Tel Aviv Shocked To See Top General Unload Zionist Baggage

[SEE:  “Obama wrong over Syria action, says top general.”]

J’lem puzzled by Dempsey comment on Iran strike

By HERB KEINON, REUTERS

Dempsey said he did not want to be ‘complicit’ in strike; Israeli source says comment doesn’t represent White House position.

PHOTO: REUTERS/HANDOUT

A senior government official on Saturday characterized as “strange” a recent statement by US military chief Gen. Martin Dempsey that he would not want to be “complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran.

“Dempsey’s comments are strange in that they would seem to contradict the continual statements from the White House that the security and defense cooperation between Israel and the US has never been as close,” the senior official said.

Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quoted last week as saying again that an Israeli attack could delay, but not halt, Iran’s nuclear program.

“I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it,”Dempsey said.

Iran’s unconventional world convention

Schram: Iran’s unconventional world convention

By MARTIN SCHRAM, Scripps Howard News Service

Photo credit: Getty Images | Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi delivers his speech during the opening session of the expert-level meeting of XVI summit of the Non-Alligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran. (Aug. 26, 2012)

Historians may someday call this week’s convention-hall events — the speech-making and backroom decision-making — the beginning of a change that reordered the way the world works.

Indeed, many delegates may have already concluded just that. Partly because so many world-famous political figures showed up. And partly because of the most unconventional art the delegates had to walk past to enter the convention hall: three clumps of twisted metal, formerly automobiles driven by three Iranian nuclear scientists, blown up by perpetrators officially unknown. Beside each wreck were large photos of the scientists and their children.

source

No, we aren’t talking about a convention hall in Tampa – but one in Tehran.

 source

Halfway around the world from where the U.S. political media’s big eye was focusing on theRepublican National Convention and hanging on the words of presidential standard-bearer Mitt Romney, much of the rest of the world was focusing on a coincidentally parallel weeklong meeting of an organization called the Nonaligned Movement.

This is no small fringe gathering that opened Sunday in Tehran. Delegates from 120 nations were reportedly attending. The United States mounted a significant back-channel effort to dissuade world leaders from attending the summit. The Obama administration’s effort met with little noticeable success.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh brought a delegation of 250 and reportedly planned to meet separately with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and also with the summit’s hosts, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Egypt’s new president, Mohammed Morsi, changed his plans at the last minute and flew to the summit — a significant policy shift because Egypt ended its diplomatic relations with Iran after recognizing Israel in 1980.

And perhaps most significantly, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon brushed aside the objections of the United States and Israel and decided to attend the summit as well. He showed the world he is strangely unperturbed by the fact that Iran has for years ignored UN Security Council resolutions and obstructed UN nuclear inspectors.

“We, frankly, don’t think that Iran is deserving of these high-level presences that are going there,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement.

Iran Turns NAM Summit Into Syrian Peace Summit

Iran seeks support for Syria ceasefire plan at Tehran summit

By Marcus George

Iran’s parliament speaker Ali Larijani, right, meets with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in Tehran on August 29, 2012 ahead of the summit of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) states. (AFP PHOTO/BEHROUZ MEHRI)

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Aug-29/186059-iran-seeks-support-for-syria-ceasefire-plan-at-tehran-summit.ashx#ixzz24wwYHT7I
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

 

DUBAI: Iran will ask developing nations attending a summit there to back its call for a ceasefire in Syria, an official said Wednesday, as Tehran seeks to be seen as a peacemaker in a region where its Arab neighbors often view it with suspicion.

Iran says the 120-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in its capital proves U.S. efforts to isolate it have failed. A resolution on Syria would help Tehran argue that its ties with Damascus are benign.

“Iran’s proposal to the meeting of members of the Non-Aligned Movement to solve the Syria issue is to recommend a ceasefire and the implementation of national reconciliation talks in the country,” deputy foreign minister Hossein Amir Abdullahian was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.

Tehran has steadfastly backed Assad since an uprising began last year, describing the president as a key part of its “axis of resistance” against Israel and Western influence in the Middle East.

Shiite Muslim Iran denies accusations it has helped Assad crush his opponents – mostly from the majority Sunni community. Assad is a member of the Minority Alawite faith, an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

Tehran blames the West and Sunni Muslim Gulf countries of fuelling Syria’s civil war by supporting the rebels.

Iran supported a failed U.N.-Arab League peace plan and says it should be involved in future international efforts to end the bloodshed in Syria.

“Bashar Assad said that any step that comes from Iran in order to solve the problem in Syria is trustworthy and acceptable,” said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a senior parliamentarian visiting Syria this week.

“Any plan without Bashar Assad is destined to fail, just like up until now it has failed,” Boroujerdi told Iran’s Fars news agency, saying Assad had “defeated” the uprising.

Iran had an important role to play in regional issues, particularly regarding Syria, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told Iranian journalists on his arrival in Tehran on Wednesday. He was due to meet both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei later in the day.

Iran’s proposal for a 3-month ceasefire has been presented for discussion by NAM foreign ministers, Abdullahian said, and its outcome will be presented at the end of the summit on Friday.

Egyptian president Mohammad Mursi – who is due to attend the summit as the first Egyptian leader in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution – is also expected to lay out further details of his own plan for Syria.

Last week, he spoke of forming a contact group comprising Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to resolve the crisis, an initiative the Iranian leadership is keen to pursue.

“When Mr. Mursi comes to Tehran we’ll see whether there will be other initiatives by NAM. We’ll have to cross our fingers and see how things move,” foreign ministry official Mohammad Mehdi Akhoundzadeh told state television on Tuesday.

But speaking to Reuters earlier this week, Mursi made a call for Assad to be removed from power, something Tehran would oppose.

Mursi’s message could also prevent the normalization of relations between Cairo and Tehran. Diplomatic relations between the countries broke down over Egypt’s support for the Shah and its peace agreement with Israel.

In the interview, Mursi avoided answering a question on whether he intended to upgrade Egypt’s relations with Iran but indicated he would pursue a more balanced foreign policy in general.

At Summit Meeting, Iran Has a Message for the World

Newsha Tavakolian for The New York Times

Three cars damaged in attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists outside the Tehran convention hall.

By THOMAS ERDBRINK

TEHRAN — At the entrance to the convention hall where Iran is sponsoring an international summit meeting are the crumpled wreckage of three cars driven by Iranian nuclear scientists who have been killed or hurt in bomb attacks. Placards with the photos of the scientists and their children stand alongside.

The message is clear. As Iran plays host to the biggest international conference the Islamic republic has organized in its 33-year history, it wants to tell its side of the long standoff with the Western powers, which are increasingly convinced that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Tehran, which denies that it is after the bomb, believes the scientists were killed by Israeli agents, an assertion that Israel has not acknowledged but never fully disputed.

The meeting of the so-called Nonaligned Movement, a group formed during the cold war that considers itself independent of the major powers, has so far proven to be something of a public relations success for Iran.

Last week, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, decided to attend despite pressure from the United States and Israel. Egypt’s new president also said he would come to the conference, although his country has long been estranged from Iran, and India’s prime minister plans to bring a delegation of 250 people in an attempt to advocate for more trade with Tehran.

The announcements were seen as setbacks for efforts by the United States to isolate Iran and cripple it with sanctions.

“Two-thirds of the world’s nations are here in Tehran,” Mohammad Khazaee, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters on Sunday. “Clearly this conference will be effective for us.”

Iran’s foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, opened the meeting’s early sessions on Sunday with a plea for the 120 countries in the movement to oppose the sanctions imposed on his country, and he asked them to stand against terrorism, saying Iran is the biggest victim of terrorist attacks in the world. An exhibition in the convention hall echoed his assertions, including pictures of victims of what Iran said were opposition bombings in the 1980s, soon after the Islamic Revolution, and of the downing of an Iranian passenger jet by a missile fired from a United States Navy ship in 1988, in what American officials say was an accident.

He also said the United States had “exploited” the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to further its “hegemonic goals.”

Given that history, Iran says it has decided not to take any chances and has launched a comprehensive security operation. More than 110,000 security forces are controlling the streets, the deputy national police commander, Ahmad Radan, told the Fars news agency over the weekend.

They are supported by 30 helicopters and nearly 3,000 patrol cars. There are roadblocks on all highways leading into Tehran, and at night there are checkpoints throughout the city.

“Despite the evil intentions of our enemies, our secret service has taken all necessary measures in order to hold the nonaligned meeting in an absolute secure environment,” Iran’s minister of intelligence, Heydar Moslehi, told state news agency IRNA.

But the tight security might have another goal: to ensure Iran’s narrative is not spoiled by its domestic political difficulties, three years after the country was convulsed by antigovernment protests that followed a disputed election and were quashed in a harsh crackdown.

Foreign-based opposition Web sites called for renewed rallies against the government during the summit meeting.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is expected to address the conference this week. And in an effort to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful, Iran is offering special tours of some of its nuclear sites.

Sen. Richard Lugar Advocates Bilateral Peace In Syria Instead of World War III

Andrea Mitchell interviews retired Sen. Richard Lugar on his new foreign policy initiative, to have Russia and the United States agree to jointly take possession of Syria’s WMD, if the Assad regime falls, or to prevent the weapons falling into terrorist hands.  This would be a real breakthrough, since it would represent a major turn in Obama’s efforts to divide the world against Russia, through action in Syria.  Avoiding a rapidly-approaching US/Russia confrontation, which could easily go nuclear very quickly, would work in the interests of world peace.  A turning away from confrontation would open the door to getting rid of all nuclear weapons.  In the face of probable world war, we could change the course of history and chart a safe course to total peace.

