious presence in the north and the west of the country. Foreign bases are completely isolated from their local environment and unable to protect the population. Foreign forces have by now been in Afghanistan longer than the Soviet Red Army."
Continue reading here.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports on two reports just in on Afghanistan, neither of which paint a positive picture of things in Afghanistan, let alone in Pakistan.
Chinese to the fore - in Europe
How situations can develop that no one had thought of. With Europe's economic woes, especially in Portugal, Spain and Greece, China is stepping up to the plate to extend it's influence, and financial clout, in the EC.
Spiegel OnLine International reports on how China is seizing on Europe's debt problems to expand its influence on the continent with large-scale investments and purchases of government bonds issued by highly-indebted states. The strategy could push Europe into the same financial dependency on China that is posing a dilemma for the US.
"The cash-strapped southern Europeans are increasingly looking to Beijing to solve their budget woes. But it is difficult to ascertain which countries are being supported by the Chinese state capitalists through government bond purchases.
The investment managers at the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) devise their strategies behind the walls of a nondescript large office building in Beijing. They rarely make public statements. Formally, the SAFE answers to the central bank. Last year, People's Bank of China governor Zhou Xiaochuan, 62, caused an international stir when he proposed replacing the dollar with a super-sovereign reserve currency based on the Special Drawing Right (SDR), the IMF's unit of account. This proposal came from the upper echelons of the Chinese leadership: Zhou, a member of the Central Committee, strictly adheres to the instructions of the Communist Party.
It's a similar story with the state-run Chinese Investment Corporation (CIC), which manages some $200 billion of the currency stockpile, with assets in foreign equity funds, mining operations and corporations."
Spiegel OnLine International reports on how China is seizing on Europe's debt problems to expand its influence on the continent with large-scale investments and purchases of government bonds issued by highly-indebted states. The strategy could push Europe into the same financial dependency on China that is posing a dilemma for the US.
"The cash-strapped southern Europeans are increasingly looking to Beijing to solve their budget woes. But it is difficult to ascertain which countries are being supported by the Chinese state capitalists through government bond purchases.
The investment managers at the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) devise their strategies behind the walls of a nondescript large office building in Beijing. They rarely make public statements. Formally, the SAFE answers to the central bank. Last year, People's Bank of China governor Zhou Xiaochuan, 62, caused an international stir when he proposed replacing the dollar with a super-sovereign reserve currency based on the Special Drawing Right (SDR), the IMF's unit of account. This proposal came from the upper echelons of the Chinese leadership: Zhou, a member of the Central Committee, strictly adheres to the instructions of the Communist Party.
It's a similar story with the state-run Chinese Investment Corporation (CIC), which manages some $200 billion of the currency stockpile, with assets in foreign equity funds, mining operations and corporations."
Michael Moore: Why he supports Julian Assange
Let it not be said that Julian Arrange hasn't garnered an impressive array of people to stump up bail monies for him in those legal proceedings presently underway in London. One of them is Michael Moore, he of movie fame, and otherwise, for exposing all sorts of dirty-pool in the USA.
He writes in "Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange" on Information Clearing House why he has been been prepared to put his money where his mouth is.
"WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.
I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.
But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?
But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)
Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?
Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.
Instead, secrets killed them."
He writes in "Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange" on Information Clearing House why he has been been prepared to put his money where his mouth is.
"WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.
I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.
But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?
But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)
Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?
Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.
Instead, secrets killed them."
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
A sober and accurate assessment of Afghanistan
The Afghan War grinds on.....with an enormous cost in life and limb as well as in pure dollar terms.
Obama is undertaking a strategic review which it is said will be made public in the next days. Almost predictably it will contain many positives and few negatives. If only that were the true position.
Patrick Cockburn writing on CounterPunch highlights the billions of dollars of aid just poured down the drain.
"But the most extraordinary failure of the US-led coalition in Afghanistan is that the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars has had so little impact on the misery in which 30 million Afghans live. Since 2001 the US alone has provided $52 billion in aid, two thirds for security and one third for economic, social and political development.
Despite this some nine million Afghans live in absolute poverty while a further five million, considered ‘not poor’, try to survive on $43 a month.“Things look alright to foreigners but in fact people are dying of starvation in Kabul,” says Abdul Qudus, a man with a deeply lined face in his forties, who sells second-hand clothes and shoes on a street corner in the capital. They are little more than rags, lying on display on the half frozen mud.
