US Choosing Subordinate Partnerships With Asian Powerhouses Over Confrontations

Flournoy: Asia Will be Heart of U.S. Security Policy

By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 29, 2011 – While the United States is confronting terrorism and hostile regimes in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Libya, leaders also are looking eastward to shape U.S. security policy for the long-term, the Pentagon’s top policy official said last night.

“When future historians look back at this era, I am convinced that the rise of Asia will be noted as the central geo-strategic fact of our time,” Michèle Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, told a packed room of policy experts at Johns Hopkins University’s “Rethinking Seminar” here.

“By most measures, the Asia-Pacific region is the most important and most dynamic region in the world today — and likely to be more so as this still-young century unfolds,” she said.

While the United States still ranks as the world’s largest economy as measured by gross domestic product, the next three largest are China, Japan, and India. As of last year, ten of the world’s 15 fastest-growing economies were in Asia, Flournoy said.

U.S. trade with China rose to an estimated $459 billion last year, compared to $2 billion in 1979, making it the United States’ biggest source of imports and second-largest trading partner, the undersecretary said. At the same time, she said, China’s economy is growing rapidly within Asia, causing the International Monetary Fund to estimate that Asia’s economy will eclipse that of the United States by 2030.

Meanwhile, “Asia sits at the crossroads of the world’s emerging threats” of cyber security, climate change and terrorism, Flournoy said.

This growing importance of Asia means the United States must continue to build and strengthen its alliances there, with a focus on building capacities where needed, and encouraging China and India to use their growth to secure and stabilize the region, Flournoy said.

Despite tensions over Chinese military secrecy and its increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea, Flournoy said, the United States and China “are not inevitably destined for conflict, as some have posited. Even as we manage our differences, we can deepen our cooperation across the full range of our shared interests.”

U.S. military forces must be structured to align with emerging threats, the undersecretary said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said the U.S. military in the region must be operationally resilient, geographically distributed and politically sustainable.

“We must ensure that our regional allies and partners are confident in the continued strength of our deterrence against the full range of possible threats,” Flournoy said. Strengthened missile defense and long-range reconnaissance and strike are central components, she said.

U.S. officials “think our posture in Northeast Asia is about right,” Flournoy said, but there’s need to expand efforts in Southeast Asia. Rather than building more bases, she said, the U.S. military is focused on working more closely in military-to-military relationships to include combined training, joint patrols, and shared medical and civil engineering missions.

As for alliances, Flournoy said Japan remains a cornerstone of U.S. security policy in the region. U.S. officials are confident of Japan’s ability to recover fully and continue to play a vital role in the region, she said, despite the 9.0 magnitude earthquake, resulting tsunami and ongoing nuclear crisis it has endured since March 11.

The United States will continue to strengthen its ties with South Korea to ensure interoperability of their military forces to preserve stability on the Korean peninsula, she said.

The rise of Asia has made Australia an increasingly strategic location, Flournoy said, which led the United States as the end of last year to establish a working group with the Australians for combined military force posture.

The United States is strengthening alliances with the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, Flournoy said, and must do more with Indonesia and Vietnam. She noted that a small group of U.S. forces have worked quietly in the Philippines since 2001 “in a model of successful counterinsurgency” to prevent al-Qaida from gaining a foothold there.

Flournoy highlighted the work of the U.S. Agency for International Development and other U.S. civilians in the region and said they will remain critical to U.S. relations in Asia.

Despite its challenges elsewhere in the world, Flournoy said, the United States will stay engaged in Asia.
“The United States has proven repeatedly — over decades –that is it fully committed to upholding its strategic obligations throughout Asia. No one in Asia — anywhere in Asia — needs to ask if the U.S. will show up when it is needed.”

Saudi Arabia tightens hold on the media

Saudi Arabia tightens hold on the media


JEDDAH

(Reuters) – Saudi Arabia tightened its control of the media on Friday, threatening fines and closure of publications that jeopardised its stability or offended clerics, state media reported.

The desert kingdom and major U.S. ally has managed to stave off the unrest which has rocked the Arab world, toppling leaders in Tunisia and Egypt.

“All those responsible for publication are banned from publishing … anything contradicting Islamic Sharia Law; anything inciting disruption of state security or public order or anything serving foreign interests that contradict national interests,” the state news agency SPA said.

Saudi Arabia follows an austere version of Sunni Islam and does not tolerate any form of dissent. It has no elected parliament and no political parties.

The tighter media controls were set out in amendments to the media law issued as a royal order late on Friday. They also banned stirring up sectarianism and “anything that causes harm to the general interest of the country.”

Almost no Saudis in major cities answered a Facebook call for protests on March 11, in the face of a massive security presence around the country.

Minority Shi’ites have staged a number of street marches in the Eastern Province, where most of Saudi Arabia’s oil fields are located.

Shi’ites are said to represent between 10 and 15 percent of the country’s 18 million people and have long complained of discrimination, a charge the government denies.

Saudi authorities arrested two Shi’ite bloggers from Eastern Province this week, adding to a total of 160 Saudis detained since February, according to a Human Rights Watch report in April.

Clerics played a major role in banning protests by issuing a religious edict which said that demonstrations are against Islamic law.

In turn, the royal order banned the “infringement of the reputation or dignity, the slander or the personal offence of the Grand Mufti or any of the country’s senior clerics or statesmen.”

King Abdullah has strengthened the security and religious police forces, which played a major role in banning protests in the kingdom.

The amendment published on Friday detailed punishments for breaking the media laws, including a fine of half a million riyals ($133,000) and the shutting down of the publication that published the violation, as well as banning the writer from contributing to any media.

(Reporting by Asma Alsharif; editing by Andrew Heavens)

Saudis protest against Bahrain crackdown

Saudis protest against Bahrain crackdown
By staff and agencies

MANAMA – Crowds of people in Saudi Arabia have taken to the streets to protest against the violent Saudi-backed crackdown on Bahraini anti-government protesters. 

Demonstrators in the eastern city of Qatif denounced Riyadh for backing Bahraini forces in the destruction of mosques and holy sites, Press TV reported on Friday.

On Thursday night, Saudi women also held a candle light vigil in Awamiyah in solidarity with the Bahraini people, chanting slogans against Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.

The demonstrations came after Riyadh arrested about 30 activists over the past two days for allegedly taking part in rallies held in Qatif.

More than 100 protesters have been in jail for several weeks since they were arrested in March during demonstrations in Qatif and nearby towns held in support of the people of Bahrain.

Last week, about a dozen human rights organizations and 190 intellectuals from the six countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council issued a joint statement calling for the release of political prisoners in Saudi Arabia.

On March 13, Saudi Arabia deployed military forces in Bahrain upon Manama’s request to quell the nationwide protests.

———Four men sentenced to death

In another development, on Thursday a Bahraini military court imposed death sentences for four men convicted of killing two policemen during the recent protests, state media said.

Political analysts say the move will most likely increase sectarian strife in the country.

It was only the third time in more than three decades that a death sentence had been imposed on citizens of Bahrain, a U.S. ally which hosts the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, Reuters reported.

Critics accuse the United States of not responding forcefully enough to Bahrain’s political crackdown due to the tiny nation’s key strategic significance.

The United States issued a measured statement on the death sentences.

Human rights groups and relatives of the condemned men, all Shias, dismissed the proceedings as a farce.

“They were activists in their villages and we think they were targeted because of their activities,” said Nabeel Rajab, the director of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights. “This will deepen the gap between the ruling elite and the population.”

In Lebanon, Hezbollah condemned the sentences, saying they were part of the “continuous crime committed by the regime in Bahrain against the people of Bahrain… (who) are exposed to severe oppression because of their request for their legitimate rights.”

Amnesty International said Bahrain should not use the death penalty.

Meanwhile thousands of Bahraini people gathered before a revered cleric on Friday denounced death sentences given to protesters involved in pro-democracy protests, Reuters reported.

Germany also urged Bahrain to rescind the death sentences. “This draconian punishment impedes the process of rapprochement and reconciliation in Bahrain,” German Foreign Ministry spokesman Andreas Peschke told reporters at a press conference on Friday.

The island kingdom announced earlier this week that 312 people detained under martial law had been released and about 400 others referred for prosecution.

According to local sources, at least 29 people have been killed and hundreds arrested so far during the Saudi-backed clampdown in Bahrain.

Is the Empire Preparing to Give Assad the “Qadaffi Treatment”?

US sanctions target Syrian intelligence service, officials

Dozens more reported killed; protests spread to Damascus

By Joby Warrick and Liz SlyWashington Post

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration slapped sanctions on three Syrian officials and Syria’s intelligence service yesterday in what was described as a warning shot against President Bashar al-Assad’s government after weeks of steadily worsening violence against protesters.

The measures targeting key members of Assad’s security apparatus came amid reports of dozens more deaths across the country as Syrians rallied in several cities — including, for the first time, in large numbers in Damascus, the capital — for a national “Day of Rage’’ denouncing government brutality.

Tens of thousands of Syrians poured out of mosques and into the streets after Friday prayers for what appeared to be the biggest demonstrations yet in the country. The large turnout, after days of deadly clashes, suggests that the will of the protesters remains unbroken despite the government’s stepped-up efforts to crush the uprising.

Human rights groups said that at least 48 people were killed nationwide when troops opened fire on demonstrators yesterday. Fifteen of them were killed outside the southern town of Daraa, the epicenter of the protests and a rallying point for the rebellion after civilians there were besieged by army tanks on Monday.

The Obama administration, facing pressure at home and abroad to act against the Assad regime, announced that it was freezing the assets of Syria’s intelligence service and its director, Ali Mamluk, as well as those of Maher al-Assad, a brother of the president’s and a brigade commander of Syria’s 4th Armored Division. White House officials said the army unit and the intelligence agency played leading roles in the violent attacks that have killed hundreds of people since March 16.

The administration also announced sanctions on Atif Najib, a cousin of the president’s and a political operative in Daraa province, and on Iran’s Quds Force, a paramilitary division of that country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. A Treasury Department statement announcing the sanctions accused the Iranian group of providing material support to the Syrian intelligence service in the crackdown.

US officials made clear that the sanctions were intended to pressure Assad to halt the violence. The presidential order authorizing the economic penalties also permits the administration to add the names of any Syrian government officials who participated in the attacks on protesters or were “complicit’’ in them.

“This sharpens the choice for Syrian leaders who are involved in the decisions,’’ Jake Sullivan, the State Department’s director of policy planning, told reporters.

Another administration official familiar with internal discussions about Syria policy added: “If this continues, Assad could be next.’’

The White House has been frustrated by a lack of diplomatic options in dealing with Syria, a country that is barred from most trade with the United States and is labeled a terrorist-sponsoring nation by the State Department. Washington continues to maintain formal diplomatic ties with Damascus, and the administration has not called on Assad to step down, as it did in the case of Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy and now-deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Several key congressional leaders this week pressed the administration to break publicly with Assad, saying the Syrian leader has lost legitimacy. On Friday, the UN Human Rights Council added to the pressure with a resolution condemning the killing of protesters and appointing a delegation to travel to Damascus to investigate the crackdown.

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

A great day for Palestine

A great day for Palestine      

Khalid Amayreh - amayreh@p-ol.com

The Palestine Information Center
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk

Much to the chagrin of the hateful Zionist entity, Hamas and Fatah seem to have reached a final agreement, putting an end to four years of a crippling national rift which exhausted the Palestinian people as never before and gave Israel a valuable opportunity to try liquidate the Palestinian cause.

News of the agreement has already generated instantaneous reactions of excitement and joy, even euphoria in the occupied territories.

Motorists honked their car horns, youngsters took to the streets
shouting “Fatah and Hamas: one people not two.” Some women ululated with joy as Fatah and Hamas leaders appeared on TV screens in Cairo,
announcing the conclusion of the long-awaited agreement.  Some
restaurants and eateries offered free coffee, tea and juices as
celebrations went on until around midnight.

On the Israeli side, Israeli leaders were visibly angry and
disappointed, with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyah threatening the
Palestinian leadership with what looked like a virtual ultimatum:

“The PA would have to choose between peace with Hamas and peace with Israel. It can’t choose both.”

One Fatah official retorted: “We also say Israel would have to
choose between peace with the Palestinian people and peace with racist settlers, it can’t choose both.”

Well, Netanyahu’s threats should be rejected outright and treated with the utter contempt they deserve.

After all, this is an internal Palestinian matter and Israel has absolutely no right to intervene in our internal affairs.

Netanyahu may argue that Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel. Well,
Netanyahu should be reminded that he presides over a government the bulk of which doesn’t recognize Palestine.

In the final analysis, why should Hamas, or for that matter Fatah,
recognize Israel when Israel refuses to recognize the very existence of the Palestinian people.

So, if the next Palestinian government of national unity shouldn’t
include groups that don’t recognize Israel, by the same token,
Palestinians have the right to demand that any Israeli government must exclude groups and parties that don’t recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

Needless to say, the current Israeli government includes explicitly fascist parties that don’t even recognize the very existence
of the Palestinian people.

The conclusion of the reconciliation agreement in Cairo has really
dealt a sharp blow to nefarious Zionist designs. Israel first lost a
great strategic asset in the dramatic downfall of the Mubarak dynasty
and now we have these good tidings from Cairo.  More good news is coming up, inshallah (God willing).

Netanyahu and other Zionist supremacists may rant and rave for as
long as they may. This shouldn’t shake even one hair on our bodies.

None the less, we must not be too preoccupied with self- congratulating ourselves on this auspicious occasion.  Yes there is
no doubt that the present that both Hamas and Fatah have handed over to the Palestinian people is great.

However, we must work overtime to rectify and correct all that
went wrong during these gloomy four years. Prisoners or detainees must be set free, media incitement must end immediately, closed institutions must be reopened; and human rights and civil liberties must be reinstituted. Also grievances must be settled and hard feelings soothed
and reconciled.

In short, we must get the slate clean as soon as possible and
allow for the total obliteration of all the scars of division.

In this agreement, there seems to be only winners. Everyone is
winning as a result of this breakthrough except Israel and the enemies of our people.

Hamas has won by having all its conditions and objections met. We
must not forget that Hamas was supposed to be destroyed according to the American-Zionist designs; so the fact that Hamas has remained a hard, independent variable is indeed a great achievement. This proves that not everything Palestinian must be subject to the Zionist will.

Fatah has also won by showing Israel that Fatah won’t be co-opted
and manipulated against Palestinian national interest. Fatah won by
demonstrating that it will remain a national and patriotic movement
despite American and Israeli designs.

And the Palestinian people has won by overcoming one of the most
formidable internal crises ever to  mar the Palestinian struggle for
freedom  from the claws of diabolic Zionism.

We must also thank our big sister, Egypt, without which the
conclusion of this agreement wouldn’t have been possible.  The
revolutionary leadership in Cairo must be applauded for its tireless
efforts and dedication to bring about this paramount national
reconciliation among the brothers in Palestine. This should be a good
omen for the future.

Finally, we Palestinians should instill in ourselves a feeling of
optimism. The restoration of Palestinian national unity, along with the strategic changes in the Arab region, is huge assets and opportunities that should be utilized for the ultimate liberation of Palestine.

Libya hurting Obama…even though many don’t know where it is

Libya hurting Obama…even though many don’t know where it is

Barack Obama’s approval numbers have been hitting record lows in our polls and others of late and one of the things that’s really hurting him right now is Libya- even though barely half of voters in the country actually know where it is.