Interview with Senator Richard Lugar

Andrea Mitchell

Richard Lugar

ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: And the U.N. has caused a minor uproar today announcing that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is going to attend the summit in Tehran next week. Despite U.S. efforts to isolate Iran for its nuclear program and its support of the brutal Syrian regime.Indiana Senator Richard Lugar is the Senate`s longest-serving Republican, former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, ranking member now. Just returned from Moscow. Another diplomatic mission. Trying to get Russia on board to help control Syria`s chemical and biological weapons.Senator, it`s great to see you. Thank you very much.Thank you, Andrea. MITCHELL: You, of course, the co-sponsor of the Nunn-Lugar or Lugar- Nunn Regime which has for decades controlled weapons of mass destruction and tried to prevent — successfully tried to prevent proliferation at the fall of the Soviet Union.Now, tell me about Moscow, because we have a lot of concerns about Vladimir Putin`s stance supporting Assad, propping him up, just as the U.S. is getting more and more worried about that red line the president spoke about, the chemical weapons. Where do we stand? LUGAR: Well, I appreciated the opportunity to visit Russia. And first of all, to talk about the basis of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the need to extend the so-called agreement to give legal basis so we can continue to work with the Russians to destroy missiles and destroy engines that had nuclear weapons attached to them and all of the rest.But I took the opportunity with deputy ministers of defense and foreign affairs to suggest that there is another cooperative threat reduction we could do with Russia. United States and Russia, two great powers. A lot of experience with chemical weapons. And we would plan together for a contingency that if the Assad regime falls or there is a general disintegration of order in Syria, we would be prepared, as two nations, to take over those chemical weapons and destroy them.And I suggested this as a cooperative threat reduction program because we want to have, I believe, a stronger relations with Russia. It was good to be with Russia on the Syrian question, and appeared to me this was a possible opening. MITCHELL: Did you get any, any kind of sense from the Russians that they would be willing to cooperate here? Because there`s been a lot of concern in the administration that the Russians are not playing ball and we`ve seen what they`ve done at the U.N. and we`ve seen very angry statements from the secretary of state and the U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about what Russia has done in the Security Council. LUGAR: Indeed, we have witnessed all of that. This is why I took advantage of opportunities in Moscow to forge a different path in which we work with Russia, in which there was experience in working with Russia to destroy weapons of mass destruction. We have a lot of experience doing this. We`re committed both of our countries to get rid of all of our chemical weapons and we`ve helped the weapons at Sochi, a big plant now, from going through tons of the stuff even as we`re speaking today.Therefore, leaving aside all of the debate which has proceeded, it seemed to me this was an opportunity for a breakthrough and at least the reaction of some Russians was that this is very interesting. Others said, after all, Syria is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention. They own the weapons and so they do. But I think there`s a general fear, and President Obama expressed this, that red line is there.If the weapons get used or if they`re moved or what have, the United States might take military action. That would be a unilateral step. I`m suggesting a possible bilateral planning and bilateral action. MITCHELL: You, in fact, took then Senator Obama, I think, on his first trip as a United States senator. LUGAR: Yes. MITCHELL: At least to Moscow. What about the state of our politics today? And, you know, your own experience, of course, you had the Republican primary and we know that you`re going to be retiring from the Senate, not something that you wanted. You`ve lost the primary. But is there a role that you can play now given just how toxic our politics have become in both political parties?Mitt Romney, the standard bearer for the Republicans, has said that Russia is our biggest adversary. Do you agree with that? LUGAR: No, I don`t agree with that, but I would say simply that I heard truly — and I heard Tom Pickering, former ambassador, use this term, we`ve been kicking the shins of each other. What we`re going to have to find ways to do now is finding ways to work together. And it will not be easy. The non-Lugar program in which literally the Russians finally invited us to come in and destroy the nuclear weapons that were aimed at us for 40 years, is a breakthrough of the sort of no one anticipated.I`m suggesting we need some more breakthroughs. That`s going to require some tough diplomatic work. And so I`m offering one suggestion, but it`s not the only one. MITCHELL: Have you talked to the White House about this? Or the State Department?LUGAR: No, I have not had that opportunity. We just got back from our travels. And I hope that we`ll have some conversations. MITCHELL: Richard Lugar, Senator, thank you very much for joining us. LUGAR: Thank you, Andrea. Thank you. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

August 24, 2012

The 16th Annual Non-Aligned Movement Summit Opens In Tehran with 120 Governments Represented

 

 

[The fact that the turnout has been so great (possibly including UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon) is a highly relevant political statement being made by world leaders, that they are fed-up with the American disaster which has been masquerading as a responsible foreign policy.  The world wants PEACE, and the United States and NATO had better get out of the way.)

[click image for larger view]

UN General Secretary To Attend NAM Summit in Iran?

The 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement will be held in Tehran from August 26 to 31.

Generally known as NAM, the Non-Aligned Movement originated during the Cold War, as states attempted to avoid becoming pawns in the power struggle between the two competing super powers.

It now consists of 120 countries principally from the developing world, as well as a further 21 observer countries.

This year, the possible attendance of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is causing controversy.

Mohammad Reza Forghani, spokesman for the 16th NAM Summit, affirmed, “there has been no change in Mr. Ban Ki-moon’s schedule to visit Tehran for Non-Aligned Movement summit in spite of the pressures.”

However, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland on Monday stated that the United States is against high-level diplomatic visits to Iran by UN officials: “I think our expectation would be that if he goes at this time that he will use the visit to make the point about our broad concern as an international community and the U.N.’s concern about the number of aspects of their U.N. obligations that Iran is flouting.”

Irans’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast argues that the meeting “will bring forward more steps to eliminate world problems and help the resolution of ongoing crisis in every corner of the world.”

Nuland presents a contrasting view: “The fact that the meeting is happening in a country that’s in violation of so many of its international obligations and posing a threat to neighbors, etcetera, sends a very strange signal with regard to support for the international order, rule of law, etcetera.”

Iranian officials maintain that Tehran is fully prepared to host the upcoming NAM summit, with all police and law enforcement bodies prepared to provide full security for the summit .

Morteza Tamaddon, Governor-General of Tehran Province, added: “All preparatory measures have been taken in the Iranian capital for hosting the 16th heads-of-state summit of the Non-Aligned Movement.”

India seeks Afghan hand for Tehran port project

NEW DELHI

But, Iran’s nuclear ambitions worry Delhi

 

India is keen to rope in Afghanistan to develop infrastructure in and around the strategically important Chabahar Port in south east Iran to establish an alternative trade route to resource rich Central Asia.  

Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai will meet his Afghan and Iranian counterparts in Tehran on Sunday to discuss the project that would give India link to Afghanistan and landlocked countries in Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan. New Delhi is likely to propose a trilateral working group to discuss commercial viability of the project.

“The idea is to take forward a kind of general discussion as to what we need to do about Chabahar, what is our common interest in the development of the infrastructure, the port, developing the use of Chabahar and the related infrastructure as an alternative route into Afghanistan which we certainly regard as being of very great significance. So, we will discuss it,” Mathai told journalists on Saturday.

Iran wants India to join the project, which includes building a container terminal at Chabahar Free Port on the coast of Gulf of Oman and Chabahar-Faraz-Bam railway project to get access to Afghanistan and Central Asian countries. India, however, has so far been cagey about getting involved in such a huge project in Iran, to avoid the US and the EU crticism.

Afghanistan too has been cautious about joining India in a project in Iran, because Washington is not comfortable with Tehran raising its clout in the region. The US, however, has its own plan – New Silk Road – for turning Afghanistan into a trade link between South and Central Asia.

Mathai on Saturday said that Iran’s offer to India to join the project had raised “a number of very interesting possibilities in terms of the reconstruction at the industrial developments in Afghanistan”.

“Afghanistan certainly also finds it of interest being an alternative route into their country from which they can get vital supplies. So, I think this is a common interest, and we are going to look at it,” he said.

The Ministry of External Affairs had commissioned a study through the Indian Port Association to assess commercial viability of the project and suggest ways to move forward.

Mathai is likely to discuss the report of the IPA with his counterparts at the trilateral meet in Tehran on Sunday.

A Few Good Scots Could Change the World Right Now, Starting with Britain’s Nukes

Nato policy must serve the nation, not US corporate interests

Robin McAlpine

 

If an independent Scotland managed to join Nato and get rid of Trident, what then?

 

IN THE SNP’s debate over Nato, two cases are being made. One is that an independent Scotland could have its biggest impact by joining Nato and working with some of the more progressive countries in that alliance towards removing nuclear weapons from European soil.

 

The other argues that Scotland should remain outside Nato, remove nuclear weapons immediately and then work constructively with counties inside and outside Nato on a host of international issues to set a positive example to the world.

It is to be celebrated that Scotland can have this debate. Both of these visions of a Scottish international role are streets ahead of Britain’s stances of “the only way you’ll get our nukes from us is to prize them from our cold, dead hands” and “we agree with whatever the United States just said”.

However, we need to be realistic. Scotland is small and Nato’s interest in us is heavily tied up with our role as landlord to weapons of mass destruction.

All the experiences of bigger Nato ­countries in Europe are that you can ­certainly vote to remove nukes but voting doesn’t amount to much.

Not a single country has managed it and three – including mighty Germany – have passed votes in their parliament only to have them ignored.

But even if Scotland did join Nato and did manage to get rid of Trident from Scottish soil, what then? Is the best that we can hope for the fixed grin of the Nato group photo, us thinking we’re fighting the good fight, the rest of the world not noticing us in the shadows of US commercial interests?

Because on this I do agree with the pro-Nato side: Nato is not a Cold War relic. As a defensive force it is obsolete, but as a means of protecting commercial interests it has a very specific agenda.

The only conflict in the rough vicinity of Scotland which has been raised as a potential problem to which Nato might be the solution is a confrontation between the US and Russia over drilling rights for Arctic oil. What this means is that Scotland would be trapped in a treaty which requires us to stand side-by-side with Exxon Mobile in a shooting war with Gazprom.

We need to be clear: tiny Scotland would spend a lot more time biting its tongue than speaking words of wisdom to the US. We would have picked one side in a geopolitical war for commercial access to global natural resources and strategic position, and once that side is picked there is no nuance.

Perhaps the day the first shot is fired over Arctic snow by soldiers who flew there from Scottish airbases, Russia and China will instigate a boycott of Scotch whisky.

It will do no good then to say “but we tried”, because Scotland will have become a partisan nation which is engaged in wars of aggression. Scottish soldiers would be bombing Iran or blockading the Arctic many moons before Scottish ­diplomats negotiate even one bomb out of existence.

And it will leave us discredited where it really matters. Wilbert van der Zeijden is a senior figure in the international ­conflict resolution community. He warns that ­because of Nato membership the rest of the global community is “less inclined to take countries like the Netherlands seriously in the Conference on Disarmament, the NPT and other non-proliferation and disarmament forums.

“It would be entirely unnecessary and quite a bad move if Scotland manoeuvred itself in a similar position.”

I once knew someone who would get to every meeting early to secure a chair as close as possible to whomever he believed to be the most important person in the room. He thought we were impressed; we thought he was a bit sad.

The thing about credibility and integrity is that you are judged by your actions and not your explanations.

A Scotland in Nato will gain lip service from the US generals – the very ones who refer to Nato as Snow White and the Twenty Seven Dwarves. Everyone else on the world stage would write Scotland off as an adjunct to the US. In effect, having just gained a credible voice in international negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation, Scotland would choose to give it up again. Which would be a crying shame ­because if Scotland removed Trident from its soil its international credibility would be sky high.