“I buy and sell clothes for between 10 and 30 Afghanis (two to six cents) and even then there are people who are too poor to buy them, “ says Mr Qudus. “I myself am very poor and sometimes I don’t eat so I can feed my children.” He says he started selling second hand clothes two years ago when he lost his job washing carpets.
US officials admit privately that the torrent of aid money that has poured into Afghanistan has stoked corruption and done ordinary Afghans little good. Aimed at improving economic and social conditions in order to reduce support for the Taliban it is having the reverse effect of destabilizing the country. Afghanistan was identified as the third most corrupt country out of 178 in the world in a report released yesterday by Transparency International."
Obama is undertaking a strategic review which it is said will be made public in the next days. Almost predictably it will contain many positives and few negatives. If only that were the true position.
Patrick Cockburn writing on CounterPunch highlights the billions of dollars of aid just poured down the drain.
"But the most extraordinary failure of the US-led coalition in Afghanistan is that the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars has had so little impact on the misery in which 30 million Afghans live. Since 2001 the US alone has provided $52 billion in aid, two thirds for security and one third for economic, social and political development.
Despite this some nine million Afghans live in absolute poverty while a further five million, considered ‘not poor’, try to survive on $43 a month.“Things look alright to foreigners but in fact people are dying of starvation in Kabul,” says Abdul Qudus, a man with a deeply lined face in his forties, who sells second-hand clothes and shoes on a street corner in the capital. They are little more than rags, lying on display on the half frozen mud.
US officials admit privately that the torrent of aid money that has poured into Afghanistan has stoked corruption and done ordinary Afghans little good. Aimed at improving economic and social conditions in order to reduce support for the Taliban it is having the reverse effect of destabilizing the country. Afghanistan was identified as the third most corrupt country out of 178 in the world in a report released yesterday by Transparency International."
A what? An election in Egypt?
Ahmed Shihab-Eldin is a journalist was most recently worked for Al Jazeera English and The New York Times.
He reports on The Huffington Post on the so-called elections in Egypt and what it all means. As you read the piece ponder why it is that American taxpayers fund the corrupt and disgraceful regime to the tune of billions of dollars.
"Dejavu. An election in the Middle East marred by voter intimidation, fraud, and a series of sobering violent incidents - except this time, this isn't an enemy state but rather the United States' closest ally in the region, Egypt.
With a 9.4 percent unemployment rate, inflation in the double digits, and a stagnant government masquerading as a democracy, the country is quietly moving towards collapse, an eventuality that would be extremely dangerous for the region and U.S. interests.
In an attempt to secure Egypt's support of U.S. policy in the region, in particular regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the U.S. sends more than $1.3 billion annually in military aid to the autocratic state while turning a blind eye to the government's pervasive corruption, human rights violations, and decades of election rigging.
But Egypt's parliamentary elections, held earlier this month, call into question the essence of American hegemony, particularly their military and monetary meddling in Middle Eastern affairs to promote democracy, while also protecting Israel's security.
The U.S. Agency for International Development has also provided over $28 billion in economic and development assistance to the country since 1975. So worried is the U.S. about any destabilization in the region, it continues this funding despite Egypt's abysmal track record internally and externally including opposing U.S. efforts to dethrone Saddam Hussein and frequently siding with Arab allies against the U.S. such as supporting an attempt by the UAE to lift sanctions on Iraq."
He reports on The Huffington Post on the so-called elections in Egypt and what it all means. As you read the piece ponder why it is that American taxpayers fund the corrupt and disgraceful regime to the tune of billions of dollars.
"Dejavu. An election in the Middle East marred by voter intimidation, fraud, and a series of sobering violent incidents - except this time, this isn't an enemy state but rather the United States' closest ally in the region, Egypt.
With a 9.4 percent unemployment rate, inflation in the double digits, and a stagnant government masquerading as a democracy, the country is quietly moving towards collapse, an eventuality that would be extremely dangerous for the region and U.S. interests.
In an attempt to secure Egypt's support of U.S. policy in the region, in particular regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the U.S. sends more than $1.3 billion annually in military aid to the autocratic state while turning a blind eye to the government's pervasive corruption, human rights violations, and decades of election rigging.