Our most recent national poll found that only 27% of Americans supported the military intervention in Libya to 40% who were opposed and 33% who had no opinion. Democrats only narrowly stand behind the President in supporting the action in Libya, 31/28. Meanwhile Republicans (21/51) and independents (29/42) are considerably more unified in their opposition.

Libya doesn’t seem likely to be a big vote shifter next year- 52% of voters say it won’t make a difference in their decision on whether to support Obama for reelection or not. But for the voters who do say it could be a game change it’s a negative- 31% say what’s going on in Libya right now make them less likely to vote for Obama compared to only 17% who say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Obama’s not picking up any Republicans on Libya- just 4% say his actions there make them more likely to vote for him. He’s losing more Democrats on the issue- 14% say it makes them less inclined to support him again. And it’s also hurting him with independents, who split 13% more likely to vote for him because of Libya to 29% less likely.

Libya is definitely proving to be a political loser for Obama which is interesting because only a little more than half of Americans, 58%, can actually correctly identify that it’s in northern Africa. 27% think that it’s in the Middle East, 4% think it’s in South Asia, 2% think it’s in South America, and 9% don’t offer an opinion. Voters may not be terribly informed when it comes to Libya but they know they don’t like what they’re seeing.

There’s a wide array of things causing Obama’s popularity issue and it would be a mistake to try to pin it all on Libya- but it’s certainly not helping.

Full results here

India’s independent line on violence in Syria

India’s independent line on violence in Syria

Once bitten, twice shy. Russia and China aren’t taking chances anymore. They squarely said ‘nyet’ to the western move on Wednesday to get the UN Security Council condemn the violence in Syria. Their apprehension is that US and its european partners (which now includes Germany as well) might resort to a Libya-like build up by getting a UN SC resolution through that provides an alibi to military intervention. All indications are that on the pattern of Libya, Syrian protestors are getting large-scale support from outside from such diverse sources as Saudi Arabia and Qatar and western intelligence and Israel. Unsurprisingly, Syria has closed its border with Jordan, which has always acted as a cat’s paw for British and US intelligence operations in the Middle East.
China told the Security Council that Syria must be left alone to sort out its internal problems on its own and it “welcomed” Damascus’ moves in this regard such as the lifting of emergency and the pledge for democratic reforms. China also warned that if the turbulence sweeping the Middle East isn’t “addressed properly, they will jeopardize peace and stability and
stability in other regions and 
underlined that any constructive help from the international community should be within the ambit of the UN Charter.
Russia voiced different concerns. It was much more forthright than China in stating that the Syrian developments didn’t constitute any threat to international security warranting UN SC action. Russia also alluded to the external support to the Syrian protestors. Of course, Syria is a traditional ally of Russia and any western-sponsored “regime change” in Damascus would have far-reaching consequences for Russia’s global strategy. Russia maintains in Syria its only naval base in the Mediterranean . Without the Syrian base, Russian fleet in the Black Sea would get “bottled up”. Syria is also a buyer of Russian weapons. Russia made it clear that it remained supoortive of Assad’s initiatives to ease the tensions.
Curiously, India did some tight-rope walking on Syria. There was a slight “tilt” in favour of Assad with the Indian stance taking note of “armed extremist elements” posing as protestors in Syria. and of the government’s moves for dialogue and reform. Interestingly, Ambassador Hardeep Puri did someplain-speaking about what all this is adding up to – Arab spring and the incohate doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Puri said: “As we deplore violence from any quarter, the Council needs to make clear that it is the responsibility of sovereign states to respond to the aspirations of its people… At the same time, it is for states to decide on the best course of action to maintain internal law and order and to prevent violence. The primary responsibility of the Council in this respect is to urge all sides to abjure violence in any form and to seek a resolution of grievances through peaceful means”.
In short, India dissociated from identifying with the western condemnation of the Syrian government and expressed scepticism about outside intervention. Arguably, there was even a note of advice to the West not to “exacerbate” the tensions. Similar clarity of thinking was also apparent in the statement made by Puri on March 30 on the situation in Cote d’Ivorie. Puri said UN resolutions should not be “made instruments of regime change” and, therefore, the UN forces should not become party to the Ivorian political stalemate.
These thought processes are at marked variance with the approach taken by the US and its european allies. But the Indian stance will be appreciated by the African countries which harbour deep fears over the intentions behind the clamour for western intervention. A good political setting becomes available for India’s forthcoming summit with the African countries scheduled to be held in Addis Ababa next month.

Promise of a better world? Is that the mission?

Promise of a better world? Is that the mission?

US troops last week watched the start of the Operation Lion’s Leap, a joint US-Iraqi exercise to demonstrate the Iraqi forces’ ability to provide security. US troops last week watched the start of the Operation Lion’s Leap, a joint US-Iraqi exercise to demonstrate the Iraqi forces’ ability to provide security. (Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty Images)
April 29, 2011

H.D.S. GREENWAY’S April 26 op-ed “It may turn out to be three cups of bitter tea’’ was right on about these being “times of disillusion.’’ However, he stops at pointing out the illusion that military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq could achieve “the brave promise of a better world through military intervention.’’ To me, the deeper disillusionment is in recognizing that these military interventions don’t have much to do with the promise of a better world.

You don’t have to probe very deeply to suspect that these interventions have much more to do with a US drive for dominance in these regions (including Libya) for the benefit of US economic interests (read transnational corporations) and our apparently unquenchable thirst for oil.

This is a time for eyes-wide-open recognition of the real motivations for US military interventions.

Jim Wallace 
Cambridge 
The writer is a member of the Smedley D. Butler Brigade of Veterans for Peace. 

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

Russia sees current situation in Syria as no threat to international peace, security

Russia sees current situation in Syria as no threat to international peace, security

English.news.cn

UNITED NATIONS, April 27 (Xinhua) — Russia said here on Wednesday that the current situation in Syria, despite an increase in tension and confrontation, does not threaten international peace and security, but “a real threat to regional security … could arise from outside interference in Syria’s domestic situation.”

Alexander Pankin, Russia’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, made the statement as he was speaking at an open meeting of the UN Security Council on the current situation in Syria.

“The main thing in our view, is that the current situation in Syria, despite an increase in tension and confrontation, does not present a threat to international peace and security,” Pankin said. “One cannot disregard the fact that the violence does not all originate from one side.”

“A real threat to regional security, in our view, could arise from outside interference in Syria’s domestic situation, including attempts to push ready made solutions or taking of sides,” he said.

“It is increasingly clear that some of the demonstrators both in Syria and in other countries hope that the deteriorating situation could force the international community to help them and to take sides,” he said. “Such approaches lead to a never ending cycle of violence. This is a type of invitation to civil war.”

With his statement, the Russian ambassador implied that there is no need for the Security Council to discuss this issue as the 15-nation body, under the UN Charter, only takes up issues that threaten international peace and security.

The Security Council on Wednesday first met behind closed doors on Syria and then held an open meeting to hear a briefing from the UN under-secretary-general for political affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe.

“Violence, regardless of perpetrators or sides, must be avoided, ” Pankin said. “It is only through constructive dialogue and the implementation of announced political reforms and social, economic change, that stability and democratic development in Syria for the good of all its citizens will occur.”

“It is extremely important to focus all efforts to avoid such a dangerous turn of events, especially as Syria is a cornerstone of the Middle East security architecture,” he said. “Destabilizing this significant link in the chain will lead to complications throughout the region.”

“It is of a sense of deep concern that the Russian Federation views the increasing tension and manifestations of confrontation in Syria, which are claiming victims and causing suffering among demonstrators, law enforcement personnel and the army,” he said. ” We expect that the Syrian authorities will conduct a transparent and effective investigation of all such cases and that the guilty will be brought to justice.”

“Clearly, the process of democratic reforms, proclaimed and being implemented by Syria’s leadership is worthy of support,” he added. “A great many significant steps have been taken over a very short period of time.”

Editor: Mu Xuequan

Putin: Should all weird regimes in the world be bombed?

Putin, about the military intervention in Libya: Should all weird regimes in the world be bombed?

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, ridiculed the military intervention in Libya Tuesday, asking in a press conference in Copenhagen if it will be necessary to bomb all the “odd regimes” in the world and denouncing the hunting of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Gaddafi has invented a new monarchy. Like Napoleon, who came to power after a revolution and proclaimed himself emperor (…) yes, it’s a background monarchy, strange, suspicious, and abnormal, everything you want, but this is it,” said Putin during a visit to Denmark.

Internal contradictions have turned into an armed conflict. Why should we intervene in this conflict? Don’t we have other weird regimes in the world? Should we intervene in internal conflicts everywhere? (…) Should we bomb all these countries?” he asked.

Moreover, the head of the Russian Government has denounced the hunting of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. ”It is said that it is not wanted the liquidation of Gaddafi, but why are his palaces bombed?” he asked, stressing that the only effect of these attacks is to kill civilians because Muammar “Gaddafi is not there, he ran long time ago”.

Now, some officials say yes, they are trying to murder Gaddafi. Who allowed this? Was there a process? Who has granted the right to execute a man?” he said, stressing “everyone is silent” when it comes to responding to these questions.

Putin doesn’t like the coalition’s attitude

However, for Putin, the international community must respect international law and take care of civilians. “When so-called civilized world is attacking a small country with all its power, destroying the infrastructures created for generations I don’t know if it is good. I do not like this, “he concluded.

Moscow has multiplied in recent weeks its criticism against the international coalition, believing that interventions are beyond the UN mandate, which does not provide a military intervention.

Israel ‘very concerned’ over plans to open Gaza border

[If Obama's Arab revolutions have managed to turn the tables on Israel, does that disprove the conspiracy theory that the "Jews" control everything?  (SEE: The president’s catastrophic Mideast policy ).]

Israel ‘very concerned’ over plans to open Gaza border

A Hamas security forces member closes the gate of the Rafah border between Egypt and southern Gaza Strip.

A Hamas security forces member closes the gate of the Rafah border between Egypt and southern Gaza Strip.

JERUSALEM : Israel is “very concerned” about the implications of Egypt’s plans to permanently reopen its border with Gaza, a senior official said Friday, warning it could impact on Israel’s security.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil al-Arabi told Al-Jazeera that the crossing would be permanently opened in coming days as part of Cairo’s plans to ease the blockade on the Gaza Strip.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Israeli official said Gaza’s Hamas rulers had already build up a “dangerous military machine” in northern Sinai which could be further strengthened by opening the border.

“We are very concerned about the situation in northern Sinai where Hamas has succeeded in building a dangerous military machine, despite Egyptian efforts to prevent that,” he told AFP, without giving further details.

“What power could they amass if Egypt was no longer acting to prevent that build up?”

Earlier this week, unknown assailants in northern Sinai blew up a gas pipeline supplying Israel and Jordan in what was the second time it had been sabotaged in 10 weeks.

It is still unclear who was behind the attacks, and the official would not be drawn on whether Israel was implicating Hamas.

But the fact that the new regime in Cairo was seeking to upgrade its ties with Gaza’s Hamas rulers and was also seeking to better ties with long-time foe Iran, was an issue which could have strategic implications for Israel’s national security, the source said.

“We are troubled by the developments in Egypt, by the voices calling to annul the peace treaty, by the rapprochement between Egypt and Iran, and by the upgrading of relations between Egypt and Hamas. These developments potentially have strategic implications for Israel’s national security.”

The move was announced a day after Hamas reached a surprise reconciliation deal with its Fatah rivals which control the Palestinian Authority, in a development which stirred anger and concern in Israel.

“The recent developments have been very worrying,” he said, without elaborating.

The Rafah border is the only way in and out of Gaza which does not pass through Israel.

It has remained largely shut since June 2006 when Israel imposed a tight blockade on the territory after militants there snatched Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who is still being held.

The blockade was tightened a year later when the Islamist Hamas movement seized control of the territory, ousting forces loyal to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority.

Egypt has actively supported Israel’s blockade, frequently coming in for harsh regional criticism for keeping the border closed and for building an underground wall in a bid to curb smuggling, which it views as a security risk.

But earlier this year, mass street protests in Egypt led to the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak, with the new military regime keen to review its policy on Gaza.

Opening the border without any international supervision is likely to be a breach of 2005 agreement between Israel and Egypt which was brokered by the United States.

Under terms of the deal, the crossing would be under Egyptian and Palestinian control, with European observers and Israeli camera surveillance.

Israel fears that an open border would allow the free passage of weapons and personnel into Gaza, a stronghold of militant factions bent on attacking the Jewish state.

- AFP/ch

Pakistan Has Allowed the Creation of Secret Intel Network At Own Peril–(The Hindu)

[Pakistani leaders have enabled the Americans to effectively cut them out of the picture in Afghanistan and the sub-continent.  You see the creation of an American covert intelligence network on Pakistani soil, which will allow the US to negotiate directly with the Taliban (bypassing Pakistan), alongside a converging of US/Indian agreements that endorse Mumbai charges against Pak officers, and lean toward a US/Indian agreement to resist Chinese penetration of Pakistani northern provinces.  American/Indian destabilization missions within Pakistan are the stuff that regional conflagrations are born of.  If the Pak Army is truly as patriotic as so many claim, then they will take immediate actions to eradicate this existential threat within their midst.  None of which could have been arranged without the connivance of the top military and establishment leaders.  The great house-cleaning must begin there.]

Pakistan confronts U.S. Afghan strategy

M.K. Bhadrakumar

The Pakistani military leadership wishes to draw a redline for the U.S.’ covert operations so that Washington will be compelled to deal with militant Afghan groups through the single window of the ISI.

In his 22nd visit also, Admiral “Mike” Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the United States armed forces, failed to achieve what he couldn’t at the previous 21 calls he made to Pakistan since assuming his assignment in the Pentagon in October 2007. Yet, of all top U.S. officials, Mr. Mullen is projected by Washington as a dogged believer in America’s cooperation with the Pakistani army leadership. As he proceeded to Islamabad last Wednesday, he spoke with extraordinary candour on the troubled U.S.-Pakistan relationship. “We have had a very turbulent time,” he told Reuters, but despite tensions, both the U.S. and Pakistan acknowledged that the relationship was vital. “I think that all of us believe that we cannot afford to let this relationship come apart. It’s just too dangerous. It’s too dangerous, in each country, for each country. It’s too dangerous for the region.” The relationship was difficult, but “we walk away from it at our peril, quite frankly.” The U.S.-Pakistan relationship couldn’t have been framed more aptly. But then, Mr. Mullen went on to make the stunning allegation that what caused tension most is the “relationship” between Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence and the so-called Haqqani network of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

Mr. Mullen couldn’t have arrived at this realisation on the ISI-Haqqani nexus, which has been one of the worst-kept secrets of the Afghan bazaar, belatedly. The latest bunch of WikiLeaks cables pertaining to Guantanamo Bay actually reveals that the U.S. military, which Mr. Mullen heads, has all along listed the ISI as a “terrorist” organisation alongside the al-Qaeda, the Hezbollah, the Hamas and the Iranian intelligence! Surely, the issue is the timing of Mr. Mullen’s statement. He deliberately upped the ante, holding the ISI directly and primarily responsible for the stalemate in the war; in effect, he challenged the Pakistani military leadership that it would be held accountable for the Taliban’s summer offensive.

Mr. Mullen betrayed the deep frustration within the Barack Obama administration that the stalemate in the Afghan war cannot be broken militarily. A ferocious Taliban counter-offensive is expected and American officials are nervously anticipating a sharp escalation in war casualties, which may happen at an awkward time as the U.S. presidential election campaign begins to get livelier by the day. The war has become unpopular in the American public opinion and the political class doesn’t have the stomach to continue with it. The U.S. coalition partners too (including Britain) are in a tearing hurry to exit.