Too many political insiders believe “grubby compromise” to be a synonym for “serious politics”. If Scotland became independent it would have plenty of time to seek out its own grubby compromises. It doesn’t need to be born in one.

Scotland could become the nation leading the world in a fresh effort to get rid of nuclear weapons. The international repercussions of Scotland effectively disarming one of the globe’s eight nuclear powers would be enormous.

It is not overblown to suggest that many in the international community would look to us for leadership, as evidence that a nuclear-free world is possible. To lose that voice for the sake of American corporate profits would be to squander a truly valuable prize.

 

• Robin McAlpine is director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation

In Search of Honesty and True Islam In the Tunisian Aftermath

[The two videos given below (one just a link) highlight the hypocritical contradictory ideas within modern "Islamist" thinking and within popular notions about Muslims, in general.  In the first video, the Moroccan writer/activist strives to increase Muslim awareness of inalienable basic freedoms and human rights, fighting to correct false, opinionated assumptions which guide the popular dialogue about Muslims, as well.  The second video highlights the other  more extreme end of the ideological spectrum; it is a video of a Tunisian "Islamist" (probably one of Obama's boys) beheading a man for converting to Christianity.  The essence of the "Arab Spring" liberation movement is an expression somewhere in between these two extremes.  The dark forces of Empire will do everything within their vast range of powers to prevent any true liberation movement in the MENA region from regaining their footing and finding this clarity of vision.  The rest of us in the Western world, who want to see them succeed, will do all that we can to support them, as they search about in the dark for answers. Christians would do well to emulate their struggle for self-expression and toseek-out such a spiritual re-clarification of the meaning of True Christianity.]

Middle East-North Africa: Secularism Vs. Hypocrisy And Doublethink

Washington / Morocco News Board—  At a Conference in Ontario, Canada, Mr. Ahmed Benchemsi, Moroccan Journalist  and Stanford Visiting Scholar, spoke about the challenges the people and the secularist movements confront in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).He appealed for what he called “secularism from within” to replace the hypocrisy and doublethink that defines what people across the Arab world understand themselves to be.

He described how Muslims who live by modern secular values are an under-discussed reality in the MENA region, where people are compelled to mentally divorce how they actually live from how they believe people ought to live.

Across the MENA region – despite laws prohibiting everything from premarital sex to alcohol consumption – a powerful sub-culture practices these activities while suffering from a overwhelming sense of guilt for not living up to the ideals encoded in their laws.

So how does a culture live with these contradictions? Benchemsi answered that it is done through an “insane internal dialogue by which Islam is not the defining paradigm of these societies – hypocrisy is.”

From Benchemsi’s experience, the best way this region can overcome this schizophrenic internal monologue is by authentically describing the present – he describes this concept as “secularism from within.” In other words, they should describe the lives they live, expunge the guilt felt for breaking and disobeying unrealistic rules, and adopt the label of secularism to cultivate the individual freedom that is inextricable from democracy.

He concluded that secularism from within is really honesty from within. He believes that is what young seculars should begin practicing, for “a society based on lying and cheating is not sustainable in the long term”. Honesty is a revolutionary force. If secularists can label and practice honesty, who knows? They might win.

 

         توفيق عكاشة يعرض جريمة الإخوان بقتل مواطن بتونس

The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as being potentially offensive or inappropriate. Viewer discretion is advised.

Video: Tunisian Man Beheaded For Converting to Christianity (VIDEO)

By Lawrence D. Jones , Christian Post Reporter

A graphic video of a Christian man being beheaded by Muslim extremists for converting from Islam to Christianity was recently shown on talk shows in Canada and Egypt. Footage of the incident, which reportedly took place in Tunisia, shows a young man being held down like “an animal” with a knife to his throat.

“There is a video on the web right now showing a man having his head cut off slowly and agonizingly, essentially because he has converted to Christianity from Islam,” said Michael Coren, host of Canadian program The Arena.

Video footage of the incident shows a young man being held down by masked men. His neck is pulled back, with a knife to his throat. One of the masked men, who was not in the camera’s view, chants a number of Muslim prayers in Arabic, mostly condemning Christianity.

The man holding the knife begins to cut to the cries of “Allahu Akbar!” (or “God is great!”), as the victim appears to be mouthing a prayer. The slicing takes about two minutes before the beheading is complete–upon which they shouted more Islamic cries and slogans of victory.

Coren called the video “grotesque” but said it was not “unique,” as more people are being killed for their religious faith in the Middle East.

“There are many, many videos like this,” said Coren. “It’s usually Christians, sometimes, others. It’s always Muslims, generally Sunni mostly, but Shiite too, who are doing this. Cutting off the head is a form of punishment.”

Human rights and religious freedom activists are bringing attention to the brutality of the footage but note that these violent killings are being more common, especially in the post Arab-Spring order.

Rev. Majed El Sahfie, founder of One Free World International, listed several of the faith-related killings, including a Catholic priest who was killed in Tunisia, a man whose ears were cut off in Egypt, and an American teacher who was killed in Yeme after being accused of converting people to Christianity.

Sahfie, who is also a Christian convert from Islam, said that Muslim extremists are filling in the political vacuum that was left after the fall of dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen

Responding to Muslim clerics who have criticized discussion on the video as “propaganda for the Christian,”Sahfie said, “If he is a Christian or Jewish or Muslim, Sunni or Shia, Hindu or Buddha, I would act the same way.”

“I hope a video like this will bring alive on the massacre that will happen on minorities in the Middle East very, very soon,” he said.

Barnabas Aid, a ministry which delivers relief for the persecuted church, is asking Christians to pray over incident as a prayer topic in the month of July.

“Give thanks to God for our Tunisian brother’s life and his faith that would not waver, even unto death. Pray that his witness will touch the hearts of his killers and those who have seen the footage of his death and that they will turn to Christ,” the ministry wrote in its Prayer Focus update.

The prayer topic request also included a Bible verse: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:18, NIV).”

WATCH PART OF THE GRAPHIC VIDEO SHOWING BEHEADING (Warning! Video Includes Distrubing Footage):

Iran’s Revolutionary Call for Syrian Referendum On Assad, Under International Supervision

Iran’s overture to the West on Syria

By M K Bhadrakumar

The opinion-piece that appeared this week in the Washington Post authored by Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi was pointedly addressed to the western powers. The thought processes are complex and yet rather direct — a mix of warnings and overtures.

The timing of the WaPo piece merits attention: Kofi Annan’s mission has been wound up and Lakhdar Brahimi is stepping out of the woodwork. Brahimi is the West’s preferred specialist in conflicts involving the Islamist forces — Lebanon, Afghanistan readily come to mind. He has a consistent track record of creating the illusion of negotiations where none exists, while the real contestation continues undisturbed on the battle field. Kofi is too independent, while Brahimi is a time-server. The West badly wants Brahimi at the moment.

Second, the Syrian strife is switching gear. The civil war is just about commencing in right earnest. The supply of stinger missiles by Turkey to the Syrian rebels is meant to be a game changer. Against this backdrop, the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s weekend visit to Istanbul is highly symbolic, too. It was meant to shore up Turkish leadership’s sagging morale. Having said that, Tehran sizes that there could also be soul-searching going on in the West — including in Washington — as to what lies ahead. By now, Tehran is used to Clinton’s rhetoric as the cloud cover for angst.

Third, Russia and China have receded to the background and are catching up with their routine life. Thus, the peace arena is empty. The floodlights are on but the stage is empty. And Iran walks in with an overture that is tantalizing in its lethal attraction.

It is difficult to be plainly dismissive about the Iranian offer, while it is also an intriguing offer to approach the door that could possibly open into the rose-garden. Of course, it is an offer that doesn’t suit the United States — and probably, Salehi knows it too, but there is no harm still trying.

Salehi warns that Iran won’t allow a cakewalk over Syria for the US and Turkey. The civil war will be nasty, bloody and protracted and it might even make the 15-year conflict in Lebanon seem a picnic. (By the way, out of the debris in Lebanon rose the Hezbullah.) Obviously, the stakes are high for Iran beacuse it lives in its region and Iran will safeguard its core interests no matter what it takes. But can the West or Turkey afford a protracted conflict in Lebanon?

Salehi underscores that the use of islamism as instrument of policy won’t work, either. Because, Iran is a natural ally of these forces of history, whereas the US and Turkey are not. That is to say, in the longer run, Iran only can win in Syria (or Egypt) whether there is a regime change or not. Besides, Afghanistan also testifies to the blowback that is inevitable if the Christian world tries to manipulate the Islamist forces.

However, Iran is willing to cooperate with the West since its interest lies primarily in regional stability and a level playing field. Therefore, it is willing to play the same role it played in assisting the US invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban regime and in showing such extraordinary self-restraint in Iraq (where it could have made things much more bloodier for the Americans if it wanted.)

The big issue is what is the nature of the ‘cooperation’ Tehran has in mind. Salehi makes it clear that Iran finds it unacceptable that Bashar should overnight step down. There has to be some clarity as to what happens in the downstream before Bashar steps down. Besides, Bashar is also part of the Syrian nation and has his rights too.

Therefore, Salehi taunts the West with a proposition: The international community should compel Bashar to stand for an election to the post of president in his country in a free and fair election that is held under international supervision. After all, it is for the Syrian nation to reject him.

Now, would Salehi’s proposal find acceptance in Washington or Ankara (Istanbul), Riyadh or Doha? The answer is a resounding ‘No’. The spectre that is haunting the West is that in a free and fair election, Syrians may well opt for Bashar as the anchor sheet of stability for their country. Surely, the TINA factor comes into play — ‘There Is No Alternative’ to Bashar if the fragile multicultural society that Syria is to hold together.

Besides, a free and fair election in Syria (on top of the one that took place in Egypt with such an awkward outcome) will be anathema to the Gulf Arab sheikhs. It is a dangerous idea that a head of state should be an elected figure. If the pernicious idea works in Syria, Saudi people might well wonder why they too can’t have such a prerogative in the second decade of the 21st century. Quite obviously, the US also will not want to let out the genie. Salehi has played a good hand. The WaPo opinion piece is here.

 

 

Iran and rivals face showdown in Mecca over Syrian civil war

Michael Theodoulou

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is heading for a rocky ride at an emergency summit of Muslim leaders called by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that will focus on the civil war in Syria.

Iran’s uncompromising pledge of support on Tuesday for Bashar Al Assadis likely to make debate especially heated – if not in public, then certainly in private.