But Egypt's parliamentary elections, held earlier this month, call into question the essence of American hegemony, particularly their military and monetary meddling in Middle Eastern affairs to promote democracy, while also protecting Israel's security.
The U.S. Agency for International Development has also provided over $28 billion in economic and development assistance to the country since 1975. So worried is the U.S. about any destabilization in the region, it continues this funding despite Egypt's abysmal track record internally and externally including opposing U.S. efforts to dethrone Saddam Hussein and frequently siding with Arab allies against the U.S. such as supporting an attempt by the UAE to lift sanctions on Iraq."
A truly unholy alliance
CommonDreams' Abby Zimet reflects on an alliance which is less than holy....
"As if it wasn't bad enough: a story about Israel's multiple demolitions of Al-Arakib, a Bedouin village in the Negev desert, and a project to establish a forest there by the Jewish National Fund and GOD-TV, an extremist, evangelical, dominionist, anti-Semitic, End Times-preaching, conspiracy-believing broadcasting network. Rich Jews only need apply to new housing planned there. But wait – aren't Jews barred when End Times come? More importantly, is there anything or anyone the Israeli government won't do or ally with to disposses the Palestinians of what is rightly theirs?"
Monday, December 13, 2010
Blatant racism
It's hard top reconcile anyone of the cloth, whatever their denomination, manifesting anything akin to religious or racial intolerance. Sad to say a significant number of rabbis in Israel have shown that they are well and truly prejudiced, as Aljazeera reports.
"Hundreds of Israeli rabbis have signed a religious edict forbidding Jews from renting or selling homes or land to Arabs and other non-Jews. The public letter instructs Jews to "ostracise" those who disobey the order, which is widely viewed as an attack on the country's Palestinian citizens.
When the decree was announced on Tuesday, it had been signed by 50 rabbis, many of who are employed by the state of Israel as municipal religious leaders. Despite sharp public criticism, another 250 rabbis have added their names to the proclamation.
It is the latest battle in the ongoing religious campaign against non-Jews.
A similar edict was issued in the city of Safed less than two months ago, when over a dozen rabbis banded together to urge Jewish landlords not to rent apartments to Arab college students.|
African refugees - a group the state refers to as "infiltrators" - and migrant workers have also been targeted. This summer, 25 Tel Aviv rabbis signed a proclamation that forbids Jews from renting to "infiltrators". Ten real estate agents who work in neighbourhoods that are home to large populations of African refugees answered the call, publicly stating that they would refuse such tenants and would not renew the leases of those who are currently residing there.
And in late November, the municipality of Bnei Brak - an ultra-Orthodox suburb of Tel Aviv - began notifying migrant workers and African refugees that they will be evicted from their homes in the weeks to come."
"Hundreds of Israeli rabbis have signed a religious edict forbidding Jews from renting or selling homes or land to Arabs and other non-Jews. The public letter instructs Jews to "ostracise" those who disobey the order, which is widely viewed as an attack on the country's Palestinian citizens.
When the decree was announced on Tuesday, it had been signed by 50 rabbis, many of who are employed by the state of Israel as municipal religious leaders. Despite sharp public criticism, another 250 rabbis have added their names to the proclamation.
It is the latest battle in the ongoing religious campaign against non-Jews.
A similar edict was issued in the city of Safed less than two months ago, when over a dozen rabbis banded together to urge Jewish landlords not to rent apartments to Arab college students.|
African refugees - a group the state refers to as "infiltrators" - and migrant workers have also been targeted. This summer, 25 Tel Aviv rabbis signed a proclamation that forbids Jews from renting to "infiltrators". Ten real estate agents who work in neighbourhoods that are home to large populations of African refugees answered the call, publicly stating that they would refuse such tenants and would not renew the leases of those who are currently residing there.
And in late November, the municipality of Bnei Brak - an ultra-Orthodox suburb of Tel Aviv - began notifying migrant workers and African refugees that they will be evicted from their homes in the weeks to come."
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Cancun....and the children who will suffer if we don't arrest climate change
The Cancun Climate Change conference has ended - yet another talk-fest?- and who knows whether anything positive will have come out of it. Unlikely not!
There is another dimension, a tragic one, arising out of climate change, as Jen Phillips explains in this piece "How Children Suffer From Climate Change" on Mother Jones:
"As MoJo's Kate Sheppard discusses here, a new report by international humanitarian organization DARA finds that climate change could kill up to 5 million people in the next 10 years—and most of them are children under the age of 5 in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. This predicted increase in mortality isn't due to Hollywood-style tsunamis or apocalyptic winters. Instead, the killers are much more ordinary: malaria, diarrhea, and malnutrition.