Over and above, there is an acute “resource crunch.” David Ignatius of The Washington Post wrote recently that the current budget crisis “should force some hard decisions about America’s foreign policy priorities … Today, the U.S. is allocating about $110 billion annually for the Afghan war, about $3.2 billion for military and economic aid to Pakistan, and about $150 million in special assistance to help Egypt’s democratic revolution. In terms of U.S. national interests, those spending levels don’t make sense. The pyramid is upside down … we should spend less [on AfPak], going forward, as we move along the exit ramp. This will mean a smaller military footprint, more use of paramilitary forces and more emphasis on diplomacy.”

Prima facie, the Washington-Islamabad acrimony is due to the U.S. displeasure that the Pakistani military continues to baulk at launching operations in the North Waziristan region, where the Haqqani group is entrenched, while Islamabad opposes the manner in which the U.S. is conducting drone attacks and intelligence activities within Pakistan. However, the acrimony is quintessentially an attempt to set the bottom line of the Afghan peace talks. The Pakistani suspicion is that the U.S. is deliberately withholding its long-term Afghanistan strategy, which leaves Islamabad groping in the dark about American intentions.

Bypassing the ally

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has been holding direct talks with the Taliban. It has been able to do this largely because of the extensive intelligence network it has created in Pakistan — which became possible because Islamabad allowed it to happen. That, ironically, enables Washington to dispense with the good offices of the Pakistani military and the ISI, and opt for direct interaction with the insurgent groups. The U.S. intelligence network within Pakistan has penetrated the range of insurgent groups — the Afghan Taliban, the “Pakistan Taliban,” and non-Taliban (Afghan and Pakistani) militant groups. Evidently, if the drone attacks are becoming more “result-oriented,” it is due to real-time intelligence inputs. During the six weeks of gruelling interrogation of U.S. intelligence operative Raymond Davis, the Pakistani military caught on to a host of home truths. By now, the Pakistani military would have a fair idea of the extent of the American intelligence network and its potential to play merry havoc by splintering insurgent groups, pitting one group against another, manipulating factionalism within groups, monitoring the terror network and, conceivably, even turning some of the insurgent groups into instruments of U.S. regional policies. (Tehran insists that the U.S. is indulging in covert operations in Pakistan and Iran.)

Suffice it to say the Pakistani military leadership wishes to draw a redline for the U.S.’ covert operations so that Washington will be compelled to deal with militant Afghan groups through the single window of the ISI — within the parameters set by what old-timers call the “[Ronald] Reagan rules” during the Afghan jihad of the 1980s. There is hardly any leeway for Pakistan to compromise on this demand, which aims at revising the ground rules of the U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership in the conduct of the Afghan war (based hitherto on unspoken, unwritten, ever-deniable and flexible templates of collaboration).

To be sure, Pakistan is insisting on the need to reset the ground rules as the endgame advances, in order to avoid the horrible prospect of its so-called “strategic assets” in Afghanistan — which it created at enormous cost and sacrifice and at great risk over the past three decades — getting systematically cannibalised by the American intelligence operatives scavenging the Pakistani territories, on one side of the Durand Line, and by the Special Forces under General David Petraeus relentlessly scouring the Hindu Kush, on the other — the famous “hammer and anvil approach.”

Therefore, Pakistan has done the logical thing by reaching out to Afghan President Hamid Karzai in an attempt to form a condominium to kick-start formal reconciliation with the Taliban in a swift sequential process, which would present Washington with a fait accompli. Mr. Karzai is willing to cooperate in this sideshow since he has his own problems with the Obama administration. The Washington establishment is annoyed with Mr. Karzai due to his inability (or unwillingness) to deliver a status of forces agreement that would effectively legitimise long-term American military presence on Afghan soil. On his part, Mr. Karzai expects a pivotal role in any peace process so that he doesn’t become politically expendable by 2014, whereas Washington quietly incites the non-Pashtun elements to challenge his zeal for reconciliation with the Taliban. So, it is this congruence of interests between Kabul and Islamabad that manifests as their joint demand that any Afghan peace process should be Afghan-led and not “dictated from outside”.

The core of the U.S.’ strategic dilemma is that the Pentagon desperately wants to perpetuate American military presence in Afghanistan, but knows that the majority of Afghans and the regional powers disfavour it. Therefore, the U.S. is opting for a strategy of selective reconciliation with “friendly” insurgent groups, which allows the drawdown of U.S. troops and gradually turns the war into a matter of Special Forces operations or pinpointed air strikes. The strategy aims at creating a political environment within which American forces can relocate themselves to the tranquil northern regions of Afghanistan (without having to fight and get killed or maimed), while vast areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan and the tribal tracts in the border regions lapse into “cold peace.”

Of course, Pakistan is justified in wondering what is there for it in this scenario. This wasn’t how the war was supposed to end. Obviously, Washington’s priorities will change once the intensity of the fighting declines. For one thing, the U.S. aid flow will decline. Once the U.S. strengthens its direct line to the insurgents, its dependence on the Pakistani military can only decline. But Pakistan’s objective of gaining “strategic depth” in Afghanistan remains elusive. Equally, Pakistan will be left grappling with an assortment of militant groups along its long, disputed border with Afghanistan that have been highly radicalised by the U.S.-led war. These include some groups which have been alienated one way or the other by Pakistan’s role as the U.S.’ “key non-NATO ally.”

Pakistan faces an existential crisis in its Pashtun tribal tract that has borne the brunt of the U.S.-led war. As last Saturday’s London Times report shows, there will be all sorts of attempts to muddy the waters. It suits the U.S. strategy to give the Afghan endgame the exaggerated overtones of an India-Pakistan turf war. The Indian establishment acted wisely to open dialogue with Pakistan in Mohali.

(The writer is a former diplomat.)

Chernobyl: Consequences of the catastrophe 25 years later

Chernobyl: Consequences of the catastrophe 25 years later

by Janette D. Sherman, M.D., and Alexey V. Yablokov, Ph.D.

Editor’s note: The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists asked Dr. Sherman, recognized worldwide for her expertise on Chernobyl, to write this article last year, then rejected it just before deadline, probably considering it too alarming. In it, she reports the widespread expectation of another nuclear power plant failure and the catastrophic consequences. Now, a few months later, the world commemorates the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl while watching the Fukushima meltdown.

For more than 50 years, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have abided by an agreement that in essence allows them to cover each other’s back – sometimes at the expense of public health. It’s a delicate balance between cooperation and collusion.

Signed on May 28, 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, the agreement states:

“Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement,” and continues: The IAEA and the WHO “recognize that they may find it necessary to apply certain limitations for the safeguarding of confidential information furnished to them. They therefore agree that nothing in this agreement shall be construed as requiring either of them to furnish such information as would, in the judgment of the other party possessing the information, interfere with the orderly conduct of its operation.”

The WHO mandate is to look after the health on our planet, while the IAEA is to promote nuclear energy. In light of recent industrial failures involving nuclear power plants, many prominent scientists and public health officials have criticized WHO’s non-competing relationship with IEAE that has stymied efforts to address effects and disseminate information about the 1986 Chernobyl accident, so that current harm may be documented and future harm prevented.

For years, concerned individuals have held vigils outside WHO’s Geneva headquarters urging it to function as an independent agency of the United Nations, free of influence from the IAEA because they want to prevent another tragedy. Chernobyl has shown that societies everywhere – especially Japan, France, India, China, the United States and Germany – must distribute stable potassium iodide (KI) before an accident and must provide independent, publicly available radiation monitoring of both food and individual in-body irradiation levels with the aim of documenting the danger and preventing additional harm.

Twin brothers Michael and Vladimir Iariga of Minsk, Belarus, are 16 years old. Michael, with hydrocephalus, is five minutes older than Vladimir, who is deaf. – Photo: Robert Knoth

On the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl, WHO and the IAEA published the “Chernobyl Forum Report,” mentioning only 350 sources, mainly from the English literature, while in reality there are more than 30,000 publications and up to 170,000 sources that address the consequences of Chernobyl. By 2006, there had been 10 major publications concerning Chernobyl published in England, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the United States, with scientists currently publishing new data.

After waiting two decades for the findings of Chernobyl to be recognized by the United Nations, three scientists, Alexey Yablokov, Vasily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko undertook the task to collect, abstract and translate some 5,000 articles reported by multiple scientists, who observed first-hand the effects from the fallout. These had been published largely in Slavic languages and not previously available in translation. The result was “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009.

According to the official records, the destruction of the Chernobyl reactor was the result of both design factors and human error. Many technocrats hope that engineering feats will provide benefits for society, but from the sinking of the Titanic to the recent British Petroleum oil blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, it is apparent that neither technology nor humans are error-proof. To mitigate this and any future nuclear disasters, it is critical to learn about the extent of the Chernobyl disaster and continue research into the effects upon the biosphere and all that live in it.

The greatest amount of radioactivity fell outside of Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia, extending across the Northern Hemisphere as far away as Asia, North Africa and North America, while the greatest concentrations continue to affect the 13 million living in Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia.

Immediately after the catastrophe, release of information was limited, and there was a delay in collecting data. WHO, supported by governments worldwide, should have been pro-active and led the way to provide readily accessible information. These omissions resulted in several effects: limited monitoring of fallout levels, delays in getting stable potassium iodide to people, lack of care for many and delay in prevention of contamination of the food supply.

Key to understanding the effects is the difference between external and internal radiation. While external radiation, as from x-rays, neutron, gamma and cosmic rays, can harm and kill, internal radiation – alpha and beta particles – when absorbed by ingestion and inhalation releases damaging energy in direct contact with tissues and cells.

Radiobiological science is not new, and Chernobyl’s adverse outcomes were to be expected, but new adverse effects in humans, animals and plants were documented for the first time by those who directly observed the human and biologic populations exposed to the fallout.

Environmental consequences

As a result of the accumulation of Cesium-137 (Cs-137), Strontium-90 (Sr-90), Plutonium (Pu) and Americium (Am) in the root soil layer, radionuclides have continued to build in plants over recent years. Moving with water to the above-ground parts of plants, the radionuclides – which earlier had disappeared from the surface – concentrate in the edible components, resulting in increased levels of internal irradiation and dose rates in people, despite natural disintegration and decreasing total amounts of radionuclides over time.

Will workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan meet the same fate as their predecessors in Chernobyl, as Dr. Sherman warned? These workers are inside Reactor B1. On April 27, plant owner TEPCO announced that a woman worker was exposed to radiation three times the legal limit last month – with no explanation why they waited a month to make this public. – Photo: TEPCO

Bioaccumulation results in concentration in plants, mushrooms and animals and can increase a thousand-fold as compared with concentrations in soil and water. The factors of accumulation and transition vary considerably by season even for the same species, making it difficult to discern dangerous levels of radionuclides in plants and animals that appear to be safe to eat. Unfortunately one cannot see, smell or taste radioactive isotopes and, in general, they cannot be cleaned up.

While there have been some reports of wildlife thriving in the 30-km exclusion zone around Chernobyl, the appearance is deceptive, with most being immigrants. According to morphogenetic, cytogenetic and immunological tests, all of the populations of plants, fishes, amphibians and mammals that were studied there are in poor condition. This zone is analogous to a “black hole,” essentially a micro evolutionary “boiler,” where gene pools of living creatures are actively transforming, with unpredictable consequences.

The accumulation of Sr-90 into plants is greater than that of Cs-137, but it varies by species, population and area. Thus, grazing animals concentrate Sr-90 in their milk, and then into the food supply.

People who rely upon wild plants and game animals found their food supplies diminished, as mushrooms, wild game and berries were contaminated and could not be used as food.

Plants developed deformities of their roots, fruits, leaves, pollen and spores, and land and aquatic plants show chromosomal changes and mutations that were rare or unheard of before the catastrophe.

It may be that disappearance of one or more species in an ecosystem may bring about the collapse of an entire system.

Radioactive contamination re-circulates through the biosphere via rain, snow, fire and water. Seasonal growth and decay of plants contributes to spread contamination to other plants and animals. Fires spread plant and soil contamination via air currents, and the spectacular wildfires in Russia that occurred in 2010 have not been fully documented.

Adverse human health findings

Those profoundly – and expectedly – affected are the liquidators, the young and healthy men and women who worked to stop the fires and to contain the release of radioactivity. Miners were recruited and many worked to tunnel under the reactor.

Of the estimated 830,000 people conscripted to do the work, by 2005, some 125,000 – 15 percent – were dead, mostly from circulatory and blood diseases and malignancies. Of those from Belarus who worked May to June of 1986, versus those who worked July to December 1986, more developed stomach or thyroid disease and had a greater incidence of cancer. Malignancies were expected, given the liquidators’ close proximity to intense radioactivity.

Heart disease accounted for 55 percent of deaths in the earlier workers. The increase in non-malignant diseases was new to the world of radiation medicine, and documented only because there were so many victims and so many scientists and physicians who observed the victims.

Koreans are still buying Japanese seafood like this at a wholesale market in Seoul, but fears are rising that it is being poisoned by the radioactive water pouring out of Fukushima. – Photo: Reuters

Children born to liquidator families were seriously affected with birth defects, thyroid cancer, an increase in central nervous system tumors – in Kiev – and generally poor health. There was also an overall increase in juvenile morbidity, cataracts in children and diseases characteristic of accelerated aging.

In Belarus and the area of Ukraine around the Chernobyl site, children in general have poor health, including loss of intellect. Based upon the research of multiple researchers, it is estimated that in the heavily contaminated areas of Belarus, only 20 percent of children are considered healthy, placing an enormous burden upon governmental resources to provide medical care and education for those affected.

Significant adverse human health findings

General morbidity increased all of the contaminated territories and is correlated with the density of radioactive contamination as documented in “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment.”

Blood and circulatory systems:

Radioactive contamination resulted in diseases of the blood, blood-forming organs and the circulatory system and is a major factor in overall morbidity for inhabitants of contaminated territories, including evacuees, migrants, liquidators and their children. It is becoming clear that one of the common reasons for these functional impairments is radioactive destruction of the endothelium, the covering of the inner surface of vessels. Leukemia incidence, largely involving the bone marrow damage, increased not only in children and liquidators, but also in the general adult population.

Endocrine system:

All forecasts concerning thyroid cancer have been wrong. Chernobyl related thyroid cancers have rapid onset and aggressive development, mostly in the papillary form, affecting both children and adults.

The marked increase in thyroid disease and thyroid cancer in children is linked to the release of radioactive iodine. Of concern is damage to the thyroid of the unborn, with concomitant loss of intellectual function. To date, an important finding is that for every case of thyroid cancer there are about 1,000 cases of other forms of thyroid gland pathology. In Belarus alone, experts estimate that up to 1.5 million people are at risk of thyroid disease.

Immune system:

The quantity and activity of various groups of lymphocytes and thus the production of antibodies, including various immunoglobulins, stem cells and thrombocytes, are altered. The ultimate consequences are immunodeficiency and an increase in the frequency and seriousness of infections and of acute and chronic diseases. The suppression of immunity as a result of this radioactive contamination is known as “Chernobyl AIDS.”

Respiratory system:

There was a marked increase in respiratory morbidity everywhere in the contaminated territories. In the first days after the catastrophe, respiratory problems of the mouth, throat and trachea in adults were basically linked to the gaseous aerosol forms of Iodine-131 (I-131), Ruthenium-106 (Ru-106), and Cerium-144 (Ce-144). Further damage to the respiratory system was caused by “hot particles” – the firm particles of uranium fuel melted together with other radionuclides. “Chernobyl dust” has been found in liquidators’ bronchial tubes, bronchioles and alveoli for many years.