Iran launched a pre-emptive diplomatic strike to head off its expected isolation at next Tuesday’s summit. Tehran is hosting a hastily assembled meeting today of foreign ministers from a “dozen countries” that have a “principled and realistic position” on ending the violence in Syria.

The meeting will bring together representatives from Asia, Africa and Latin America, Iran’s foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said yesterday.

Sitting alongside the Syrian president in a televised display of solidarity on Tuesday, Saeed Jalili, Iran’s powerful national security adviser, cast the Syrian crisis as part of a wider struggle with the United States and its regional allies.

“What is happening in Syria is not an internal Syrian issue but a conflict between the axis of resistance and its enemies in the region and the world,” Mr Jalili said.

Iran has long accused its Arabian Gulf rivals of arming “terrorist” Syrian opposition groups at the behest of the “warmongering” US to break an “axis of resistance” linking Iran, Syria and Hizbollah against the “Zionist regime” and America.

Mr Jalili, a personal representative of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the Islamic republic would never allow this 30-year-old alliance to be smashed.

The collapse of the Assad dynasty would threaten Iran’s links with Hizbollah, Tehran’s Shiite ally in Lebanon, which gives the Iranians an invaluable proxy presence on Israel’s northern border and enables Iran to project its reach into the Arab world.

In turn, the West and Arabian Gulf states accuse Iran of, at the very least, providing Mr Assad with advisers on security and communications.

Syrian rebels capitalised on those charges by claiming 48 Iranians they captured in Damascus on Sunday are Revolutionary Guards. Iran insists they are Shiite pilgrims but acknowledged for the first time yesterday that some were “retired” Guards members.

Tehran is seeking Turkey’s help to secure their release but infuriated Ankara when Iran’s chief of general staff warned Turkey on Tuesday to end its support for the Syrian opposition. Otherwise, Hassan Firouzabadi said, Turkey would next be afflicted by the Syrian conflict.

As host of next week’s summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Mecca, it would have been inconceivable for Saudi Arabia not to invite Iran, a key member of the 57-nation bloc.

Equally, Iran would never boycott a gathering that gives it a cherished opportunity to stake its claim as a major regional player that cannot be ignored.

Experts differ widely over Saudi Arabia’s game plan. Some believe King Abdullah would have preferred not to invite Iran.

Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Gulf’s ideologically opposed leading powerhouses, are bitterly divided on Syria, Bahrain, and Tehran’s nuclear programme.

“The Saudis were hoping Ahmadinejad would stay away,” said Abdelbari Atwan, editor-in-chief of Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper, based in London. “He’s embarrassed them by accepting immediately. Now he’ll be the star of the summit.”

Others believe Saudi Arabia will use the opportunity to unite Sunni Muslim ranks against Mr Assad’s faltering regime and, by extension, to pressure Iran.

“Iran will be shown to be out of line with the consensus of the overwhelming body of Muslim opinion on Syria,” said Gerald Butt, an expert on Arabian Gulf affairs. “It’s a clever move by the Saudis. If Iran stayed away it would appear isolated, but it will also appear isolated when it does show up.”

But there is also informed speculation that Saudi Arabia, fearful the Syrian crisis is spiralling out of control, is keen to de-escalate the situation and wants to explore whether Iran can be part of the solution.

“The Saudis are not holding back in any way on their efforts to counter Iran in the region, but they don’t want to get into a direct or indirect military confrontation with Iran,” said Trita Parsi, an Iran expert in Washington.

Despite visceral mistrust between Tehran and Riyadh, each has a strong incentive to defuse the Syrian crisis.

“The deterioration of the Syrian situation is in no one’s interest and that may create the incentive for some sort of constructive discussion instead of posturing and accusations,” said Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at the University of Hawaii.

The Mecca summit presents Mr Ahmadinejad with a coveted chance to perform on the world stage. The summit is a challenge the publicity loving and combative Iranian president will relish.

At home he has been shut out of decision-making on key issues such as foreign policy and Iran’s nuclear talks with world powers because of his long-running struggle with Ayatollah Khamenei.

The Iranian president’s hardline rivals have made clear he should have no illusions that his invitation to Mecca was a Saudi olive branch.

A leading Iranian politician, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said at the weekend: “After facing several defeats in Syria, Saudi Arabia is trying to use the sacred and spiritual atmosphere of Mecca to prove the public opinion of Muslim nations against Syria.”

mtheodoulou@thenational.ae

* With additional reporting by Elizabeth Dickinson

Anti-nuke protesters surround Japanese parliament

Shizuo Kambayashi

Anti-nuclear protesters, wearing gas-masks, beat metal drums as they march near the Japan’s parliament complex in Tokyo, Sunday, July 29, 2012. Thousands of the protesters rallied to demand the government abandon nuclear power after the accident last year in northern Fukushima. The word on yellow drums reads

Shizuo Kambayashi

An anti-nuclear protester wearing a mask, marches near the Japan’s parliament complex in Tokyo, Sunday, July 29, 2012. Thousands of the protesters rallied to demand the government abandon nuclear power after the accident last year in northern Fukushima. (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)

Thousands of people formed “a human chain” around Japan’s parliament complex Sunday to demand the government abandon nuclear power _ the latest in a series of peaceful demonstrations here that are on a scale not seen for decades.

Also Sunday, voters went to the polls in a closely watched regional election for governor in southwestern Yamaguchi Prefecture, where an outspoken anti-nuclear candidate is running.

Protesters said they were angry the government restarted two reactors earlier this month, despite safety worries after the multiple meltdowns at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in March last year. They were the first to come back into operation since May when the last of Japan’s 50 working reactors went offline for routine checks.

Banging on drums and waving balloons and banners, protesters marched from a Tokyo park and lined up along the blocks around the parliament building, chanting, “Saikado hantai,” or “No to restarts,” and later lit candles.

“All these people have gotten together and are raising their voices,” said Shoji Kitano, 64, a retired math teacher, wearing a sign that said: “No to Nukes.”

Kitano said he had not seen such massive demonstrations since the 1960s. He stressed ordinary Japanese usually don’t demonstrate, but they were outraged over the restarting of nuclear power.

Similar demonstrations have been held outside the prime minister’s residence every Friday evening. The crowds have not dwindled, as people get the word out through Twitter and other online networking. A July 16 holiday rally at a Tokyo park, featuring a rock star and a Nobel laureate, drew nearly 200,000 people.

The crowd appeared to be smaller Sunday. Kyodo News service estimated it at about 10,000 people. Participants said they came from across Japan, underlining the widespread appeal of the protests.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda defended his decision to restart the two reactors at Ohi nuclear plant in central Japan as necessary to maintain people’s living standards. Other reactors are also expected to go back online, one by one.

Reports from government and legislative investigations have been released on the Fukushima disaster, including a recent one that blamed “the Japanese mind-set,” which it said had allowed collusion between the plant’s operator and regulators. The reports have done little to allay people’s fears.

Adding to protesters’ frustrations is the support nuclear power has gotten from regional governments, where the plants are located. They said they planned to vote anti-nuclear candidates into office to effect change.

How the anti-nuclear candidate in Yamaguchi Prefecture fares in Sunday’s election is critical in possibly signaling a break from the past. The state is home to relatively poor rural and fishing areas. Such places, far away from the capital of Tokyo, have been typically chosen to house nuclear plants, with residents won over with jobs and subsidies. There is a plan to build a nuclear plant in Yamaguchi, but doubts are growing over whether that can be carried out.

Tetsunari Iida, the Yamaguchi candidate, is against that plan and nuclear power in general.

“We can change history,” Iida wrote in an online message, criticizing “the nuclear village,” the term here that refers to the collusion between the industry and the government. “That is my choice.”

There Has Been Positive Change In Pakistan People’s Mindset Towards India: Krishna

Positive change in Pakistan people’s mindset towards India: Krishna

Indian foreign minister SM Krishna says even global conditions require that the two countries maintain good bilateral relations. PHOTO: AFP/ FILE

Srinagar, July 26 — There is a positive change in the mindset of Pakistani people vis-a-vis relations with India, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said Thursday, citing his Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar.

Khar made the remark in a recent meeting, said Krishna, after electronically inaugurating the Jammu Passport Sewa Kendra (PSK) and laying the foundation-stone of the Passport Bhavan here, along with Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.

He also mentioned about the cordial meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari at New Delhi when Zardari came to India to visit the famous Sufi shrine at Ajmer.

Stressing improved trade relations and people-to-people contact between the two countries, he said he is looking forward to his upcoming visit to Pakistan.

Speaking on the occasion, Union New and Renewable Energy Minister Farooq Abdullah also batted for good India-Pakistan relations and sustained dialogue. He said resolution of all issues through talks is the only way forward.

Wishing Krishna a very successful and fruitful Pakistan visit in September, Omar Abdullah reaffirmed the necessity of continuous engagement by the two countries in dialogue process to amicably address all issues.

“We know the Kashmir-centric issues are so complex and long drawn that these cannot be resolved in a few meetings but the sustained talks to find out a solution in a peaceful atmosphere is the only way forward,” he said adding that relations between the two countries have always a direct bearing on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.

“The issues between the two countries cannot disappear overnight but efforts to engage in continuous dialogue should not stop,” he emphasised.

The chief minister also urged Krishna to take up, with his Pakistani counterpart, smaller issues like transferring cross-LOC trade from barter status to normal by allowing financial transactions through banks, communication facilities to traders and simplifying the visa regime for cross-LOC travel to enhance the ambit of this people to people centric confidence-building measure.

He also highlighted the importance of restoring direct Haj flights from Srinagar to Saudi Arabia for Haj pilgrims from the state.

“This issue is also connected with home and civil aviation ministries and I would call for active support and help from Mr. Krishna and Dr. Farooq Abdullah in this regard at the central level,” he maintained.

In his remarks, Krishna also underlined the government’s commitment to efficient delivery of passport services to Indian citizens in keeping with the vision “to deliver all passport-related services to the citizens in a timely, transparent, more accessible, reliable manner and in a comfortable environment through streamlined processes and committed, trained and motivated workforce”.

He said that as compared to 30,000 passports in 1950s, the passport offices in the country issued 73 lakh passports last year.

Noting that police clearance was necessary, he said: “We are working to create digital linking of passport offices with the police stations throughout the country to further ease the process of delivery.”

The launch of PSKs in Jammu and Srinagar will fast track the issuance of passports to people, Krishna added.

IANS

Now’s not the Time for Hezbollah to Cut and Run

This observer admits that politically speaking, things might appear a bit tough for Hezbollah these days but will spare the dear reader the tedium of a laundry list of what the Party has experienced over the past 20 months in terms of domestic and foreign attacks, condemnations, calumny, obliquey, sundry plots, and legislative and political wounds, some a result of the Party of God lumbering under the weight of some tawdry political ‘allies’ who it must work with in Parliament.