Of course, one way to help the planet—and the families most impacted by the planet's health—is to bear fewer kids in the first place. As Julia Whitty wrote in "The Last Taboo," overpopulation is a huge climate change driver that's rarely discussed—until this week. During the UN-sponsored climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, media mogul Ted Turner suggested such radical ideas as one-child policies and monetary rewards for not reproducing. Turner was quickly shut down by former Irish president Mary Robinson, who said, "If we do it the wrong way, we can divide the world...A lot of people in the climate world could communicate this very badly."
Turner's statements may have been the flashiest, but they weren't the only population-related ideas to come out of the Cancun climate talks. Population Action International's Roger-Mark de Souza told me that whenever he attended sessions on REDD, deforestation, or financing, someone would say, "'What about overpopulation? How does this factor in?'" PAI's panel there on female empowerment and family planning attracted 100 attendees, where consensus was that there continues to be a "strong unmet need for family planning."
There is another dimension, a tragic one, arising out of climate change, as Jen Phillips explains in this piece "How Children Suffer From Climate Change" on Mother Jones:
"As MoJo's Kate Sheppard discusses here, a new report by international humanitarian organization DARA finds that climate change could kill up to 5 million people in the next 10 years—and most of them are children under the age of 5 in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. This predicted increase in mortality isn't due to Hollywood-style tsunamis or apocalyptic winters. Instead, the killers are much more ordinary: malaria, diarrhea, and malnutrition.
Of course, one way to help the planet—and the families most impacted by the planet's health—is to bear fewer kids in the first place. As Julia Whitty wrote in "The Last Taboo," overpopulation is a huge climate change driver that's rarely discussed—until this week. During the UN-sponsored climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, media mogul Ted Turner suggested such radical ideas as one-child policies and monetary rewards for not reproducing. Turner was quickly shut down by former Irish president Mary Robinson, who said, "If we do it the wrong way, we can divide the world...A lot of people in the climate world could communicate this very badly."
Turner's statements may have been the flashiest, but they weren't the only population-related ideas to come out of the Cancun climate talks. Population Action International's Roger-Mark de Souza told me that whenever he attended sessions on REDD, deforestation, or financing, someone would say, "'What about overpopulation? How does this factor in?'" PAI's panel there on female empowerment and family planning attracted 100 attendees, where consensus was that there continues to be a "strong unmet need for family planning."
Without Shame
Writing on CommonDreams under the headline "Without Shame", Abby Zimet rightly highlights the disgraceful antics of the GOP."Not to be believed: Senate Republicans blocked a bill to provide up to $7.4 billion in health care benefits to 9/11 rescue workers who ran into burning buidlings because first they want their tax breaks for rich people. It happened the same day as a funeral for a cop who died of lung cancer from working at Ground Zero. That makes 30 deaths. These people are scum."
The world moves on from Pakistan's flood disaster
Thanks to the The Irish Times, here, we are reminded that those devastating floods in Pakistan last August are still effecting many, many people in the already blighted country.
"The world’s attention has moved on since August, when the UN calculated that the total affected by Pakistan’s floods – up to 20 million people – amounted to a number greater than the Asian tsunami, the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir and this year’s earthquake in Haiti combined. The World Bank has put the estimated cost of flood recovery at $9.7 billion (€7.3 billion). Foreign donors have so far contributed just under half of the $2 billion the UN asked for in September, the largest-ever appeal by it for a natural disaster.
In the last month, the UN and its partners have delivered food to six million people in the worst-hit regions. Emergency shelter materials have been distributed to 4.7 million people, and more than seven million have been provided with basic healthcare."
"The world’s attention has moved on since August, when the UN calculated that the total affected by Pakistan’s floods – up to 20 million people – amounted to a number greater than the Asian tsunami, the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir and this year’s earthquake in Haiti combined. The World Bank has put the estimated cost of flood recovery at $9.7 billion (€7.3 billion). Foreign donors have so far contributed just under half of the $2 billion the UN asked for in September, the largest-ever appeal by it for a natural disaster.