Reproductive system:

A wide spectrum of reproductive function disorders and urogenital morbidity exists in those living in contaminated territories. These include abnormal development of the genitalia, sperm pathologies, including dead sperm, low sperm mobility, disorders of secondary sexual characteristics, degenerate changes of the placenta, delay in sexual maturation, primary infertility, complications during pregnancy and birth, and perinatal and neonatal deaths.

Significantly high levels of alpha radionuclides were found in bone tissue of aborted fetuses from mothers living in the contaminated territories in Ukraine. Changes in sex ratios at birth were documented in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Poland and Sweden.

Genetic changes:

Chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood cells were among the first ominous signs of the Chernobyl catastrophe and revealed a correlation between the level of aberrations and a number of pathological conditions. Somatic chromosomal mutations were linked to congenital malformations and protein polymorphism. Mutations in mini-satellite DNA are only some of the genetic changes resulting from radionuclide exposure, but the overwhelming majority of Chernobyl-induced genetic changes will not become apparent for several generations.

Skeletal system:

Liquidators and residents of the contaminated territories often complain of bone and joint pain. Bone function is a balance between the formation of bone and the natural re-absorption process. Because a number of isotopes become deposited in bone these diseases may be due to either hormonal disorders or direct damage by irradiation to the cellular predecessors of osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Sr-90, produced in the splitting of uranium is deposited in children’s bones and teeth and linked to diseases later in life. (Sherman, 2000; Mangano and Sherman, 2011)

In contaminated Ukrainian territories, children have been born without bones (“jellyfish children”), a condition seen previously only in the Marshall Islands after the nuclear tests of the 1950s.

In contaminated Ukrainian territories, children have been born without bones (“jellyfish children”), a condition seen previously only in the Marshall Islands after the nuclear tests of the 1950s.

Cataracts:

Throughout the more contaminated territories, visual abnormalities occur with greater frequency than in less contaminated areas and include premature cataracts, vitreous degeneration, refraction errors, uvitis and conjunctivitis. It is disturbing that only after 2000 did medical authorities begin to recognize the radiogenic origin of the large increase in cataracts among liquidators and evacuees from the Chernobyl territories. Official recognition occurred 10 years (!) after doctors began to sound the alarm and 13 years after the problem was first registered.

Congenital malformations and anomalies:

Wherever there was Chernobyl radioactive contamination, there was an increase in children born with anomalies and congenital malformations (CMs), including previously rare multiple structural impairments of the limbs, head and body. (Wertelecki, 2010). Analysis of more than 31,000 Belarussian abortuses revealed that the incidence of officially registered CMs increased in all of the contaminated territories and was especially significant in areas with Cs-137 levels of contamination higher than 15 Curies per square kilometer (15 Ci/km2).

In Belarus, some 24 percent of the children in the territories with Cs-137 levels less than 1 Ci/km2 were born with CMs; 30 percent had CMs in territories with levels of 1-5 Ci/km2, and 83 percent had CMs in districts with contamination levels above 15 Ci/km2. The Russian State Registry, which included more than 30,000 children born to liquidators, revealed 46.7 percent had congenital anomalies and “genetic syndromes,” with the prevalence of bone and muscular abnormalities being 3.6-fold higher than corresponding normal Russian parameters.

With the passage of more than a decade, we do not know the full extent of the health of children and grandchildren born to those who were contaminated by the Chernobyl fallout, but research must continue to find out. (Holt, E., 2010)

Central nervous system:

The most serious effect of the Chernobyl radiation is to the brain and is a major medical, social and economic problem for the affected individual, the persons’ family and society at large.

TEPCO President Masataka Shimizu and other company officials kneel to beg forgiveness at a shelter in Koriyama – but they’ve offered no financial compensation. The story has surfaced of a whistleblower who warned about Fukushima 11 years ago and was blackballed from the industry in response. – Photo: Kyodo/Reuters

Studies of liquidators and those irradiated in utero reveal that even small amounts of nuclear radiation, considered harmless by official measures of radiation exposure, resulted in marked organic damage of the frontal, temporal and occipitoparietal lobes of the brain. These organic changes are reflected in nervous system dysfunction, including perception, short-term memory, attention span and operative thinking and result in behavioral and mental disorders and diminished intelligence.

Recent studies show that schoolchildren from the most exposed areas in Sweden who were in the sensitive gestational period during the Chernobyl release were significantly less likely to qualify for high school. (Almond et al., 2007) A recent study of Norwegian adolescents revealed the adverse effect of low dose Chernobyl radiation exposure in utero on cognitive function (verbal IQ). (Heiervang et al., 2010)

Inexplicably, WHO had a special project on brain damage in the Chernobyl territories, which was abruptly stopped after the first definitive results. It is becoming clear that low-dose and low-dose rates of radiation have a profound effect upon fine structures of the nervous system, upon higher nervous system function and upon neuropsychiatry function.

Many pro-nuclear critics have attributed the latter to “radio-phobia,” but documentation of disease is not limited to the human population. With few exceptions, animal and plant systems that were studied demonstrated structural abnormalities in offspring, loss of tolerance and viability, and genetic changes. (Moller and Mousseau, 2010) Wild animals and plants did not drink alcohol, smoke or worry about compensation.

Total number of victims

The number of victims is one of the most contentious issues between scientists who collected data first-hand and WHO/IAEA that estimated only 9,000 deaths.

The most detailed estimate of additional deaths has been done in Russia by comparing rates in six highly contaminated territories with overall Russian averages and with those of six lesser-contaminated areas, maintaining similar geographical and socioeconomic parameters. There were over 7 million people in each area. Documentation is as follows:

The region under study exceeded the Russian average in both over-all mortality and increased rate of mortality. The total number of additional deaths, calculated on the basis of the standardized mortality rates, is estimated at 60,400 (95 percent CI: 54,880 to 65,920) – or 34 persons per 1,000. From 1990 to 2004, the number of additional deaths represents 3.75 percent of the entire population of the contaminated territories and agrees well with the figure of 4.2 percent for Ukraine. (National Ukrainian Report, 2006)

For the populations in all the contaminated territories together – European Russia 1,789,000 (1999), Belarus 1,571,000 (2001) and Ukraine 2,290,000 (2002) – and based on the additional rate in Russia, the total number of extra deaths from Chernobyl in Belarus, Ukraine and the European part of Russia is estimated to be 212,000 for the first 15 years after the catastrophe.

While this calculation seems straightforward, it might underestimate the real figures for three reasons according to Khudoley et al. (2006):

1. Official data about the radioactive contamination for Belgorod and Lipetsk provinces do not correlate with corresponding changes in health statistics after Chernobyl, meaning that the differences in mortality between contaminated and non-contaminated populations that were found might actually be greater. If so, the Ukrainian mortality rate of 4.2 percent may be more realistic than the Russian 3.75 percent.

2. It is well known that there was considerable contamination – sometimes more than 1 Ci/km2 – not only in the six regions under consideration but also in 10 other regions of the European part of Russia, meaning that the total death toll for Russia may be higher.

3. The calculations cover a 15-year period (1990–2004), omitting the years between 1986-1990.

Japanese farmers protest outside the Tokyo head office of TEPCO on April 26, the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe. As calls were heard across Japan that day for a “nuclear-free society,” the farmers took with them vegetables, milk and even two cows. A farmer whose land is 23 kilometers from Fukushima said his cows were getting thin and dying. – Photo: AFP

When we apply the additional mortality of 34 extra deaths per 1,000 population for the 15 years 1990-2004, which was derived above, to the cohort of liquidators not living in contaminated zones (400,000), to the evacuees and to people who moved away from contaminated areas (350,000), then we expect another 25,500 deaths in this period. The overall number of Chernobyl-related deaths up until 2004 in the former USSR is estimated to be 237,500.

Assuming that 10 million people in Europe, outside the former Soviet Union, live in territories with a Cs-137 ground contamination higher than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter, or 40 kBq/m2 (>1.08 Ci/km2), and that the mortality risk is only half that determined in the Chernobyl region, that is, 17 deaths per 1,000 inhabitants – and with better food and better medical and socioeconomic status – up until 2004, we can expect an additional 170,000 deaths in Europe.

Assuming further that the other 150 million Europeans living in territories with a Cs-137 ground contamination below 40 kBq/m2, the additional mortality will be 10-fold less – i.e., 1.7 deaths per 1,000 in 1990-2004 – then we can expect 150,000 x 1.7 or 255,000 more deaths in the rest of Europe.

Given that 20 percent of the radionuclides released from the Chernobyl reactor were deposited outside Europe, with an exposed population of 190 million and with a risk factor of 1.7 per 1,000 as before, we can expect 323,000 additional deaths outside Europe by 2004.

Data from multiple scientists estimate the overall mortality from the Chernobyl catastrophe, for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004, to be 985,000, similar to those of Gofman (1994a) and Bertell (2006) and a hundred times more than the WHO/IAEA estimate.

Overall effects of radioactive fallout

While fallout was measured in many countries, multiple short half-life isotopes were largely un-measured. Decades of research have confirmed that radioisotopes become deposited in various parts of living systems. In humans, I-131 and I-129 concentrate in the thyroid, Cs-137 in soft tissue, and Sr-90 in teeth and bones.

Combined effects from exposure to multiple isotopes that concentrate in various portions of a human or animal have not been fully examined, however, by comparing disease rates in communities with increased levels of radiation to others with low levels, or pre-Chernobyl levels, while maintaining similar socio-economic factors, distinct patterns of effect emerged in those who received the Chernobyl fallout.

Fallout deposition was uneven and remains uneven. Aerial measurements were largely of Cs-137 fallout, which has a gamma component detectable from a plane or helicopter, but even with monitoring, hot spots remained ill defined. The effects of “hot particles” was first documented when upper respiratory, skin and eye problems became manifest soon after the Chernobyl explosions. The particles consist of radioactive metal, largely alpha emitters that cause significant damage when in contact with living cells.

The effects from the Chernobyl catastrophe change over time, many ongoing and some increasing in adverse effect as, for example, Plutonium-241 (Pu-241) that decays to Americium-241 (Am-241), with a half-life of 432 years. Am-241 is water-soluble, moves through the food chain, and emits both gamma and alpha radiation. The ultimate effect upon migratory birds and sea life is not yet determined, but such contamination could result in the collapse of significant numbers of species and food sources.

A 2008 publication of the Ministry of Ukraine of Emergencies and Affairs of Public Protection from the Consequences of Chernobyl (“Atlas of Ukraine Radioactive Contamination”) shows dire predictions for the spread of increasing amounts of Am-241 around the Chernobyl site, westward into the Pinsk Marshes that form the border between Ukraine and Belarus, and south into the Dnepr River where it flows into the Black Sea near Odessa, empties through the Bosporus to the Aegean, and ultimately reaches the Mediterranean Sea.

The westward spread is augmented by commercial canal traffic that connects the Priyapat River to the Bug, Vistula and Oder Rivers and finally into the Baltic Sea. Thus in addition to the atmospheric spread immediately after the disaster, contamination continues to spread via water routes.

To date, not every living system has been studied, but of those that have – animals, birds, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, insects, trees, plants, bacteria, viruses and humans – many with genetic instability across generations all sustained changes, some permanent and some fatal. Wild and domestic animals develop diseases similar to those found in humans

It takes 10 decades for an isotope to completely decay, thus the approximately 30-year half-lives for Sr-90 and Cs-137 mean it will take nearly three centuries before they have decayed, a mere blink of the eye when compared to Plutonium-239 (Pu-239) with a half-life of 24,100 years.

The human and economic costs are enormous: In the first 25 years, the direct economic damage to Belarus, Ukraine and Russia has exceeded $500 billion. To mitigate some of the consequences, Belarus spends about 20 percent of its national annual budget, Ukraine up to 6 percent and Russia up to 1 percent. Funding from other countries and from the U.N. is essential to continue scientific studies and to provide help to those who continue to live with significant radioactive contamination.

The human and economic costs are enormous: In the first 25 years, the direct economic damage to Belarus, Ukraine and Russia has exceeded $500 billion. Belarus spends about 20 percent of its national annual budget to mitigate some of the consequences.

The tragedy of Chernobyl shows that societies everywhere – especially Japan, France, India, China, the United States and Germany – must consider the importance of independent, publicly available radiation monitoring of both food and individual in-body irradiation levels with the aim of documenting the danger and preventing additional harm and to have stable potassium iodide (KI) readily available to prevent thyroid damage.

Given profound weather effects – earthquakes, floods, tsunamis etc. – human fallibility and military conflicts, many believe that it is only a matter of time before there is another nuclear catastrophe. Nuclear fallout knows no state or national boundaries and will contribute to increase in illnesses, decrease in intelligence and in instability throughout the world. The economic costs of radioactive pollution and care of contaminated citizens are staggering. No country can maintain itself if its citizens are economically, intellectually, politically and socially impoverished.*

When a radiation release occurs, we do not know in advance the part of the biosphere it will contaminate, the animals, plants and people that will be affected, nor the amount or duration of harm. In many cases, damage is random, depending upon the health, age and status of development and the amount, kind and variety of radioactive contamination that reaches humans, animals and plants. For this reason, international support of research on the consequences of Chernobyl must continue in order to mitigate the ongoing and increasing damage. Access to information must be transparent and open to all, across all borders. The WHO must assume independent responsibility in support of international health.

Given the continuing and known problems caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe, we must ask ourselves: Before we commit ourselves to economic and technological support of nuclear energy, who, what and where are we willing to sacrifice and for how long?

Footnotes

Almond, D., Edlund, L. and Palme, M., “Chernobyl’s subclinical legacy: Prenatal exposure to radioactive fallout and school outcomes in Sweden.” Retrieved Aug. 3, 2009, from http://www.nuwinfo.se/almond-edlund-palme20070811.html 2007

Bertell, R. “The death toll of the Chernobyl accident.” In: Busby, C.C. and Yablokov, A.V., (Eds.), “ECRR Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident.” ECRR Doc. 1, Green Audit Books, Aberystwyth, pp. 245, 248, 2006

Gofman, J.W., “Chernobyl Accident: Radioactive Consequences for the Existing and Future Generations.” Vysheihsaya Shcola, Minsk. 576 pp., 1994 (in Russian)

Heiervang, K.S., et al. “Effect of low dose ionizing radiation exposure in utero in cognitive function in adolescence.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00814.x

Holt, E., “Debate over health effects of Chernobyl re-ignited.” Lancet. 375(9724): 1424-1425, 2010

Khudoley, V.V., Blokov, I.P., Sadovnichik, T., and Bysaro, S., “Attempt to estimate the consequences of Chernobyl catastrophe for population living in the radiation-contaminated territories of Russia.” In: Blokov, I.P. (Ed.), “Consequences of Chernobyl Accident: Estimation and Prognosis of Additional Mortality and Cancer Diseases.” Center for Independent Environmental Assessment, Greenpeace-Russia, pp. 3-19, 2006 (in Russian)

Mangano, J.J. and Sherman, J.D., “Elevated in vivo strontium-90 from nuclear weapons test fallout among cancer decedents: A case-control study of deciduous teeth,” International Journal of Health Services, 41(1):137–58, 2011

Moller, A.P., Mousseau, T.A., “Efficiency of bio-indicators for low-level radiation under field conditions.” Ecological Indicators, doi:10.1016/j.ecolinf.2010.06.013 (pdf)

Ministry of Ukraine, “Emergencies and Affairs of Public Protection from the Consequences of Chernobyl,” “Atlas of Ukraine Radioactive Contamination,” Intelligence Systems GEO, Ltd., 2002, 2008

National Ukrainian Report. “Twenty Years of Chernobyl Catastrophe. Future Outlook.” (Kiev) http://www.mns.gov.ua/news_show.php? 2006 (in Russian)

Sherman, J.D. “Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer.” Taylor and Francis. New York. 273 pp. 2000

Wertelecki, W. “Malformations in a Chornobyl-impacted region.” Pediatrics, 125(4): 836-843, 2010

Yablokov, A.V., Nesterenko, V.B., Nesterenko, A.V., “Chernobyl Consequences for People and Nature.” “Nauka” Publ., Sankt-Petersburg, 367 pp., 2007

Yablokov, A.V., Nesterenko, V.B., and Nesterenko, A.V., Sherman-Nevinger, J.D., Consulting Editor, “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” New York Academy of Sciences, 1181:1-327, 2009

Janette D. Sherman, M.D., is a physician and toxicologist, specializing in chemicals and nuclear radiation that cause cancer and birth defects. The author of “Chemical Exposure and Disease” and “Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer” and editor of “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature,” she has worked in radiation and biologic research at the University of California nuclear facility and at the U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory at the Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco. From 1976-1982, she served on the advisory board for the EPA Toxic Substances Control Act. Throughout her career, she has served as a medical-legal expert witness for thousands of individuals harmed by exposure to toxic agents. Dr. Sherman’s primary interest is the prevention of illness through public education and patient awareness. She can be reached at toxdoc.js@verizon.net and www.janettesherman.com. Co-author Alexey V. Yablokov, Ph.D., can be reached at yablokov@voxnet.ru.