Franklin Lamb

 

 

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) – Some of the more commonly known and intensifying targeting of the Resistance by its internal and foreign foes who have pledged at all costs to dismantle it but sowing Sunni-Shia discords, include exploiting the chaos in Syria, manipulating the frustrations of the Lebanese public given widespread lack of public services, and attacking Hezbollah’s  success in linking its military power with its growing political power but periodically insisting that it gives up its weapons.

Concerned friends of Hezbollah sometimes over react out of sincere solidarity and friendship and a desire to protect the Resistance from surrounding events that are swirling out of control around them. Perhaps it is in this context that the editor in chief of the pro-Hezbollah Beirut newspaper, Al Akbar, Ibrahim al Amin is demanding that Hezbollah throw in the towel and withdraw from Lebanese politics.

On 7/18/12, the 6th anniversary of Lebanon’s July 2006 victory over Israel during the latter’s fifth war against Lebanon which included its brutal 1978, 1982,1993, 1996 aggressions, it was quite normal to discuss and evaluate  where the Resistance is today in terms of its work and goals, not least of which is Hezbollah’s moral, religious, political and humanitarian duties to support the Palestinians growing international campaigns to retrieve their country which is still occupied by  a Zionist colonial regime after more than six decades and their obligation to enact in Parliament right to work and home ownership legislation for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

One interesting,  provocative but wrong-headed proposal in this observer’s opinion was put forward in a 7/18/12 editorial in Al Akbar newspaper, by its Editor and Chief Ibrahim al-Amin, reputed to be close to some Hezbollah officials.

Editor al-Amin did not mince his words, declaring thus:

•         “There’s no longer any point in the resistance (Hezbollah) remaining in government. The government is no longer good for anything. No good will come from the current (Hezbollah led) government surviving.
•         There’s no longer any point in the resistance remaining in any branch of Lebanon’s government, not even in parliament. It’s impossible for it to play a legislative role given the weird and wondrous partnership between the executive and legislative establishments.
•         There’s no longer any point in the resistance remaining involved in domestic political quarrels or discussions…There’s no longer any point in the resistance getting mixed up in political games that tarnish its reputation, undermine its standing, and make it resemble the gangsters who make up most of the political class in this land of the deranged.”
Al-Amin editorializes that “The system sees the resistance as an alien body which must be ejected by any means: through isolation if possible, sectarian strife if necessary, and treason and the summoning of foreign invaders when desperate.

Al Amin additionally concluded:

•         There’s no longer any point in the resistance continuing to be involved in government crises which it never had anything to do with, and when there is no real partnership in decision-making. This reduces it to the role of mute witness to daily acts of robbery, waste, sabotage and the destruction of what remains of the hybrid state.
•         There’s no longer any point in the resistance remaining around the table with people who are above the law, however lofty or lowly their ranks. This has become akin to providing cover for the debasement of every family and individual in the country.
•          There’s no longer any point in the resistance remaining a player in a game of appointments and patronage that does nothing to protect the resistance fighters or maintain the dignity of their families. Instead it isolates those who are willing to sacrifice all they hold dear for their people and beliefs but still cannot cross a road un-harassed or provide for their children.
•         What use is there in Hezbollah staying in a government, parliament or other state bodies that it cannot trust?
•          What is the use of remaining in a government that provides misleading, fabricated or skewed information to sustain an international body which seeks to damage the resistance in the name of justice – helping Israel achieve what it failed to do by force of arms? It grinds its people to the bone, and will not spend a penny on developing public utility.

Editor in Chief Amin’s  sunshine-patriot weak kneed laments and his apparent eagerness to throw in the Resistance towel plus his expressed fears sound at time like they were written by a speech writer last July for Libya’s  Gadhafi  or Yemen’s Salah, and he errs with virtually every syllable he pens.

Defending its political mantle and participation in government is key for the future of the Hezbollah led Resistance. The Resistance is bigger than Hezbollah and has now become truly international as has its project of supporting the Palestinian cause.  Daily, the Resistance gains strength and support as Israel weakens and US and Western regional implantations and hegemony fades into the pages of history books.

Setbacks are surely in store for the Party of God, as with this country, region, movement, era, and culture of Resistance, inspired as it is by the 7th century sacrifices for the commonweal by Hussein bin Ali and the martyrs at Karbala and the 1st century C.E.  Martyred Prophet from Nazareth at Calvary.

Were the logic of the no doubt well-meaning Al Akbar editor to prevail and were Hezbollah to become ostrich like politically, the predictable result would be nothing less and quite likely rather more than the following consequences.

Withdrawing from the political battles in Lebanon’s government would be an egregious capitulation to the designs of Elliot Abrams and the Bush administration when Abrams requested in 2004 of the Saudi Regime, $ 50 million in funding to set up the March 14th coalition. Abdicating its legislative duties would be for the Resistance to cave to the likes of Israel’s Netanyahu, the Zionist controlled US Congress, reactionary despotic Arab regimes and other defenders of the Zionist occupation of Palestine  at the expense of people of good will everywhere and supporters of the Hezbollah led Resistance throughout  Lebanon as well as internationally.

The suggestion that Hezbollah cannot remain cutting edge in its military preparedness simultaneous with the high quality of its Parliamentary delegation including Mohammad Raad, Nawaf Musawi, Ali Fayad, Hassan Fadallah, and Mohammed Fneish, to name just a few, is faulty.  This stellar Loyalty to the Resistance team is more than capable of continuing to advance the Hezbollah campaign pledges and party platforms in Parliament and get results while Hezbollah remains vigilant and prepared to defeat the coming Israeli aggression.

Hezbollah is known for its culture of dialogue, analysis, elements of democratic centralism and patience in decision making.  Many supporters of the Resistance, including this observer, believe that proposals for Hezbollah to disengage from Lebanese politics err at best and at worst they are patently absurd, counter-Resistance and undermine prospects for a prosperous future for Lebanon and the people of all 18 confessions who Hezbollah seek to serve.  Participating in Lebanon’s government  and not least in the mundane work of trying to ameliorate scores of local government problems after decades of neglect is a noble cause.

Whether in Palestine or here in Lebanon, the Resistance takes nearly countless forms, paths, protests, operations, from military to academic and social.  Continuing to engage every day, every hour with Lebanon’s government of which Hezbollah is an essential component and is vital.

Now is not the time to throw in the towel just because times are tough, but it would be well for the tough to get a move on and to redouble efforts to serve the people by concrete results from Parliament and thru government agencies.

West’s battle for Russian ‘hearts and minds’: NGOs on steroids

[SEE: Committing Treason for a Piece of the Pie]

 source

The Russian Duma has just passed amendments to the Russian NGO law.

Russian NGOs receiving foreign funding will now have to register at the Ministry of Justice as an “NGO carrying out functions as a foreign agent”, make public their sources of funding by marking it on the materials they distribute, and report semi-annually to the Ministry of Justice on their activities.

This law, a great majority of Russians believe, is long overdue. In the past 25 years, billions of dollars have been pouring into Russia from the US State Department and its subsidiary agencies like the US Agency for International Development (USAID – nearly $3 billion alone), as well as from so-called “private foundations” like the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute. All of these institutions, judging by their activities and leadership’s biographies, have important ties to the US State Department, the intelligence community, Cold War and the “color revolutions”.

The goal of all this money was not to express Washington’s generous love of Russia, its culture or its people. In addition to building a loyal infrastructure, it aimed at “winning hearts and minds” – and along the way oil, gas, and military capacity. It has all been about “opening” – “open society”, “open economy”, “open Russia”, “open government”– open for brainwashing, economic plunder, for hijacking Russia’s domestic and foreign policies.

Conquest by war is always an option for the US, as we have seen in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now in Syria. But “victory without war” is cheaper and more effective, as the collapse of Soviet Union has tragically shown.

What did Western funding do to the Russian civil society while pursuing military objectives by “peaceful means”? Might it have accidentally contributed to building democracy in Russia? The word “democracy” here is understood in its original sense, as government of the people for the people, not in Washington’s interpretation as a loyal regime subservient to US interest.

In fact, the multibillions of Western funding have profoundly distorted Russian civil society. A marginal pro-American group of NGOs that was pumped up with US dollars like a bodybuilder with steroids -it has gained much muscle and shine. Those few Russians willing to serve foreign interests were provided nice offices, comfortable salaries, printing presses, training, publicity, and political and organizing technology which gave them far more capacity, visibility, and influence that they could possibly have had on their own. Money and spin are the only means to promote unpopular ideas, alien to national interests.

On the other side is the silent majority of people who is squeezed out of the public space. In Western, and also in Russian media, civil society turns out to be represented by Ludmila Alekseyeva (The Helsinki Group), Boris Nemtsov and Gary Kasparov, rather than by a worker from the Urals, teacher from Novosibirsk or a farmer from Krasnodar Region.

Moreover, Russian NGOs not addicted to Western funding are put under serious pressure from Western funders and their local outlets to join the club. Once the Russian organization shows its effectiveness, its leadership receives a call from US Embassy, and an invitation to visit. Money offers follow shortly. If the Russian NGO dares to refuse the bait, one or several mirror organizations are created that, with massive funding and publicity, hijack the subject, fill it out with its agenda and occupy the field.

For projects in education, for example, suddenly it will be all Anglo-Saxon models and values. For projects fighting abuse by the police, this fight will be selective and serving to compile incriminatory evidence on loyal officials designed to create hostility to the government in general, rather than truly fighting these intolerable practices. In the field of business associations, one Russian NGO was denounced by a major US-allied corporation for “excessively defending the rights of domestic producers”.

No, Western funding does not contribute to strengthening Russian democracy. It only extends the battle field for pro-American forces against patriotic forces. Like steroids, Western funding is injected in the weaker spots of the targeted civil society. Like steroids, it is addictive. Like steroids, it corrupts the mind and body of the political organism. It transforms the target nation into a sick and dependent collaborating entity deprived of independent will, mind, and heart.

Russia and other countries subject to Western funding infusions must take charge of their domestic problems. Building a patriotic civil society cannot be outsourced. Democratic processes and national security cannot be outsourced – all the more so to openly hostile governments.

These NGO amendments, by correcting an evident gap in our laws, take a major step in leveling the playing field. But this step needs to be followed by further measures that strengthen our national civil societies.