In the last month, the UN and its partners have delivered food to six million people in the worst-hit regions. Emergency shelter materials have been distributed to 4.7 million people, and more than seven million have been provided with basic healthcare."
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Most Americans "Are Ignorant"
Ouch! Former Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, in an interview with Spiegel, says his fellow countrymen are ignorant. Nothing new in that but worth reflecting on as we revel in reading all those Wikileaked documents.
Information Clearing House has the interview, here. An example of the Q & A:
"SPIEGEL: As National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, you tried to prepare Americans for a more multipolar world -- one with a stronger China and a weaker US. Americans did not like that idea and Carter was voted out of office after one term.
Brzezinski: That concept is now very much a reality when you look at the rise of countries like China and India.
SPIEGEL: And the American decline. Are Americans aware of that trend or does the fate of Carter await President Barak Obama should he openly address the issue?
Brzezinski: I am very worried that most Americans are close to total ignorance about the world. They are ignorant. That is an unhealthy condition in a country in which foreign policy has to be endorsed by the people if it is to be pursued. And it makes it much more difficult for any president to pursue an intelligent policy that does justice to the complexity of the world.
SPIEGEL: Yet the American right is still convinced of American exceptionalism.
Brzezinski: That is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant."
Information Clearing House has the interview, here. An example of the Q & A:
"SPIEGEL: As National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, you tried to prepare Americans for a more multipolar world -- one with a stronger China and a weaker US. Americans did not like that idea and Carter was voted out of office after one term.
Brzezinski: That concept is now very much a reality when you look at the rise of countries like China and India.
SPIEGEL: And the American decline. Are Americans aware of that trend or does the fate of Carter await President Barak Obama should he openly address the issue?
Brzezinski: I am very worried that most Americans are close to total ignorance about the world. They are ignorant. That is an unhealthy condition in a country in which foreign policy has to be endorsed by the people if it is to be pursued. And it makes it much more difficult for any president to pursue an intelligent policy that does justice to the complexity of the world.
SPIEGEL: Yet the American right is still convinced of American exceptionalism.
Brzezinski: That is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant."
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Telling the powers that be how it really is
Jeremy Scahill is The Nation magazine's national security correspondent. He has over the years garnered a formidable first-class reputation for his writing. He today testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the US's shadow wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere.
The Nation has his evidence in full, here, but one extract:
"As the war rages on in Afghanistan and--despite spin to the contrary--in Iraq as well, US Special Operations Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency are engaged in parallel, covert, shadow wars that are waged in near total darkness and largely away from effective or meaningful Congressional oversight or journalistic scrutiny. The actions and consequences of these wars is seldom discussed in public or investigated by the Congress.
The current US strategy can be summed up as follows: We are trying to kill our way to peace. And the killing fields are growing in number.
Among the sober question that must be addressed by the Congress: What impact are these clandestine operations having on US national security? Are they making us more safe or less? When US forces kill innocent civilians in "counterterrorism" operations, are we inspiring a new generation of insurgents to rise against our country? And, what is the oversight role of the US Congress in the shadow wars that have spanned the Bush and Obama Administrations?
The most visible among these shadow wars is in Pakistan where the United States regularly bombs the country using weaponized drones. As we now know from diplomatic cables made public by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Prime Minister told a senior US official in Islamabad, "I don't care if [the US bombs Pakistan] as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
The Nation has his evidence in full, here, but one extract:
"As the war rages on in Afghanistan and--despite spin to the contrary--in Iraq as well, US Special Operations Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency are engaged in parallel, covert, shadow wars that are waged in near total darkness and largely away from effective or meaningful Congressional oversight or journalistic scrutiny. The actions and consequences of these wars is seldom discussed in public or investigated by the Congress.
The current US strategy can be summed up as follows: We are trying to kill our way to peace. And the killing fields are growing in number.
Among the sober question that must be addressed by the Congress: What impact are these clandestine operations having on US national security? Are they making us more safe or less? When US forces kill innocent civilians in "counterterrorism" operations, are we inspiring a new generation of insurgents to rise against our country? And, what is the oversight role of the US Congress in the shadow wars that have spanned the Bush and Obama Administrations?
The most visible among these shadow wars is in Pakistan where the United States regularly bombs the country using weaponized drones. As we now know from diplomatic cables made public by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Prime Minister told a senior US official in Islamabad, "I don't care if [the US bombs Pakistan] as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)