*This article was solicited by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 2010, but after Dr. Sherman had responded to 42 queries and spent 30 hours writing it, it was rejected shortly before the deadline, apparently as too alarmist. This paragraph is an ominous warning of the Fukushima catastrophe that occurred just a few months after it was written and a reminder of the urgent need for more public information such as is provided here. See also “Is the Fukushima nuclear plant breakdown worse than Chernobyl?” by Janette D. Sherman, M.D.

The Zionist View of Obama’s Great Mideast Revolution

The president’s catastrophic Mideast policy

By ISI LEIBLER

US President Barack Obama
Photo by: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Candidly Speaking: Barack Obama is proving, on a daily basis, to be a complete novice in foreign relations.

At every conceivable level, the Obama administration’s Middle East policies are spiraling into a disastrous free-fall.

Even Obama’s friend, PA president Mahmoud Abbas, has explicitly accused the US President of having totally misled him. In an interview with Newsweek, he said that “it was Obama who suggested a full settlement freeze. I said okay, I accept. We both went up the tree. After that, he came down the ladder and he removed the ladder, and said to me jump. Three times he did it.”

In other words, it was Obama’s initiative which motivated Abbas to make the unprecedented demand that Israel freeze all construction in settlements, including the Jewish suburbs of east Jerusalem. Abbas now finds it extremely convenient to use Obama’s impulsive action as a pretext to refuse to negotiate with Israel and stand by as global pressures are exerted on the Jewish state to make more unilateral concessions.

But it is Obama’s obtuse and utterly inconsistent approach to the upheavals in the Arab world that have plunged the US into a bottomless pit and possibly irrevocably terminated whatever support for the US remained among some of the more moderate Arab autocracies.

From the outset, Obama surprised the world by his naïve efforts to “engage” with the fervently hostile Iranian extremists seeking to become a nuclear power. When the Iranian people revolted peacefully against the ayatollahs during the “Green Revolution”, the American president was virtually struck dumb even as the regime brutally suppressed the opposition.

Yet when Egyptian president Mubarak, the most loyal US ally in the Arab world, faced a domestic revolt, Obama turned his back on him, demanding his resignation and did not even enable him to retire graciously.

The Saudis and other “moderate” pro-US Arab states were shocked at the manner in which the Americans had responded to their most faithful ally. They undoubtedly now no longer harbor illusions about the reliability of American support under the Obama administration. In fact. the most pessimistic predictions of the outcome of these “democratic” revolts are regrettably now being realized.

The Muslim Brotherhood – which a number of ignorant members of the Obama administration had described as being democratic, more open-minded and even “mostly secular”, has emerged as the most powerful force in Egypt. According to a recently released PEW Research Center poll, 75 percent of Egyptians regard the Brotherhood favorably. The US is despised – only 15% favoring a better relationship. More than 50% support the scrapping of the peace treaty with Israel. The Egyptian military council has already initiated moves to renew diplomatic relations with Iran and enabled Iranian ships to traverse the Suez Canal.

The candidate most likely to become president is Amr Moussa, who is favored by 89% of those polled. He is the secretary-general of the Arab League whose hatred for Israel was so intense that Mubarak was obliged to sack him as foreign minister. Only last week he declared that the Camp David accords were no longer relevant. The other candidate Mohammed ElBaradei declared that if Israel became engaged in a war with Hamas, Egypt would be obliged to respond militarily. Over 62% support the transformation of Egypt into a sharia state. Obama’s betrayal of Mubarak has thus directly led to the installation of a more extremist anti-Western regime.

But the regional situation is even worse. In Libya, Obama’s support of the overthrow of the deranged but recently pro-Western Colonel Gaddafi has resulted in a civil war. If Gaddafi wins, he will undoubtedly revert to his former evil terrorist activities which he had voluntarily relinquished. If the rebels are victorious, we are likely to find al-Qaida elements occupying a significant role in the country. The same applies to Yemen, which following the defeat of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, has every likelihood of being transformed into a fullyfledged terrorist state dominated by al-Qaida.

But even more incomprehensible was Obama’s extraordinary tepid response to Syria’s dictator Bashar Assad, whose brutal crackdown against peaceful demonstrators made Mubarak’s repression appear positively mild.

Besides, Assad is an avowed enemy of the US and closely allied with the Iranian regime and enabled al-Qaida forces to traverse Syria in order to fight against American troops in Iraq. He is a major sponsor of Hezbollah and has acted as their conduit for the transfer of arms. He hosts Hamas in Damascus, orchestrated the murder of the Lebanese prime minister, sought to obtain nuclear weapons and bitterly opposed Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel.

It is therefore inexplicable that even after hundreds of demonstrators were brutally killed and Assad has made it clear that he will not hesitate killing more citizens to quell any opposition, Obama has still neither called on him to step down nor initiated meaningful sanctions as he did with Libya.

We are left with a feeling of bewilderment. Is the administration so isolated from reality that it truly believes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she refers to the tyrannical Assad as a reformer? Or is there a hidden agenda of which we are unaware?

My gut feeling is that there is no conspiracy and it is all a question of absolute and utter incompetence and dysfunctionality. Obama is proving, on a daily basis, to be a complete novice in foreign relations and his liberal ideologue advisers are just as confused.

It is truly mind-boggling. We have a US president who condemns the only genuine democratic partner the US has in the Middle East for building apartments in the suburbs of their capital. He betrays the Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, who loyally supported America for four decades and paves the way for a new more hostile Egyptian regime. And yet he hesitates in responding to one of the most committed enemies of the US in the Arab world.

We should therefore be under no illusions that Obama will initiate any meaningful action to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In summary: The Obama administration has undermined Israel, abandoned its Arab allies and appeased America’s worst enemies.

We can only hope and pray that the Republicans will get their act together and designate a credible candidate before the next presidential elections. It is chilling to contemplate the damage Obama could inflict on America’s international standing should he be reelected for a second term, free from any electoral constraints. The damage that ongoing American decline and weakness could inflict on Western civilization is positively alarming.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

Palestinian Unity Govt.–Ominous Implications for Israelis?

[Does this represent the next phase in the State Dept. "Arab spring" scheme, and if so, does this actually imply an impending Obama double-cross of Zionist benefactor Israel, in order to force the Bush "Road map" onto all parties?]

Lieberman: Palestinian Deal Crosses ‘Red Line’

The Palestinian unity deal agreed in Cairo crossed “a red line,” Israel’s Avigdor Lieberman said on Thursday, warning that an array of measures could be taken against the Palestinian Authority.

“With this accord, a red line has been crossed,” the ultra-nationalist foreign minister told Israel’s military radio a day after the Palestinian parties announced a surprise reconciliation agreement.

“We have at our disposal a vast arsenal of measures including the lifting of VIP status for Abu Mazen and Salam Fayyad, which will not allow them to move freely,” he said referring to president Mahmoud Abbas and his prime minister.

“We could also freeze the transfer of taxes collected by Israel for the Palestinian Authority,” added Lieberman, who leads the Israel Beitenu party in the coalition of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

After 18 months of largely fruitless reconciliation talks, delegations from Hamas and Fatah meeting in Cairo on Wednesday announced a deal to form an interim unity government with a view to holding presidential and legislative elections within a year.

The deal raises the prospect of an end to the devastating political divide that has seen the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority govern the West Bank while the Islamist Hamas movement controls the Gaza Strip.

But the agreement was criticized by Israel, with Netanyahu warning on Wednesday, shortly after the deal was announced, that Abbas must “choose between peace with Israel or peace with Hamas.”

Lieberman said the reconciliation deal would mean the “freeing of hundreds of Hamas terrorists detained by the Palestinian Authority in Judaea and Samaria” — the biblical name for the West Bank.

He said the elections envisaged under the agreement would allow Hamas “to take control of Judaea and Samaria.”

Lieberman said he wanted to see the international community insist that any unity government comply with conditions announced by the Middle East peacemaking Quartet, which includes the United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia.

“We hope that the whole international community will maintain the conditions imposed by the Quartet on the Palestinians, which means an end to violence, recognition of Israel and past agreements, and Hamas does not accept any of these conditions,” he said.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said “the latest events do nothing but reinforce the necessity of relying only on ourselves.

“The army and the security services will use an iron fist to deal with any threat and challenge,” he warned.(AFP)

The 1980s mujahideen, the Taliban and the shifting idea of jihad

The 1980s mujahideen, the Taliban and the shifting idea of jihad

Nineteen years ago, Afghanistan’s mujahideen defeated the Red Army. How do they compare with the Taliban who followed?

Afghan mujahideen in Bagram, 1992

Mujahideen in Bagram, Afghanistan, days before their victory over the communist regime on 28 April 1992. Photograph: AP

28 April marks the 19th anniversary of the mujahideen’s victory over the Red Army forces in Afghanistan. The original mujahideen of the 1980s and today’s Taliban may use the same language of holy war, but their understanding of jihad is worlds apart. The key difference between the original mujahideen and the Taliban is that the former waged a traditional type of jihad. In a traditional jihad, if waged locally, a contest over control of resources takes place between rival strongmen who each run their own private armies. In this scenario, the ultimate legitimacy to rule draws upon military strength, but the contest itself is called jihad simply because Islam is the sole language of political legitimacy.

Crucially, in a traditional jihad, the victorious party has an unspoken right to pillage, rape and loot the conquered population. This is because militia fighters are not paid soldiers in a regular army and hence looting is the material reward they receive for fighting. The original mujahideen followed this traditional pattern of jihad upon coming to power in 1992. Since competition over resources rather than ideology is key to traditional jihad, the mujahideen’s war focused on Kabul where the nation’s wealth and the foreign embassies, another potential source of funding, were to be found.

Judging by a historical account from the 1920s, back then the women and girls of the conquered populations also belonged to the pillage package offered to militia jihadis. Hence, in the diaries of court chroniclerKatib Hazara on the siege of Kabul in 1929, we read that the victorious mujahideen of the time had demanded to see the list of girls registered at a Kabul school so as to allocate female students to militia fighters.

Katib’s account might be exaggerated, but the story still reveals that there was an unspoken rule that women and girls were part of the conquest package. As such, the mujahideen’s struggle over Kabul was a continuation of traditional jihad complete with internal rivalries, pillage and looting. The mujahideen were part of the realm of traditional politics in which a conquered region is a turf that can be exploited by strongmen, who call themselves mujahideen so as to appear respectable.

The Taliban’s conquest of Afghanistan in 1996, by contrast, strayed from the path of tradition. In a striking breach of precedence, the Taliban militia did not make use of their unspoken right to pillage and loot. They searched the conquered populations’ homes, but only to confiscate weapons and so ensure a monopoly of violence for their state.

In a comical incident that features in Sabour Bradley’s documentary series The Extreme Tourist, the Taliban saw a poster of Rambo with a machine-gun in the home of an Afghan bodybuilder fan of the Hollywood star Sylvester Stallone. Ignorant of the world beyond the sharia law, the Taliban assumed that Rambo was a family member and told the bodybuilder: “Tell your cousin that he must hand over his machine gun to us.” The bodybuilder’s protestation that the poster depicted a fictional Hollywood hero fell flat with the Taliban, who subsequently imprisoned the man.

The Taliban were exceedingly ignorant – which made them cruel – but there’s no doubt that they saw jihad as a means to establish a state rather than legitimacy to pillage a conquered territory. Building a state was of utmost importance to the Taliban because without it the sharia law could not be enforced. If the mujahideen struggled over resources, the Taliban were concerned with religiosity.

The Taliban’s choice of their capital city, Kandahar, was further evidence of their radically new approach to conquest. As already mentioned, historically Kabul drew its importance from the fact that the nation’s wealth and the foreign embassies were concentrated there. The mujahideen’s vicious fight over the city, which resulted in thousands of dead, and their disregard for public buildings, which they indiscriminately destroyed in rocket attacks, was rooted in the view that the capital city was there to be pillaged by whichever party that came out victorious.

The Taliban, in contrast, disregarded Kabul, moving their capital to the much poorer city of Kandahar. Accounts of Afghans who met Taliban officials all reveal a lack of interest in material goods or symbols of social hierarchy. Meetings would be held seated on the floor in a circle, erasing all signs of hierarchy that traditionally has been part of Afghan court etiquette.

Ironically, such egalitarianism was what the communists had dreamed of in 1978. But in such a deeply religious society, it is not surprising that egalitarianism had to come as part of a religious doctrine. With the Taliban, rural Afghans came to power, ruling over the more sophisticated urban populations. This, too, was a breach of precedence.

Fighting for resources in a traditional fashion complete with looting and pillaging versus fighting for a state that would enforce sharia law even to the point of an obsessive preoccupation with the correct length of young men’s pubic hair is what distinguishes the original mujahideen from their Taliban nemesis.

Both parties use the same language of legitimacy – Islam, jihad, and mujahideen – which adds to the confusion, but their similarities are skin-deep.

The new great game in West Asia?

The new great game in West Asia?

CHINMAYA R. GHAREKHAN


Anti-government protesters gesture in front of the Saudi embassy in Match 2011, in Manama, Bahrain. Frenzied clashes swept Bahrain after a Saudi-led military force entered the country to defend its Sunni monarchy from a Shiite-led protest movement. File photo
APAnti-government protesters gesture in front of the Saudi embassy in Match 2011, in Manama, Bahrain. Frenzied clashes swept Bahrain after a Saudi-led military force entered the country to defend its Sunni monarchy from a Shiite-led protest movement. File photo

With Saudi Arabia regarding itself as the leader of Sunni Muslims and Iran considering itself the protector of Shias, the game has geo-political as well as religious overtones.