Veronika Krasheninnikova, Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy Research and Initiatives in Moscow, for RT

The Middle East Needs Dialogue not War

Even if President Bashar al-Assad were to quit the scene, the opposition would still have to reach a negotiated compromise with Syria’s powerful officer corps and security services — the backbone of the regime — as well as with representatives of the various minorities, which are an ancient and essential part of Syrian’s social fabric, notes Patrick Seale.

“Dialogue is the strategy of the brave.” This is the striking phrase I heard from the mouth of Norway’s Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Store, one of the wisest of European statesmen, when I attended the Oslo Forum last month, an annual gathering of would-be mediators of the world’s conflicts. Rarely has dialogue been more necessary than in today’s deeply disturbed Middle East.

In Syria, the present fierce struggle is unlikely to yield a decisive outcome. Even if funds and weapons continue to pour in to the rebels, the latter will not be able to defeat the Syrian army on their own. The opposition prays for an external military intervention, but this is not likely to happen. The mood in the United States and Europe is to withdraw from Middle East conflicts not to get sucked into yet another one. In any event, so long as the Syrian opposition remains deeply divided it will have no hope of achieving its goals.

What then are we left with? More of the present bloody stalemate in which many more people will die or be displaced from their homes. Syria will be destroyed to the delight of its enemies — Israel first among them.

Even if President Bashar al-Assad were to quit the scene, the opposition would still have to reach a negotiated compromise with Syria’s powerful officer corps and security services — the backbone of the regime — as well as with representatives of the various minorities, which are an ancient and essential part of Syrian’s social fabric.

Only a dialogue, preceded by a ceasefire honoured by both sides, could save Syria from the catastrophe of a sectarian civil war, in which there would be no winners, only losers. This is what Kofi Annan, the UN-mandated mediator, is trying to achieve. He should be supported not undermined. The deal now being negotiated in Egypt between the Muslim Brothers and the armed forces could provide a model for Syria.

Dangerous tensions in the Gulf could also be fruitfully contained through dialogue. It is reported that Egypt’s President Muhammad Morsi is soon to pay an official visit to the Saudi monarch, King Abdallah, and has also accepted an invitation to visit Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. Imagine what a formidable diplomatic coup it would be for Egypt if President Morsi were to initiate a tripartite strategic dialogue between Cairo, Riyadh and Tehran. Acting together, these three major capitals could resolve many of the region’s conflicts, and put an end to destabilising interventions by outside powers.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia, could, through dialogue and cooperation, draw Iran into the security architecture of the region. That would be a far better recipe for stability and peace than a policy of threats, sanctions and intimidation.

In spite of the propaganda emanating from Israel and Washington, there is no evidence that Iran wishes to acquire atomic weapons. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ai Khamenei declared last February that the possession of such weapons would be “pointless, dangerous and a great sin from an intellectual and religious point of view.” He should be taken at his word. Western intelligence agencies have themselves confirmed that, while Iran wishes to master the uranium fuel cycle, it has not embarked on a military nuclear programme.

Nor is there any real evidence that the Gulf region faces a threat from Iran’s alleged “hegemonic ambitions.” I believe too much is made of Iran’s alleged role in stirring up Shia communities in the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province. The Islamic Republic is at present in no shape to threaten or dominate anyone. It is simply seeking to survive in the face of a campaign of cyber attacks, assassination and sabotage by the United States and Israel, which is just short of outright war. Crippling sanctions have reduced its oil exports by a million barrels a day; its currency has collapsed; and its hard-pressed population is struggling to cope with 30 percent inflation. Under such intense pressure, Iran may well lash out in frustration, triggering a regional hot war, which would definitely not be to the advantage of the vulnerable Gulf Arabs.

Instead of helping to resolve conflicts by promoting dialogue between the states of the region, the United States is reinforcing its armed forces in the Gulf region. It is reported to be bringing additional F-22 and F/A-18 warplanes to local bases, and is doubling its minesweepers from four to eight. A senior U.S. Defence Department official has explained that this deployment of American power is intended to provide “tangible proof to all of our allies and partners and friends that even as the U.S. pivots towards Asia, we remain vigilant across the Middle East.”

Is this really what the region wants to hear? The militarisation of American foreign policy started during the Cold War in response to what was perceived as a threat from the Soviet Union. Militarisation was then greatly expanded under George W. Bush’s administration. The result was two catastrophic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have devastated these countries, bankrupted America and gravely damaged its reputation. The American historian William Polk has calculated that the United States has spent at least $2.59 trillion on ‘defence’ in the last five years, a large part of it on weapons, and is planning to spend 5% more in the next five years.

Israel and its neo-con allies in the United States are pushing the Obama administration to bring Iran to its knees, in much the same way as they pushed the Bush Administration to destroy Iraq. The Arabs should not lend their backing to this campaign. The conflicts of the region — and especially the dangerous tensions regarding Iran’s nuclear facilities — would best be settled by dialogue and compromise rather than by military force.

No doubt some Gulf countries fear they would be threatened by Iran if the American protective umbrella were removed. But even if the United States were to withdraw its bases from the region, as some U.S. strategic thinkers advocate, it would retain an ‘over-the-horizon’ naval presence which would surely provide adequate protection.

I have long argued in this column that it is not an Arab interest to make an enemy of Iran. The Gulf States and Iran have many commercial and strategic interests in common, not least the security of their vital region. The clear lesson of the present crises is that local powers should be able to protect themselves or reach a satisfactory accommodation with their non-Arab neighbours by means of dialogue and cooperation.

It is Israel that needs to be persuaded that its current policy of seizing Palestinian territory while seeking to weaken and destabilise its neighbours, is not the best way to ensure its own security. On the contrary, Israel’s long-term survival can only be assured if it normalises its relations with the Arabs, as well as with Iran, by allowing the emergence of a Palestinian state. Only a sincere and sustained dialogue can bring this about. That should be the urgent focus of the international community.

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East. His latest book is The Struggle for Arab Independence: Riad el-Solh and the Makers of the Modern Middle East (Cambridge University Press).

Copyright © 2012 Patrick Seale – distributed by Agence Global

Russian Press Reports Massive War Games (Russia, China, Iran and Syria) Coming To Syria

[If this report is true, it will turn the world upside down.  Maybe this will represent a new beginning for us all, if not the end.]

Russia, China, Iran and Syria made the biggest military maneuvers in the Middle East

RUVR.RU

ruvr.ru

ruvr.ru. – The Iranian Fars news agency reported citing a unnamed sources, that the troops of Russia, China, Syria and Iran in the coming weeks will carry out joint maneuvers in major Syrian territory.

These maneuvers will be the largest in the Middle East, since it will feature nearly ninety thousand military ground and air armies and navy. More than four thousand planes and tanks take part in the exercises.

According to agency reports, Egypt gave the green light to twelve Navy ships from China that allegedly are directed to Syria through the Suez Canal. Nuclear submarines, destroyers and aircraft carriers with Russian warships arrive in Syria Iran in two weeks.

Syria plans to test surface-water and air defense systems, the agency reported.

Anti-Militancy Imam, killed in Dagestan Was Known for Opposing Militants’ Ideas

NAC: Imam, killed in Dagestan, was known for negating militants’ ideas

Imam Magomedkamil Gamzatov, who was killed in the village of Karamakhi in Dagestan, was known for his uncompromising antagonism against militants. This was declared by the website of the National Antiterrorist Committee (NAC) of the Russian Federation.

Let us remind you that at night of June 29, in the village of Karamakhi, a group of armed men in masks broke into the mosque. They shot dead Imam Magomedkamil Gamzatov and one of the believers, set the building on fire and left the place.

“Imam Magomedkamil Gamzatov was widely known for his uncompromising antagonism in relation to all forms of violence; he openly condemned the extremist underground, murders of innocent people and other excesses of militants,” states the NAC’s report. It continues: “He openly advocated the search for peaceful solutions of conflicts and avoiding bloodshed.”

At present, operative investigatory team examines the place. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), Mosque Imam Magomedkamil Gamzatov, born in 1981, and Yusup Ichakaev, a resident of the village of Karamakhi, born in 1952, were killed after a night prayer.

According to the Investigatory Committee of the Russian Federation (ICRF), the mosque was attacked by four persons. “The attackers forced other believers to bring bodies out, then doused the mosque with flammable liquid and set it on fire. Then, the criminals then stole a VAZ 2110 car, belonging to a local resident, and left the place,” the ICRF’s website reports.

June 29, 2012, 9.45, Moscow – Makhachkala

“Imam Gamzatov was widely known for his uncompromising stance in relation to all forms of violence, openly condemned the extremist underground, killing any innocent people, and other depredations of bandits. Distinguished clergyman active position in the direction of dialogue between people with different views, the adherents of different faiths, he openly advocated the search for peaceful solutions to conflicts and to avoid bloodshed.”

SCO Security Alliance Opposes Syria Intervention

 

China’s President Hu Jintao, left, is followed by Kyrgyzstan’s President Almaz Atambayev, second left, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, second right, and Tajikistan’s President Emomali Rahmonov as they walk to attend a signing ceremony at the Shanghai C

Shannon Van Sant

June 07, 2012

BEIJING – A regional security alliance led by China and Russia announced its opposition to outside intervention in the Syrian crisis in a joint statement released Thursday.  The joint statement coincided with reports of another mass killing of civilians in Syria.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Facts

• Includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan
• India, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan have observer status
• SCO has observer status at United Nations and Association of Southeastern Asian Nations
• While the organization’s major focus is security issues, members also coordinate on politics, trade, science, and the environment
• Member states occupy more than 30 million square kilometers
• Member states are home to around 1.5 billion people – a quarter of the planet’s population

_{Source: SCO website, UN, ASEAN}

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), consisting of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, says it favors a “peaceful resolution of the Syrian problem through political dialogue.”

During a briefing with reporters in Beijing, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said the Chinese government firmly opposes military intervention in Syria, arguing that option would not solve the crisis.

The SCO’s statement follows accusations of another brutal massacre Syria. Opposition activists say forces allied with the government killed at least 78 people Wednesday, including women and children, in Hama province.  The Assad government denies the charge and blames a terrorist group for the killings.

Syria’s allies Moscow and Beijing have opposed international intervention and vetoed two Security Council resolutions on Syria.  In public statements, China has also blamed opposition groups for civilian deaths in the country.

Spokesman Liu Weimin expressed hopes that all parties in Syria will implement a cease-fire deal and end the violence. The Syrian government and opposition groups should accept responsibility and avoid putting civilians in danger, he said.

China and Russia have backed United Nations-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan’s efforts at mediation in Syria.  The Annan plan began with a cease-fire on April 12, but despite the deployment of 300 U.N. observers, violence has continued.