A new great game seems to be on. The locale is West Asia and the principal protagonists are Saudi Arabia and Iran. Unlike the original great game of the late 19th-early 20th century, the current great game has geo-political as well as religious overtones. Saudi Arabia regards itself as the leader of the Sunni Muslim community and Iran is the self-appointed protector of Shias. The Umma technically applies to the entire Muslim fraternity but, in practice, the two branches of Muslim faith do not regard themselves as belonging to the same Umma. They might do so when dealing with or confronting non-Muslims, but between themselves they are antagonistic. The two powers are also engaged in a bitter and determined struggle for dominance in the region.

The Arab-Persian divide cuts across, at least partially, the Shia-Sunni rivalry. At the risk of slight oversimplification, it can be said that as a general rule, an Arab Shia is likely to be more loyal to his Arab identity than to the Shia faith if the latter would imply acting against the interests of his country. This was conclusively demonstrated when the Shias of Iraq fought alongside their Sunni brethren in the war against Iran for eight years.

There are a billion-plus Muslims in the world. Indeed, Islam is the fastest growing religion. Sunnis are in a majority by far; Shias might constitute no more than 15 per cent though most Sunnis would place the figure much lower. Every Sunni majority country has a Shia minority and vice-versa, but the size of the minority varies. There are four Shia majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan. The rest are Sunni majority states, with some having significant Shia minorities. In Pakistan, 20 per cent of the population is Shia, Kuwait has about 25 per cent Shias, and Yemen slightly more. In Lebanon, Shias form 35-40 per cent of the total population, while in Egypt the percentage is negligible. Afghanistan has a significant Shia population in its western part, along the border with Iran.

The differences between the two schools emerged soon after Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 over his succession. One group, later known as Sunnis, wanted an elected successor and chose Abu Bakr; the other group, which eventually came to be called Shias, insisted that the succession pass through the Prophet’s bloodline and wanted his nephew and son-in-law Ali to be the successor. The two parted company after the death of Ali who became the fourth caliph, more particularly after Hussein, Ali’s grandson, was killed by the Sunni caliph of Baghdad. Ever since, the hostility amounting to enmity between the two groups has claimed many lives.

In several Sunni majority countries, Shias may not even be recognised as Muslims. This was the case in Saudi Arabia until a few years ago. In Pakistan, Shias are regularly targeted and killed by Sunni extremists. Even today, the sub-sects of the Shias, such as Ismailis (Seveners) and Ithnasharis (Twelvers), are considered heretics. In Tehran, a city of 16 million, the small Sunni population does not have a single place of worship of its own; there are differences in the rituals of the two groups. When this writer visited Iran some time ago, the locals invariably referred to fellow Shias as Muslims and the others as Sunnis or Sunnas.

The tensions between the Shias and the Sunnis got greatly exacerbated after the American intervention in Iraq in March 2003. The majority Shia community had been repressed since the state of Iraq came into existence in 1932. This continued during Saddam Hussein’s reign though he did place some Shias as well as Christians — Tariq Aziz being the most well-known example — in prominent positions. The Shias suddenly found themselves in power for the first time ever and decided to take their revenge on the Sunnis. The result was a bitter and bloody sectarian strife which claimed thousands of lives. Entire neighbourhoods were ethnically, or rather communally, cleansed and people changed names. Most of those who sought refuge in Jordan and Syria were Sunnis. But the most significant consequence of the American intervention, not intended by any means but anticipatable, was the increased space it created for Iran to interfere in the affairs of the region and to become a significant regional player.

The situation today is that Iran has a major voice in Iraq, Lebanon through its proxy Hezbolla which is a predominantly Shia group, and Palestine through its support to Hamas which is a 100 per cent Sunni movement. In Afghanistan, Iran has vital interests as well as influence, and any solution to the Afghan problem would need Iran’s cooperation which it is willing to offer but only on its terms which have a lot to do with its dispute with the U.S. and others over its nuclear programme.

Ever since the Islamic Republic was born in 1979, it has boldly pronounced its policy of exporting the Islamic revolution. When the Egyptians poured into the Tahrir Square in January-February this year, Iran claimed the phenomenon as success for its revolution, but clamped down sternly on its own people wanting to demonstrate in Tehran’s Azadi Square. The ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 has opened up fresh opportunities for Iran in its neighbourhood, especially Bahrain. Bahrain’s ruling family is Sunni, while the Shias account for 65-70 per cent of the population. When the Shia community protested peacefully at the Pearl Square, there were credible reports that Iran was not involved in the beginning. Once external forces, primarily from Saudi Arabia, entered the scene and used significant force to suppress the protests, Iran made its intentions clear. Although it continues to deny any involvement, it is entirely believable that Iran is doing its best to help fellow Shias in Bahrain by whatever means, short of physically sending its militia. It is noteworthy that many Iraqi voices are expressing strong disapproval of the crackdown of the Shia population in Bahrain, especially the Saudi intervention. Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has warned that the Saudi action could launch wars of religion in the Middle East. Ayatolla Ali Shistani, the most powerful leader of the Shia community in Iraq and beyond, has demanded that the Bahrain authorities not use force against the protesters and has called for a dialogue.

In the years immediately following its attack on Iraq, the U.S. tried to cobble together a coalition of ‘moderate’ Sunni states to contain Iran’s growing influence in the region. Israel could not obviously be a part of this grouping but it fully supported the effort. During the visits by this writer to the countries in the region, it was made clear to him that Iraq’s neighbours would not remain silent and inactive if the Sunnis there came under serious danger. The situation did not escalate to that level; neither of the regional powers wanted to risk war.

The interesting point is that it is Iran, the lone Shia superpower which does not have the economic clout of Saudi Arabia, which has adopted an aggressive posture whereas the Sunni states seem to be on the defensive. Iran feels isolated, encircled and threatened by hostile American forces as well as by what it might perceive as antagonistic Sunni states. It is this which perhaps makes the Iranian regime more motivated and forceful in its diplomacy and actions. The feeble attempts by the Americans to discourage Saudi Arabia from sending its troops into Bahrain not only did not succeed but also led the Saudis to the conclusion that they must be on their own when it came to defending their regime and checking Iran’s growing influence. If Bahrain’s Shias succeed in gaining a share in the power structure, the Saudis will feel truly threatened, given that its Shia community, accounting for about 10 per cent of the population, is concentrated in its eastern territory where its oil assets are located. Any prospect of Iranian influence on the mainland of Saudi Arabia will be a nightmare to its ruling dynasty.

It is perhaps too late to soften the Shia-Sunni, Iran-Saudi tensions. Even if the Sunni-ruled states satisfy the demands of their Shia populations to some extent, Iran will continue to press home the advantage that has come its way recently, consolidate and build on it. The Americans will certainly not watch this game passively.

It will be fascinating to watch how this new great game plays out. We in India do not have much to worry about its implications domestically, since we are the most inclusive multicultural and multireligious society in the world, bar none. But externally, this great game will demand an agile foreign policy approach, which might demand a new form of non-alignment or dual alignment.

India Holds Back Approval for Four Russian Reactors, WSJ Reports

India Holds Back Approval for Four Russian Reactors, WSJ Reports

By Archana Chaudhary
India’s environment ministry held back approval for four Russian reactors to be set up in the southern city of Kudankulam because disposing of water into the sea may affect marine life, the Wall Street Journal reported.

A fresh risk assessment is needed following the Fukushima nuclear accident, according to the report, which cited a panel of the ministry.

Nuclear Power Corp. of India, the state-owned monopoly atomic generator, plans to set up four Russian reactors of 1,000 megawatts each at Kudankulam in the state of Tamil Nadu in addition to two units being constructed.

Shreyans Kumar Jain, chairman of Nuclear Power Corp., didn’t answer a call made to his mobile phone seeking comment. India is reviewing environmental approvals for all coastal nuclear power projects, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told reporters in New Delhiwhen asked to comment on the report.

To contact the reporter on this story: Archana Chaudhary in Mumbai atachaudhary2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David Merritt at dmerritt1@bloomberg.net

Libya: The Madness Continues

Libya: The Madness Continues

It is now abundantly clear that the International Coalition is bent on removing Gaddafi from office through violence. The New York Times has reported the West’s WAR PLAN that should not leave any shred of doubt in anybody’s mind that the West entered Libya not to solve humanitarian problems but to remove Gaddafi from office and install in his place those who will serve their interests.

The ultimate objective of such a successful operation in Libya is to create opportunities for re-entering Africa through the puppets that they will put in power. Libya’s case is a classic example of this chilling arrangement that must be monitored closely. Let no one doubt it at all that the West is not doing any humanitarian work in that country but establishing a platform for multi-varied political, economic, and military purposes.

Quoting Obama administration and allied officials, The New York Times’ report has it that NATO plans to step up attacks on the palaces, headquarters and communications centres that Gaddafi uses to maintain his grip on power in Libya.

Details of the report are obviously unambiguous on what the United States has up its sleeves as it teams up with the partners in the International Coalition to implement the agenda of destabilizing Libya and destroying its infrastructure as the best option to remove Gaddafi from office.

Here is what the war plan contains, according to The New York Times’ report: White House officials said President Obama had been briefed on the more energetic bombing campaign, which included a strike early on Monday on Gaddafi’s residential compound in the heart of Tripoli, the capital.

United States officials said the effort was not intended to kill the Libyan leader, but to bring the war to his doorstep, raising the price of his efforts to continue to hold on to power. “We want to make sure he knows there is a war going on, and it’s not just in Misurata,” said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity in discussing military planning.

The NATO campaign, some officials said, arose in part from an analysis of Gaddafi’s reaction to the bombing of Tripoli that was ordered by President Ronald Reagan a quarter-century ago. Alliance officials concluded that the best hope of dislodging the Libyan leader and forcing him to flee was to cut off his ability to command his most loyal troops.

“We don’t want to kill him or make a martyr out of him in the Arab world,” said a senior NATO diplomat familiar with the evolving strategy. “But if he sees the bombing happening all around him, we think it could change his calculus.”

As the report has it, military officials privately acknowledge that removing Gaddafi from power is the desired secondary effect of striking at state television and other symbols of his authoritarian rule. “His people may see the futility of continued resistance,” one Pentagon official said.

This report is as disheartening as the heightened military bombardment is unwarranted, especially under the terms of the UN Resolution 1973 that propelled the International Coalition’s actions in Libya.

Now that NATO has shifted to a top gear in its plans to cause more devastation—even where there is no fighting or humanitarian problem, one is completely baffled as to what exactly the UN has authorized the West to do in Libya.

What is more troubling is the silence that the UN Secretary–General has kept even in the face of gross abuse of the terms of UN Resolution 1973. It seems having already sold his conscience to the marauding powerful voices in the UN, Ban Kim Moon has lost his bearings and can’t even know that the blessing that the UN gave the West to operate in Libya is being abused. The UN is now an accomplice in creating WAR instead of seeking PEACE. Such an institution is not what the world needs today.

On the same sad note, it is depressing that none of the African leaders seems to care enough for the plight of Libya to complain. The stark truth is that those destroying Libya are not doing so because they love the Libyan people or because they are interested in helping Libya develop more rapidly beyond where Gaddafi has led it.

They are bent on destroying everything in Libya that has propped up the country so far as it asserts its influence in international politics. The West hates countries that stand on their feet to challenge it. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libya has emerged as a force to reckon with beyond Africa and that stature poses a big threat to the West’s interests; hence, the dogged determination to reduce the country to rubble.

Under this circumstance, one would expect African leaders to make their voices of protest heard so that public opinion can be mobilized to seek better ways to resolve the Libyan crisis. Unfortunately, none of the African leaders regards the problem as worth his bother. So much destruction is going on in this country but no one in the African Union is reacting to it. They’ve turned deaf ears to everything emanating from there. What a pity?

Where is the spirit of fellow-feeling that undergirds the African Union Charter? As Africans (forget about Libya’s membership of the Arab League), if we fail to solidarize with each other, we open ourselves to manipulation and selective sabotage by those who have always sought our downfall. When the European powers colonized Africa, they did so for their own good and our bad. Granting us a political freedom (an independence based on nothing but national anthems—mostly written and sung in the colonial masters’ own language—and colourful but uninspiring national flags) while manipulating our systems at the economic level hasn’t helped us develop strongly enough to rub shoulders with them. We are easy preys.

We are still tied to their apron strings or turned into marionettes that they manipulate anyhow at will for comfort while we suffer the pains. The impunity with which the West does things related to Africa is disturbing; and the Libyan situation is a clear instance of how much havoc we are exposed to. I am completely angry at African leaders for not rising to the occasion to make collective decisions against what is happening to Libya.

It shouldn’t be said that the African leaders chose to leave Libya to its own fate when their support was most needed to tilt the balance of public opinion against the intransigence and wickedness of the West.

So far, Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister has emerged as the only strong voice to condemn the West, especially in establishing the illegality of its destruction of Libya. According to The New York Times report, Mr. Putin on Tuesday delivered his most passionate critique of the Western intervention in

Libya, underlining a rare open disagreement with his protégé, President Dmitri Medvedev.
At a news conference in Copenhagen, Mr. Putin was asked to elaborate on his comment that the UN resolution allowing airstrikes resembled “a medieval call for a crusade.” He responded by launching into an extended caustic attack on the NATO campaign, saying it violated the principle of sovereignty and the wishes of the Libyan people. I salute him!!

Where is the supporting voice from Africa to add up to Putin’s? Disappointing silence!
A lot has already been said by some opponents of this massive military operation against Libya (including the Head of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI) to indicate that the approach that the West has adopted toward resolving the Libyan crisis is not the best option nor will it offer any long-lasting solution even if they succeed in killing or overthrowing Gaddafi. But the devastation still goes on.

Doubtless, the internal problems facing Libya go beyond the individual leader after whose blood the West has been since it thrust itself into the crisis. Thus, even in a post-Gaddafi period, Libya still faces a more wretched future than the West seems to know or care about. What is the guarantee that the West has any good intention for Libya beyond removing Gaddafi from office because the rebels claim they want a more representative government? Why will the West choose to directly fight Gaddafi instead of solving the humanitarian crisis that was the mission it entered Libya to accomplish? There is no need for the West to fight the battle on behalf of the rebels.

The intensification of the bombardment of Libyan infrastructure is disgusting. They seem to be biting off more than the UN Resolution 1973 requires. Now that the West has carried the fight to where there is no existing humanitarian problem to solve and is rather creating panic and needless destruction, the time has come for those who truly seek peace and not war to step out of their closets to make their voices heard. The UN has already doomed itself and can’t be relied on to reverse the destruction.

At this point in the prosecution of the West’s destructive agenda, Libya seems to be bereft of friends. If the West succeeds in achieving its objectives in Libya, nothing will stop it from doing so in other countries in future if the partners in this International Coalition (who represent the most heartless, vicious, and exploitative economic, political, and military systems in the world) deem it fit to do so and band together under the least pretext. Must less powerful countries become targets for easy picking as such by the West?

Nothing can be more pathetic than what has been set in motion in Libya. No country in Africa should feel safe enough to neglect Libya at this crucial time. But do the other African leaders have any strong moral or political will at all to speak back to the West? Having sold their conscience to the West (mostly for personal gains), how much courage do they have left to talk back without being punished themselves? Indeed, Africa’s plight is permanent!!

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor
E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com

US military interventions and accountability for civilian deaths

US military interventions & accountability for civilian deaths

Shenali Waduge

People outside a war terrain will never understand what a battle is like. Soldiers do not memorize the international protocols nor do they have time to remember any of the clauses in them while trying to take on the enemy. Yet, in the case of the US most of the troops it has committed in countries have been without any provocation. To eliminate a handful of perpetrators, the US has killed thousands of civilians. As aggressor, the US has a very poor record of accountability & with no actions taken against the US by world bodies that are tasked to do so. The issue of accountability invariably ends up at the doorsteps of smaller nations while the powerful one’s care little for the word & care less for the civilians that they kill.