The Chinese spokesman said Beijing supports Annan’s mediation efforts and urged all parties concerned to suport the U.N. mission’s work in Syria.

China and Russia have come under increasing pressure from Western nations to back sanctions or outside interventions since Annan’s peace effort failed to stop the violence.

The United Nations estimated more than 9,000 Syrians have died since the conflict began last year.

Russia Dismayed by Syria Rebels Ceasefire Rejection

Members of Free Syrian Army. Archive

MOSCOW, June 5 (Marc Bennetts, RIA Novosti)

Russia is disappointed in the decision by Syrian rebels to pull out of a ceasefire that was an integral part of a United Nations peace plan for the conflict-torn Middle Eastern country, a leading Foreign Ministry official said on Tuesday.

“This is, of course, sad and extremely negative,” Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said.

He also said a U.S. State Department delegation would arrive in Moscow later this week for talks on how to resolve the crisis in Syria.

A spokesman for the rebel Free Syrian Army told Reuters on Monday that insurgents had pulled out of the faltering truce stipulated by UN envoy Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan and had begun attacking soldiers to “defend our people.” The statement came after a British-based activist group said rebels had killed some 80 soldiers over the weekend.

The spokesman also said rebels were calling for the UN observer mission in the country to become a “peace enforcing mission.” He also said the rebels would welcome the imposition by the international community of a no-fly zone and a buffer zone.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reiterated on Monday that Annan’s plan “remains central” to halting more than 15-months of bloodshed in Syria.The UN has sent 300 observers to Syria to monitor a ceasefire that has failed to take hold since it was supposed to come into force on April 12.

And the European Union and Russia said at a summit in St. Petersburg on Monday that, despite “diverging assessments” they both agreed that Annan’s faltering peace plan remained the best chance of halting the spiraling violence in Syria.

The St. Petersburg summit came a day after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in a televised address, denied that government forces were to blame for the May 25 massacre of over 100 people, including dozens of children, in the Syrian town of Houla. Assad said the killings were an “ugly crime” that even “terrorists” would balk at carrying out.

The United Nations, citing eyewitnesses, has said pro-Assad militia fighters were responsible for the slaughter. Russia has criticized Syria over its shelling of the town, but says it does not rule out that rebels carried out the majority of the killings as a “provocation” ahead of a visit by Annan to Syria.

Syria announced on Tuesday that it would expel the ambassadors of a host of Western countries, including the United States, Britain and France. The move comes after Syrian envoys in the West were told to pack their bags in the wake of the Houla massacre.

The Kremlin has come under international pressure to take harder line on embattled Assad regime.

Russia has denied that it is protecting Assad or that it has any special interests in Syria, but has twice – along with China – vetoed UN resolutions against Damascus over what it calls a pro-rebel bias.

Moscow has, however, fully backed Annan’s plan, which calls for the withdrawal of heavy weaponry from urban areas and a ceasefire to end 15-months of spiraling violence there.

Putin said in February in a pre-election campaign article that Russia would not allow a repeat of the “Libyan scenario.” Russia abstained from the March 2011 UN Security Council vote on the resolution that led to NATO airstrikes against forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his eventual death at the hands of rebels.

The UN says over 9,000 people have died since the revolt against Assad’s 11-year rule began last year.

Kudankulam nuke plant row intensifies as activist slams govt’s atomic energy body

Criticizing the Department of Atomic Energy, anti-nuclear activist Neeraj Jain has urged the Central Government to halt operations at existing plants such as Tamil Nadu’s Kudankulam project.

“If nuclear plants around the world, not just in India, (but) around the world, are not shut down, sooner or later, another major accident is bound to happen anywhere in the world. The possibility of it happening in India is even more large because our Department of Atomic Energy is amongst the most inefficient in the world,” Jain told media here.

Jain further asked the government to explain why it was risking the lives of thousands of its citizens by refusing to shut down the Kudankulam nuclear project.

“You are playing with the lives of lakhs of people living in South India, because if there is a major accident in Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and South Karnataka will be contaminated for thousands of years,” he said.

Jain said: “Again, after the Fukushima (disaster), they ordered a safety review. No one knows what happened. They just declared our plants are safe. So, we are trusting the safety of these huge reactors being built in Kudankulam, in Jaitapur, in Kovada, on a department, which is known to be inefficient, where, in the small nuclear reactors, there have been numerous occasions when a Chernobyl type accident very nearly happened.”

“You see, nuclear energy is inherently very dangerous. In a nuclear reactor, during the fission reaction, more than 200 types of deadly new radioactive elements are created. The nuclear fuel which results in the reactor is a billion times more radioactive than the earlier nuclear fuel,” he added.

For the past few months, Kudankulam remained the epicentre of a wave of heated protests, with environmental activists and agitators’ voicing their ire at what they said was the government’s apathy towards the dangers posed by the plant.

Established in a joint collaboration between India and Russia, the Kudankulam nuclear power project envisaged to build two 1,000 MW VVER type reactors by December 2011.

The Kudankulam power station is one of several planned power projects that are seen as vital to plugging huge electricity shortages that have damaged economic growth.

India suffers from a peak-hour power deficit of about 12 percent that acts as a brake on an economy growing at nearly 8 percent and causes blackouts in much of the country.

About 40 percent of Indians, or 500 million people, lack electricity, as per a 2011 estimate. (ANI)

The Neocon Project for A “New American Century” Backfires–Welcome To the Anti-American Era

[32 to 2 against the American position.]

Despite Obama charm, Americas summit boosts U.S. isolation

By Brian Ellsworth

CARTAGENA, Colombia

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama patiently sat through diatribes, interruptions and even the occasional eye-ball roll at the weekend Summit of the Americas in an effort to win over Latin American leaders fed up with U.S. policies.

He failed.

The United States instead emerged from the summit in Colombia increasingly isolated as nearly 30 regional heads of state refused to sign a joint declaration in protest against the continued exclusion of communist-led Cuba from the event.

The rare show of unity highlights the steady decline of Washington’s influence in a region that has become less dependent on U.S. trade and investment thanks to economic growth rates that are the envy of the developed world and new opportunities with China.

It also signals a further weakening of the already strained hemispheric system of diplomacy, built around the Organization of American States (OAS) which has struggled to remain relevant during a time of rapid change for its members.

Seen as an instrument of U.S. policy in Latin America during the Cold War, the OAS has lost ground in a region that is no longer content with being the backyard of the United States.

“It seems the United States still wants to isolate us from the world, it thinks it can still manipulate Latin America, but that’s ending,” said Bolivian President Evo Morales, a fierce critic of U.S. policy in Latin America and staunch ally of Venezuela’s leftist leader Hugo Chavez.

“What I think is that this is a rebellion of Latin American countries against the United States.”

NEWFOUND UNITY

In all fairness to Obama, the outcome had little to do with his conduct or even that of secret service agents whose indiscreet encounter with prostitutes in the beachside city of Cartagena, Colombia, overshadowed much of the proceedings.

He was in fact commended by several presidents for listening politely to political leaders, helping soften perception of U.S. officials as arrogant and domineering.

“I think it’s the first time I’ve seen a president of the United States spend almost the entire summit sitting, listening to the all concerns of all countries,” said Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

“This was a very valuable gesture by President Obama.”

But Obama’s staid charm was unable to paper over growing differences with the region.

Facing a tough re-election race this year, Obama had no room to compromise on the five-decade-old U.S. embargo on Cuba that is widely supported by conservatives in the United States, and particularly the anti-Castro exile community in Florida, a key state in a presidential vote.

U.S. insistence that Havana undertake democratic reforms before returning to the hemispheric family led to a clash with a united front of leftist and conservative governments that see Washington’s policy toward Cuba as a relic of the Cold War.

The unexpected result was a diplomatic victory for Havana.

The newfound regional unity on Cuba may augur a growing willingness across the political spectrum to challenge the U.S. State Department on thorny issues for years considered taboo.

That could include insistence that the United States assume greater responsibility for reducing consumption of illegal narcotics as an alternative to the bloody war on drugs and its rising toll on Latin America.

“From the so-called Washington consensus … toward a nascent consensus without Washington for a united Latin America,” tweeted Venezuela’s foreign ministry, referring to orthodox economic policies advocated by Washington in the 1990s.

NEW DIPLOMACY, NEW ECONOMY

The stark divide over Cuba – with 32 nations in favor of inviting it to future summits and only the United States and Canada opposed – will fuel arguments that the OAS is an outdated institution for regional diplomacy.

The OAS already faces competition from alternative forums such as the Union of South American nations (Unasur) and the Chavez-backed Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (Celac).

Despite the new winds blowing in regional diplomacy, economics is driving the changes as much as politics.

Once seen as monolithic block of basket-case economies dependent on U.S. support, Latin American countries are coveted investment destinations with sophisticated financial systems that have innovated in areas ranging from energy to aviation.

Chinese companies eager to pump oil, harvest soy and build badly needed infrastructure are showering them with offers of investment and financing.

With the U.S. economy still struggling to stay above water and foreign aid budgets seen dwindling, Washington has fewer sticks to brandish and fewer carrots to offer.

“This summit was a reminder, a wake-up call, that the traditional way of doing business vis-a-vis the region is eroding,” said Geoff Thale, program director at the Washington Office on Latin America.

(Reporting by Brian Ellsworth; Editing by Anthony Boadle and Jackie Frank)

China-Russia stand prevails in U.N.

ATUL ANEJA

The U.N. Security Council has unanimously backed Kofi Annan’s plan to halt violence and start a political process that could end the crisis in Syria, without calling for President Bashar al-Assad to step down.

With no implied references to regime change, Mr. Annan, special envoy of U.N. and the Arab League, called upon the government to lead the political transition in Syria, which has been ravaged by violence since the anti-regime uprising began a year ago. The presidential statement, which is a non-bonding document, said the U.N. envoy’s plan would “facilitate a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless of their affiliations or ethnicities or beliefs, including through commencing a comprehensive political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition”.

Russia and China saw in the unified stand taken by the Council, a vindication of the core aspect of their position. Citing respect for the principle of national sovereignty and rejection of attempts to enforce “regime change”, both countries had vetoed earlier U.N. resolutions that implied that Mr. Assad should step down first.

With all Council members now supporting Mr. Annan’s position, both Moscow and Beijing sounded triumphant. “We are very pleased,” Russia’s outspoken ambassador to the U.N Vitaly Churkin told the media. “The Security Council has finally chosen to take a pragmatic look at the situation in Syria.”

An article in China’s Xinhua news agency saw more than one reason to applaud the UNSC’s statement. “Unlike the two blocked draft resolutions, the new presidential statement does not contain any words implying the forced regime change in Syria, the one-sided pressure on the Syrian government, and sanctions or the threat of sanctions on Damascus.”