The important question is how long will US citizens continue to buy the lies fed by its Governments? US media is practically owned & run by Israel & continues to tell US citizens that Americans are under threat, that America will be targeted by terrorists & this has been sufficient reason to commit US troops to any part of the world on the guise of protecting America. Is the ultimate game to make US citizens sufferers of fear psychosis & turn it into a country riddled in debt? Americans are told that buzzwords like “freedom” “human rights” prevail in US alone & so it becomes the duty of the US to instill these amazing
“democratic” concepts into those countries. Very few Americans know to what extent their citizens have freedom of expression & human rights, they are made to feel privileged by comparing themselves to other countries that have become what they are because of the West. Very few Americans seem to know the geography of the world or care little to find out to demand from US Governments why it is committing trillions of dollars & putting generations of Americans in debt.

US interventions did not begin with Iraq. Since 1898 America has taken the path of aggressive intervention & have marched forth with the concept of setting up “protectorates”. In 1898 it took over Philippines, then Cuba & Puerto Rico from Spain. Then came US’s role in World War 1. Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti & the Dominican Republic were turned into protectorates. There was a pattern in these interventions & it was solely based on corporate interests. US cared little for the loss to civilians of these countries & there was no accountability by the US.

During World War 2, US forces ruthlessly bombed Dresden (Germany) & Tokyo killing hundreds & thousands of civilians. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki still find Americans believing that targeting Japanese civilians was worth the American lives that had been saved. What happened on August 6 & August 9, 1945 should go down clearly as a crime against humanity. This was terrorism by US & nothing can justify what the US did. Why did the US develop such a weapon? Each time the world is given the excuse that another nation is acquiring nuclear bombs that necessitated US to develop them first. It was the US that began a new era in warfare by using the atomic bomb, it was the US that first began targeting civilians as a strategy with the use of the atomic bomb, fearing US aggression other countries began themselves to build their own nuclear arsenal. If the world becomes a frightening place because of nuclear arsenal it is totally because of the US.

Civilian deaths meant little to the US when they purposely targeted civilians in dropping the atomic bombs in Nagasaki & Hiroshima & US continues this trend throughout its other interventions where it is evident that US cares pittance about casualties to civilians of the countries it has sent its troops to. 50 million civilians died in Hiroshima & the impact of the atomic bomb caused health suffering to many thousands in later years. The US even commemorated the attacks on Hiroshima & Nagasaki by issuing a Stamp depicting an image of a mushroom cloud.

The Philippine insurrection resulted in the deaths of 200,000 civilians with a policy given to US troops to shoot anyone above 10 years who dared to resist US occupation. In Vietnam, President Nixon gave orders to carpet-bomb Cambodia knowing that hundreds of thousand peasants would perish.

Then the Korea war (1950-53) where US troops fired on civilians heading towards South Korea fearing they were North Korean infiltrators. US had not learnt lessons from what they did to Nagasaki & Hiroshima for again the US threatened to use nuclear weapons on North Korea not once but twice! A few years later during the Middle East crisis US marines deployed in Lebanon threatened Iraq with nuclear attack if it invaded Kuwait. Intervention of the Dominican Republic resulted in 1965 though it failed in Cuba in 1961. CIA has supported & installed pro-US dictatorships in Iraq, Chile, Indonesia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicargua where CIA trained contra rebels were taught to launch terrorist attacks. US troops invaded island nation of Grenada in 1983, a hospital had also been bombed by US but there was no accountability for that at least! From South America again the US focus shifted towards Iran where a pro-US dictatorship was installed, then in 1982 Israel occupied Lebanon & US troops were deployed as “peacekeepers” but sided with Lebanon’s pro-Israel Christian government against Muslim rebels creating suicide attacks against the Marines. The US response was to assassinate Shi’ite Muslim leaders though Syria & the rebels won over US.

Many have forgotten the US bombing on Libya in 1986 which killed a lot of Libyan civilians & many believe that Gaddafi sought revenge by bombing the US jet over Scotland.

The US killing spree continued in 1989 when it accused its former ally Manuel Noriega of drug-running & US invaded Panama where the US killed over 2000 civilians just to capture one leader!

Following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq which resulted in US turning against its former friend Saddam Hussein since the US had supported the Kuwaiti monarchy as well as the Saudi Arabian monarchy. It was in 1991 that the US & allies together unleashed its brutality upon Iraq & it is estimated that over 200,000 Iraqi’s perished, thousands more died as a result of the economic sanctions. No panel or accountability has so far been sought from the US!

Both Bush & Clinton cared little when their orders meant thousands of Iraqi lives would get affected by UN sanctions that ended up starving Iraqi people & making thousands more ill. All these strategies were meant to make the Iraqi people submissive & to incite them to overthrow Saddam. When asked in 1996 this is what Madeline Albright said “We have heard that a half million children have died [from the sanctions]. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – you know, is the price worth it?, Albrights reply was “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it”. The US went on to drop cluster bombs on Serbia in 1999 again aware that civilians would suffer. The US game plan continues to be repeated elsewhere. Countries are advised not to become slaves to the loan sharks in the form of the World Bank or the IMF.

America cannot undo what they did in Hiroshima, Nagasaki or any of the other countries that it has appalling human rights records but America should be told to stop immediately the patterns of civilian targeting & unnecessary interventions they are currently spearheading. Who is to tell the US is another problem. The UN is practically a non-performing puppet ready to please superpowers.

Yes, lest we forget to mention a new term was coined known as “humanitarian interventions” – interventions supposedly to safeguard civilians. This is presently happening in Libya where US & allies & NATO are bombing Libya killing hundreds of civilians but the world must keep mum because they are supposedly safeguarding civilians….(but putting them to death!)

Whenever humanitarian intervention is mentioned Somalia comes to mind. The African nation torn by hunger & civil war between two warlords resulted in US following to perfection the divide & rule strategy which ended up a killing field & mass genocide. Then the US turned towards the Balkans & watched the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) kill Muslim civilians in Bosnia in 1995. Then US & allies bombed Serbia to force President Milosevic to withdraw forces from ethnic Albanian province of Kosovo. Kosovo was made “independent” again because of its economic benefit to the West.

If we are appalled at the manner the US has been continuing military interventions & wonder why other powerful nations sit mum it is because these nations need energy to sustain their powerful empires. The West have become what they are by draining developing nations of their natural wealth. In doing so they did colossal damage by ensuring all these nations were eternally saddled with conflict by promulgating the strategy of divide & rule.

How have these “humanitarian interventions” been strategized? Firstly, the US public end up being fooled. The US Government declares it is defending the lives & rights of civilians of other nations. The media propaganda perfectly backs these claims. However, military tactics employed end up leaving massive civilian “collateral damage” which meant troops cared little if people of these nations were rebels or civilians, whether they lived in rebel zones or in residential areas. The simple explanation given for civilian deaths is “accidental” or “unavoidable” or “sorry”. Again, no accountability & certainly no panel reports for the UNSG in not one but hundreds of interventions that have created millions of deaths that the US Governments are responsible for.

Slogans being used for these interventions are “freedom” “democracy” “human rights” while US defended dictatorships by pro-US leaderships. The agenda being either ideological to ensure capitalism prevailed or an economic agenda where US would be able to secure or protect oil company investments.

Other buzzwords to look out for is referring to opponents as “terrorists”, claiming that leaderships of those countries are carrying out “atrocities against civilians”, “ethnic cleansing”, “genocide” & these are meant to be perfect reasons for the intervention by US & its allies.

The important question is if the US & allies think they have the right to “terminate” a state that harbors or trains terrorists by descending on the nation without invitation, can any other state do the same to US or its allies? Many of the organizations that the US & allies have termed “terrorist” have official offices set up in their countries, their key members are often citizens of these countries, they even carry out open campaigns in these countries & openly collect funds. The LTTE has been a perfect example where its official office was in London, despite LTTE’s ruthless record of bloodshed its foreign leaderships continue to be brushing shoulders with foreign leaderships. Now after the real LTTE is no more, some utopian tiger Government created by refugee tigers holding multiple passports has been set up & even that has been recognized….a virtual Government without land! These are double standards & so long as double standards prevail the US & allies will continue to have opposition. The UN unless it changes its biased nature will continue to be an institution laughed at by its members. It is time that nations that are being treated with bias get together & threat to walk of membership unless the UN & UNSG follows the true vision & mission of the UN.

The US & its allies are no neutral peacekeepers. The UN is well aware of this status & these allied troops descend upon nations using the “humanitarian” motive purely to protect its strategic interests or to acquire & secure economic interests & when they do descend what they end up doing is dividing a nation & putting the people against the other – the classic divide & rule policy.

However, there are instances that in attempting to demonize enemy leaders a boomerang effect had occurred. Castro, Gaddafi, Kim & now Mahinda Rajapakse! Rather than weaken them amongst the masses these leaders have become popular where the people have begun to realize the gameplan of these powerful nations. Therefore the line of belief by US & allies that the people of the world “like” them is getting thinner. Pro-US media will continue to brainwash world public opinion but countries are now gathering their own set of propaganda to counter these by showcasing the atrocities committed by US & allies on countries they have militarily intervened using the excuse of “humanitarian intervention”.

All the allies have a history of civilian deaths they are accountable for – Germany, Japanese, French, British, Israel.

In a world where being a human means people of different beliefs, fears, thoughts & ideas there is never ONE way. The build up of weapons & nuclear arsenal have been done so on the farce of protecting a nation by fooling its populace that it is under threat. These factors have only created a world where each time people wonder whether there will be a repetition of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, especially when dealing with a country that has no shame or feels accountable or embarrassed for wiping out millions of civilians but have instead steadfastly continued to bombard nations, forcefully occupy territories, drops bombs on civilians caring little for life or limb.

Can Americans finally accept that its Governments are & continue to be committing crimes against humanity? The pro-US thinkers will be quick to cite instances of dictatorships in other countries but the issue here is that the US is without any provocation attacking & completely destroying nations & their people.

New Attempts to Murder Pakistani Religious Leaders

[SEE:  Is this the Reason for the Poisoning Attack? ]

Gruesome attacks

It is a matter of great concern that a leader of the  stature of Maulana Fazlur Rehman who with his stiff opposition to the US aggression had gained a large following particularly among the tribal folks, hardliners and virtually all America bashers had a narrow escape in two deadly bomb attacks.
The first attack occurred at Swabi Interchange on Peshawar-Islamabad motorway on Wednesday and if Maulana was not late by a minute or so for a gathering he was to address he would have become the target of the suicide bomber. Ten people died in the blast. The JUI-F leader however was unfazed and stated that the attack was carried out by the US and its CIA for his bold stance against the drone attacks. The second blast took place in Charsadda in the DCO office on Thursday close to the convoy of Maulana Fazlur Rehman and though he was again lucky, 12 people lost their lives. These attacks must be condemned because apart from attempting to assassinate a high profile religious leader, it is part of the same game of creating sectarian rift and hence destabilising the country. If leaders of his calibre are being targeted in this manner, it is pretty clear that general security is virtually non-existent. But most important of all, it is also time for different factions and outfits of the insurgent groups like the Taliban and their political bosses to avoid factional rivalries and infighting among themselves at least on Pakistan’s territory. Turning our homeland into the veritable battlefield when actually the fury of these groups ought to be directed in driving out the occupation forces from Afghanistan has put our survival at stake. It must be remembered that the only country that is benefiting from the splits within Taliban is the US. First these groups owing to the absence of a united leadership cause mayhem inside Pakistan and secondly, the US by causing unrest within their ranks neutralise the threat to its military presence in Afghanistan.

Rush in now, repent later

Rush in now, repent later

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

Agitators pelt stones at police in Ratnagiri on April 19, 2011, in protest against the proposed nuclear power plant in Jaitapur. File Photo: Vivek Bendre
The HinduAgitators pelt stones at police in Ratnagiri on April 19, 2011, in protest against the proposed nuclear power plant in Jaitapur. File Photo: Vivek Bendre

A transparent assessment of the costs and risks associated with India’s ambitious nuclear plans must be made before any ground is broken at Jaitapur or elsewhere.

You really have to hand it to the nuclear industry. In any other sphere of the economy, a major industrial disaster is likely to have adverse, long-term financial consequences for the company or companies whose product or activity was involved in the accident, regardless of actual cause or legal liability. Thus, the people of Bhopal may still be paying for the poisonous gas which descended over their city in December 1984 but Union Carbide became such a toxic brand that it eventually went bust. Last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has also blown a large hole in the profits of BP. But under the perverse economic logic of the nuclear industry, disasters like the one unfolding at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan only mean more business for the world’s biggest atomic energy vendors.

According to Dan Yurman, a consultant for firms connected to the American nuclear industry, two giant nuclear consortia are forming to manage the clean-up of the Fukushima site. “The first consortium is composed of General Electric and Hitachi, with support from Exelon and Bechtel. The second group is led by Toshiba which is partnered with the U.S. branch of Areva, the French state-owned nuclear giant. Babcock & Wilcox and The Shaw Group are part of the Toshiba team,” he writes in his excellent and authoritative blog, Nuke Notes. Incidentally, cleaning up isn’t really their core competence. GE, Hitachi, Areva, Babcock & Wilcox and Toshiba are all in the business of building components for nuclear power plants.

In case readers have failed to spot the irony, let me be blunt about what’s going on here. First, you get paid to sell a reactor in a foreign country. Then, under an international liability regime that is explicitly designed to favour you, the entire burden for site remediation and victim compensation in the “highly unlikely” event of an accident is shifted on to the plant operator. Finally, if and when that “highly unlikely” accident does occur, you are not only insulated from any financial claims but you actually get paid even more handsomely to come in and help clean up the mess!

Exactly how much money are we talking about? Yurman estimates the cost of decommissioning the six reactors at the site could be as much as $12 billion and would take more than a decade to complete. “Industry experts agree this won’t be an ordinary job of tearing down a safe and cold reactor. For instance, to remove the spent fuel from Unit 4, a giant superstructure will have to be built around the devastated secondary containment structure to safely load the hot fuel assemblies underwater into special transportation casks.” Indeed, so lucrative is this project that the two consortia — which consist of companies that otherwise fiercely compete with each other for contracts and projects — “are reported to be having exploratory talks to combine forces.”

As for the $12 billion required to pay these companies for the clean-up, where is such a huge sum likely to come from? From the victims of the accident, the Japanese people, who else! “The Japanese government is said to be considering a form of receivership for the Fukushima site which would allow taxpayer funds to cover clean-up costs and pay compensation to people forced to evacuate their homes within the 13 km government defined danger zone around the plants,” notes Yurman.

As far as the Indian debate over nuclear energy is concerned, the unfolding Fukushima scenario poses an urgent challenge on three different fronts: estimating the true cost of nuclear power, assigning liability in the event of a nuclear accident in a way that is both equitable and efficient, and ensuring the highest possible standards of safety and regulation. As of today, despite the government’s ambitious plans for the construction of 20 or more nuclear reactors across the country, there is little or no clarity or transparency on these vital issues.

The Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement — which paved the way for actualisation of these grand targets — led to intense political divisions at the time it was being negotiated but the debate over the optimum energy mix for India must be conducted independently of those fault lines. The deal may have been sold to the Indian and global public as a cheap and green solution to the country’s power shortage but its primary economic utility today lies in presenting our planners with a wider set of energy options. A door has been opened for India to access nuclear material and technology which was unfairly denied to it in the past but any decision to walk through that door and fill our shopping cart must be based on a sound cost-benefit analysis. Post-Fukushima, we now know, for example, that the cost of clean-up in the event of a “low-probability” event must also be factored in to the equation. Once the $12 billion bill the Japanese taxpayers are going to be saddled with to permanently entomb the highly radioactive reactors there is retrospectively fed into the cost of electricity that the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) generated over the years, the true per unit tariff is likely to be much higher than the figure TEPCO worked with when the decision to build the reactors was originally made. Here in India, the Planning Commission should now go back to the drawing board and ask itself whether it still makes financial sense to produce electricity at any given location through large and expensive imported reactors when there may be cheaper options available over the medium term. It may still be that nuclear energy makes economic sense but it is vital that the decision we take be based on a realistic assessment of actual and probabilistic costs over the entire life cycle of a nuclear plant.

As for liability, the Manmohan Singh government owes a debt of gratitude to those who criticised it during last year’s debate over the controversial liability law. If the watered down version had been passed, as the American nuclear industry was insisting, our leaders would be running for political cover today. Fukushima is a confirmation of the need for tough liability legislation, especially since the cause of the accident lay, at least partly, in deficient design. As the 16 leading nuclear scientists who recently sent a letter on nuclear safety to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General noted, “It appears that, in the siting and design of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plants, an unlikely combination of low-probability events (historic earthquake plus historic tsunami leading to loss of all electrical power) was not taken sufficiently into account.” Rational liability laws are essential for ensuring the nuclear vendor pays adequate attention to safety in coming up with his designs. Optimum safety can only be built in if the vendor is forced to internalize the cost of an accident, something liability laws in Japan and elsewhere do not do. The Indian law is an improvement over the prevailing global model but post-Fukushima, many will argue for its further strengthening.

“We are confident that only nuclear power that avoids being a threat to the health and safety of the population and to the environment is acceptable to society,” the 16 nuclear scientists, including Anil Kakodkar, former head of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), said in their letter. They added: “It is necessary to ensure that national nuclear safety regulators in all countries are fully independent in their decision-making on nuclear safety and to assure their competence, resources and enforcement authorities.”

Unfortunately, India today has no such body of regulators. Even on paper, the “autonomous” Atomic Energy Regulatory Board cannot remotely be called “fully independent” since it reports eventually to the Atomic Energy Commission, which, in turn, is chaired by the head of the DAE. As Prashant Reddy, a research associate at the National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata, has noted, “This is like making the Securities & Exchange Board of India [SEBI] responsible to the Bombay Stock Exchange and then expecting SEBI to function as an independent, autonomous regulator.” The government is understood to be working on a proposal to create a truly independent regulator for the nuclear industry but what eventually emerges from its internal review process is anybody’s guess. Meanwhile, the decision to push ahead with construction activity at Jaitapur and other places has evoked a strong negative reaction from local communities. Opposition parties like the Shiv Sena may be trying to exploit people’s fears but the government’s failure to be open and transparent in its conduct at the grassroots level is what has created fertile ground for protest. Radioactive pollution, in the “low-probability” event of an accident, has a half-life of hundreds of years. Will the skies fall upon us if Jaitapur and other projects are put on hold for a fraction of that time, so that citizens at large — and the concerned local communities — can be convinced through argument and debate that putting up nuclear plants in their backyard is a safe and economical way of generating electricity?

This article was corrected for grammatical errors.

Bangladeshi Denounce US Imperialist Interference

CPB, BSD call to resist ‘US aggression’

Dhaka, Apr 9 (bdnews24.com)—Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) and Bangladesher Samajtantrik Dal (BSD) have called upon the masses to resist what they called ‘US capitalist aggression’ across the world and interference in Muhammad Yunus issue.

Speaking at separate meetings in the city on Saturday, leaders of the two parties express grave concern over ‘ever-increasing US interference in the internal issues of Bangladesh’.

“The frequency of US interference in Bangladesh’s internal issues has surpassed all past records. The government and opposition parties’ subservient attitude is responsible for the increased interference,” a CPB press release said.

CPB leaders were addressing a meeting at city’s Muktangon on Saturday afternoon, the release said.

The release also termed the US stance on Yunus and mineral resources issues as anti-diplomatic etiquettes.

“Violent speech of US assistant secretary of state Robert O Blake on Mar 22 is disrespectful to Bangladesh and a threat to our independence and sovereignty.”

The US had even sent the Seventh Fleet besides opposing the independence struggle in 1971, but Bangladesh resisted that US aggression as a brave nation, the Left party’s release added.

Ashraf Hossain Ashu presided over the meeting where CPB presidium member Shahadat Hossain and central leader M M Akash spoke, the release added.

On the other hand, speaking at a demonstration programme in front of National Press Club on Saturday afternoon, BSD general secretary Khalekujjaman said, “Imperialist countries are supporting this newest US aggression over Middle-East just to gain control of oil fields for themselves.”

On the Libya issue, he pointed out that only Libyan people held the power to steer the country.

While criticising Hillary Clinton and Robert Blake’s threats over Yunus issue, he suspected that both the government and imperialists were patrons of micro-credit system.

BSD’s metropolitan convenor Bazlur Rashid Firoz presided over the programme, while central committee member Rajekujjaman Ratan and member secretary Zulfikar Ali were among those speaking on the occasion.

bdnews24.com/mmr/trb/nir/2345h

Nashville: Proposed terrorist bill stirs controversy

Opponents of an anti-terrorism bill watch a TV monitor in the legislative office complex as Rep. Rick Womick, R-Murfreesboro, discusses the bill in Nashville on Tuesday. Hundreds came to the Capitol to protest the measure that originally sought to make it a felony to follow some versions of the Islamic Sharia code. The measure has since been stripped of any reference to religion, but opponents say it is still unnecessary. (AP Photo/Erik Schelzig)
Opponents of an anti-terrorism bill watch a TV monitor in the legislative office complex as Rep. Rick Womick, R-Murfreesboro, discusses the bill in Nashville on Tuesday. Hundreds came to the Capitol to protest the measure that originally sought to make it a felony to follow some versions of the Islamic Sharia code. The measure has since been stripped of any reference to religion, but opponents say it is still unnecessary. (AP Photo/Erik Schelzig)

NASHVILLE — Tennessee’s governor and state attorney general would have power to decide who and what groups constitute a “domestic terrorist entity” under a controversial bill moving in the General Assembly.

At least 200 Muslims packed the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and adjacent hallways on Tuesday, saying they fear the proposed Material Support to Designated Entities Act would unfairly target them.

But the legislation passed in both panels, with House Judiciary Committee members approving it on a 12-8 vote and their Senate counterparts later voting 6-3 in favor of it. Both versions now move on to their respective finance committees.

The bill originally sought to criminalize what critics said were extreme aspects of Sharia, the individual and social duties prescribed by Islam. But the bill has now been amended to remove any references to Sharia or religion.

“The offensive language that was in the original bill has been removed,” said House Speaker Pro Tem Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, the bill’s sponsor.

The bill’s intent, he said, is “to protect Tennesseans, to empower local law enforcement, to preempt terrorist attacks so we don’t have to pick up body parts after an event. It’s to prevent an event from happening.”

Designating a person or group as a “domestic terrorist entity” would be a civil procedure and would allow the state to freeze or block the entity’s bank assets, he said.

Those contributing in spite of the designation could be subject to criminal penalties if the group commits a terrorist act. Matheny said there are adequate legal protections, but critics question that.

Zulfat Suara, a Nigerian Muslim who now makes her home and works as a certified public accountant in Bolivar, Tenn., said her greatest concern is the tremendous power top state officials will have to impose a designation that can destroy innocent lives.

“Two or three years later you’re cleared, but the damage is already done,” she said.

During the House hearing, Rep. Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol, also fretted about the power of top officials.

“Isn’t that the ultimate in truly Big Brother?” Lundberg said. “I like the intent. It just candidly scares me what we open up with this and what we potentially toss out.”

Rep. Mike Stewart, D-Nashville, called the bill “un-American as far as I’m concerned. What we’re saying here is that somebody in Tennessee, a regular person, can be declared a terrorist, and they have no right to a trial of their peers to clear their good name.”

One of the bill’s proponents, Rep. Rick Womick, R-Rockvale, said the bill was “not about religion,” however, he went on to criticize aspects of Islam in a lengthy speech.

“There are three parts to Sharia law that the majority of Americans do not understand,” Womick said. “It’s a political system that has at its center the goal to install Sharia law and its divine beliefs in every country in the world … It is a legal system with a legal code enforced if necessary through militaristic or Jihadist methods. It is also a religion. That part of Sharia is protected by the First Amendment — the other two are not.”

Imam Mohamed Ahmed with the Islamic Center of Nashville later spoke before the committee, calling the situation “very interesting” because proponents say it does not target any religion yet committee members had just listened for “20 minutes about Sharia law.”

“I think we’re facing double standards these days in the Muslim community,” he said, comparing Muslims’ situation to that of blacks in the past.

Indian Press Reveals Radiation-Caused Evacuation of Ohio’s Problem-Plagued Perry Nuke Plant

US facing nuclear scare in Ohio plant?

Oneindia News

Cleveland, Apr 27: After the nuclear scare in tsunami-hit Japan’s Fukushima Daichi plant, there were global concerns on the disastrous impact of the nuclear leak for years to come. Following the scare, nuclear plants across the world had stepped up their security and safety measures to avoid a catastrophe of fatal proportions.

News has emerged of exceptionally high radiation levels at a nuclear reactor in northeast Ohio that has caused concern to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The plant in question is the Perry Nuclear Power Plant that was evacuated on Apr 22 after radiation levels rose while the plant was shutting down for a refuelling outage, revealed the commission. The plant officials have confirmed that workers have not been exposed to radiation in excess of NRC limits, the commission added.

In a statement issued by the commission, “The plant is in a safe condition and there has been no impact to workers at the plant or members of the public from this issue.” The commission explained that trouble started when workers were removing a monitor that measures nuclear reactions during start-up, low-power operations and shutdown.

The highest recorded radiation exposure to workers were measured at 98 millirems, which is the equivalent to two or three chest X-rays, revealed a spokesman for the owners of the nuclear reactor. He also added that the NRC’s limit for radiation exposure in a year is 5000 millirems.

The plant owned by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. has been operational since 1987. Plant spokesperson revealing the lapses in the part of workers stated, “The contractors did not use the proper method to remove this piece of equipment from underneath the reactor. It shouldn’t have happened, but the bottom line was it did not impact the safety or health of the contractors or the public.”

The Commission started inspecting the plant from Monday and refused to divulge how high the radiation levels are and how often such are carried out.

OneIndia News

‘Saudis fear losing seized Yemeni land’

‘Saudis fear losing seized Yemeni land’

Saudi soldiers in the former Yemeni province of Jizan, during the war with Yemen’s Houthi fighters in Jan. 2010.
A Yemeni opposition group says the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council ([P]GCC) is plotting to defeat the popular revolt in the country against the despotic rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Secretary General of Yemen Democratic Party Saif al-Washli told the al-Alam news network on Tuesday that leaders of [P]GCC are against Yemen’s membership in the council.

This is because they fear that if Yemen joins the council, it may demand the return of three of its provinces under the occupation of Saudi Arabia, al-Washli explained.

When the British partitioned the Arabian Peninsula following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Saudis sought to expand their territories by occupying parts of Yemen.

This unleashed the 1934 Saudi-Yemen war that resulted in the separation of three provinces — Asir, Jazan and Najran — from Greater Yemen.

Nearly 80 years after the Saudi occupation, the border dispute remains fresh, with many Yemenis demanding the return of the three regions to the motherland.

In November 2009, Saudi forces once again intervened in Yemen by launching an offensive against Shia fighters in the north, known as Houthis.

The massive offensive claimed the lives of a large number of people, including women and children, and led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands in the impoverished country.

Al-Washli stressed that Saudi Arabia’s recent interventions in Bahrain, Egypt, Syria and Iraq also show that the Kingdom is bent on suppressing popular revolutions in the Mideast by following pro-Israeli agendas.

The latest comments come two days after the [P]GCC granted President Ali Abdullah Saleh immunity from prosecution in exchange for his stepping down and handing power over to his Vice President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi.

According to the plan, the opposition will be allowed to form an interim national unity government after the president signs the deal.

Reports say both Saleh and Yemen’s opposition have accepted the plan.

However, the opposition groups believe Saleh’s verbal acceptance of the plan is merely another ploy.

Since late January, hundreds of thousands of people have turned out for regular demonstrations in Yemen’s biggest cities, calling for an end to corruption and unemployment and demanding Saleh’s ouster after nearly 33 years in power.

According to local sources, at least 300 protesters have been killed and many others have been injured during clashes with riot police and forces loyal to the Yemeni president armed with batons, knives, and clubs.

FF/MB

EU Prepares To Invade Libya With Ground Troops Under “Humanitarian” Hoax

Western hypocrites manipulating UN to whitewash mass-murder and international oil theft, under the banner of “”humanitarianism.” American and European plundering of Asian and African oil resources have justified European and “American counter-revolutions to remove the criminal regimes. Expect a hostile global revolution to bring the American/European war criminals to justice.

How Much Will the American People Put-Up With? Who Cares?

NATO Does Not Need America For Libya: Joe Biden

“AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?   OOOH, I AM SO SCARED!”

WASHINGTON: US Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview published on Tuesday that NATO can handle Libya without US help, saying Washington’s efforts are better focused on places like Pakistan or Egypt.

“If the Lord Almighty extricated the US out of NATO and dropped it on the planet of Mars so we were no longer participating, it is bizarre to suggest that NATO and the rest of the world lacks the capacity to deal with Libya it does not,” Biden told the Financial Times.

“Occasionally other countries lack the will, but this is not about capacity,” he told the daily amid deep unease among the US public and lawmakers over military action in Libya.

His comments came after the US Defense Department said the US military had flown more than 800 sorties over Libya since handing control of the air campaign’s operations to NATO.

Navy Captain Darryn James said US fighter jets this month unleashed bombs eight times on the air defenses of strongman Muammar Qaddafi’s government, which is battling anti-regime rebels in the North African nation.

Washington coordinated operations in the first days of allied intervention in Libya after the United Nations Security Council approved international military action to thwart attacks by Qaddafi forces on rebel-held cities.

It transferred command to the NATO alliance earlier this month, leaving the Pentagon primarily providing refueling and surveillance aircraft, but it still flexes its military might.

Biden argued that Washington had to decide whether to spend resources “focusing on Iran, Egypt, North Korea, Afghanistan and Pakistan”, or give Libya more attention, stressing: “We can’t do it all.”

“The question is: Where should our resources be?” he asked.

If it came down to deciding between getting a complete picture of Libya’s opposition or understanding events in Egypt and the role the Muslim Brotherhood — an Islamist group feared by some in Washington then “it’s not even close,” said Biden.

But the vice president flatly denied that domestic US political considerations had shaped the US handover to NATO.

“This is about our strategic interest and it is not based upon a situation of what can the traffic bear politically at home,” he said.

“The traffic can bear politically more in Libya: There’s a bad guy there, everybody knows he’s a bad guy, the people don’t like him, and so that’s not hard,” he added, referring to Qaddafi.

Fulfilling the UN mandate to protect Libyan civilians “is totally, thoroughly, completely within the capacity of NATO,” he said.

“Where we brought unique benefits to bear and unique assets we have applied those assets and we will,” he added.