PRELUDE

Earlier, the Arab League, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the lead, had insisted on Mr. Assad’s exit as a prelude to the formation of national unity government headed by the country’s Vice-President. Both Riyadh and Doha also showed considerable enthusiasm to arm the Syrian opposition — a position that even the West found unacceptable, given the fractious nature of Mr. Assad’s foes.

A separate press statement was also unambiguous in describing the recent attacks on Syrian government buildings in Damascus and Aleppo as acts of terrorism. Analysts say the U.N.’s position was an implicit rejection of the charge levelled by opposition activists that the explosions in Syria’s two most important cities were self-inflicted by the regime to garner international political support.

In setting out a road map for defusing tensions, the presidential statement was categorical in calling for a ceasefire and the lifting of roadblocks that impeded flow of humanitarian supplies to the conflict-ridden areas. The document expressed its “gravest concern at the deteriorating situation in Syria, which has resulted in a serious human rights crisis and a deplorable humanitarian situation”. The state-run Syrian news agency observed, with veiled satisfaction, that the Security Council’s position did not pronounce ultimatums, threats or “unilateral demands”.

Drug Legalization Debate Gaining Momentum in Central America

Drug Legalization Debate Gaining Momentum in Central America

By Jeffrey Dhywood

On March 9, Honduran president Porfirio Lobo Sosa, acting as the  Central American Integration System (SICA) president and at the request of its members, invited Colombia and Mexico to join the next meeting of SICA in Guatemala on March 24.  Both presidents Santos and Calderon accepted the invitation. The meeting will focus on the recent proposal by Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina to legalize drugs.

Lobo Soza declared: ”President Calderón, President Santos, and the leaders of the Central American isthmus have agreed that the manner in which we are [dealing with drug trafficking] is not the solution because we continue to lose human lives.”

Although the debate has been brewing for a while, the first expression of regional discontent came on December 6^th, 2011, with the publication of a declaration calling for the exploration of “regulatory or market oriented options”, signed by 10 heads of states of the Central-American and Caribbean region members of the Tuxtla System for Dialogue.

The current debate was launched by Guatemalan president Otto Perez Molina, a former general elected on a law and order platform. Perez Molina surprised everyone a few days after taking office in January 14^th, 2012 when he declared the war on drugs a failure and asked for an open debate to explore alternatives, including legalization. Following discussions with Colombian President Santos, President Perez Molina further declared on February 11th his intention to present his proposal for drug legalization at the April 14-15 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia. He sent his Vice-President Roxana Baldetti on a tour to promote his proposal to regional leader on February 29th.

The move was greeted by a quick rebuke from the US government, who dispatched Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the region on February 28^th, one day ahead of Roxana Baldetti’s own tour. Napolitano was followed by US vice-president Joe Biden, who visited Mexico to reiterate US commitment to the War on Drugs, before heading to the March 6 meeting of the Central American Integration System (SICA) hosted by president Porfirio Lobo Sosa in Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

Considering President Lobo Sosa initial opposition to legalization, this latest move represents an interesting development. In his declaration, President Lobo Sosa affirmed  “This very important proposal is something that we need to assess and manage in a positive way so that, if the discussion is successful, we can offer to the world a better solution, if we are able to find it, to the terrible problem of narco-trafficking.”

This latest development reaffirms the determination of Latin American countries to the legalization debate and seems to indicate a willingness to accelerate the process in preparation for the Summit of the Americas on April 14-15. While the March 6 SICA meeting, undoubtedly hold off by Biden presence at the meeting, didn’t produce much more than an intent to open the debate, we can expect concrete proposals at the March 24^th meeting. President Perez Molina announced that workgroups are actively preparing the details of his proposal.

There are good reasons to suspect that Colombian president Santos has been involved with the Perez Molina initiative from the very start, as alluded to by Perez Molina himself. The fact that President Santos is now coming out more openly is significant. Colombia is considered the best US ally in the War on Drugs, and is often touted as a success story and a model by the US anti-drug apparatus. The Colombian themselves have a more measured appreciation. While there has been undeniable progress since the peak of narco-violence in the 1990s, Santos himself acknowledges that the problem is contained at best. Colombia is still the main cocaine producer in the world and while the mega-cartels of the past may have been destroyed, it has opened the gates to the Mexican cartels and has resulted in an explosion of mini-cartels. The loss of its Colombian ally would be a major blow to the US anti-drug strategy, a blow that could prove fatal if Mexico was to join the legalization camp.

It is too early to say where the Perez Molina initiative will lead to, and what its true objectives may be. It may be a ploy to increase pressure on the US government to allocate more resources to the region, as has been argued. On the other hand, if any lesson can be drawn from the Colombian and Mexican experience, it is quite obvious that their war-like strategy came at a very high human cost for these countries. Central American countries have borne the brunt of narco-violence for the past three decades and as this violence keeps increasing, they seem to be genuinely ready to call it quits and to be looking for more realistic and workable alternatives. These already impoverished countries do not have the resources to deploy a US style prohibitionist system, and it would be folly for them to even attempt to. They are plagued by systemic corruption, youth unemployment, poor education and gang violence. Their gang problem itself is largely the result of the US policy of deportation of illegal immigrants with criminal records to their native countries. As the US prison system is a notorious training ground for criminals, where inmates are far more dangerous when they get out than they were when they got in, the US has been sending droves of hardened criminals south of their border, with catastrophic consequences for the receiving countries. This, added to the constant flow of weapons flooding the region because of the US impotence at regulating its own gun industry, is adding to the profound discontent in the region, which is tired to take the blame and pay the price for an issue that they rightly perceive as being imposed onto them.

In any case, it would be well advised for all the drug policy reform activists the world over to come resolutely in support of the Perez Molina initiative and to contribute as much as possible to the debate going on in Latin America.

I have argued for quite some time, most notably in my recently published “World War-D”, that Latin America is the only part of the world where drug policy reform can emerge. We might be witnessing this emergence and might be on the verge of a major paradigm shift in drug policy.

This, folks, is history in the making. Be part of it! To that effect, I invite you to sign and promote the Perez Molina petition: http://signon.org/sign/support-guatemalan-president

The Politics of Forcing Insane Reactions from Sane People

[These "Facebook revolutions" (NOT "Arab spring") force everyone to make uncommon stances.  I never thought that the day would come when I would find it necessary to defend dictators, but I understand that any government will take actions to defend themselves.  If government comes under attack from abroad through these networking sites, or if it wants to avoid this possibility (because of what has happened in the Middle East), then "social networking" must be monitored, at the very least.  By forcing freedom of action on the Internet for the foreign interests that are behind organizing these "flash mob" tactics (who nearly all operate through foreign NGOs), foreign interests are dictating government actions, forcing them to behave like dictators.  When the politics of mob-tactics collide with the rights of the People, the rights of the People are curtailed.  Instead of trying to overwhelm the Internet with one point of view through the organized screams and chants of the mob, you should try dominating the public debate with the voice of reason.  Perhaps sanity could then prevail and the democratic rights of the People would be skillfully parlayed into easing the last remaining dictators out the doors as quickly and as peaceably as possible.]

Tajik official cites ‘crime’ as Facebook, news sites still blocked

RFE/RL

DUSHANBE, March 10, Asia-Plus — Facebook and several independent news websites remain blocked in Tajikistan, and an official has suggested the cutoff may be linked to potential national security concerns, Radio Liberty reported on March 9.

Access by Tajiks to Facebook and the Russian-language sites centrasia.ru, tjk.news.com, zvezda.ru, and maxala.org has been cut off since March 3, apparently in response to an order from the state communications agency.

Tajikistan’s representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said in a statement that Internet sites and media have to be “accountable” for their actions.

The statement, from envoy Nouriddin Shamsov, also said government has a duty to provide national security and “combat “cybercrimes.”

Peshawar Declaration: A Path for Pakistan

Political parties, civic society groups, NGOs and policy organizations gathered in Peshawar to put together a plan that could lead Pakistan out of the crisis of violence. This long note forwarded by members of that gathering recognizes the role of the establishment in aiding and abetting terrorist groups, provides insight into the communities affected and makes recommendations for the way out. 

 

On December 12 and 13, a two days workshop/conference was held in Peshawar with the sole agenda “Terrorism – the ways out”. The workshop was attended by the political parties and civil society organizations that actively opposed terrorism. The participants were keen to contribute and participate in discussions regarding the political, ideological, strategic, economic, and cultural and education/ awareness related aspects of the agenda. The participants were divided into Five Groups and they freely expressed their opinions about the topics they had selected by choice. On the first day every group came up with a rough draft. On the second day final recommendations were drawn from the rough drafts.  In a commendable show of unity, members with different political affiliations and shades of opinion succeeded in agreeing upon a single document of consensus.

The workshop was attended by the provincial leadership of Awami National Party (ANP), Pukhtunkhwa Mili Awami Party PMAP, Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP), Pakistan Peoples Party Sherpao PPP(S), National Party (NP) and Awami party Pakistan (APP). Civil society organizations under the banner of Amn Tehrik, (Peace Movement) [1] businessmen, doctors, lawyers,
teachers, students, laborers and intellectuals also participated in the workshop. Representatives
from all the agencies of FATA, Swat, Malakand and Buner also participated. A significant number of female participants were also present.

Each group presented its report before the Conference. Every report was critically analyzed, objections raised and recommendations for improvement discussed. It was decided that all the reports should be amalgamated into a joint declaration namely “Peshawar Declaration. A five member committee was constituted to prepare the documentation.

After deliberation it was decided that all the organizations that attended the conference will jointly struggle to translate Peshawar Declaration into actions. For this purpose, ten members Coordination Committee (Rabita Committee) was constituted comprising of  members from ANP, PMAP, PPPP, PPP
Sherpao, Awami Party, National Party and Amn Tehrik (Peace Movement). After the discussion the participants made political, ideological and strategic aspects as a single/one report.[2]

Defining Terrorism:
Terrorism is to create fear on someone to achieve certain ends. A person can be terrorized by a mere threat or he/she can be beaten, abducted, jailed and killed. An individual, a particular group, a sect, a nation or a country can indulge in terrorism to achieve certain objectives. People can also engage in terrorism for money, property or women.

The Current Wave of Terrorism:
Man has been indulging in the ruthless treatment of other human beings throughout the history. The modes of terrorism were different in different times. In the conference all the participants agreed upon the idea that the current surge of terrorism is the most dangerous, the worst type. This kind of terrorism is a complex mixture of religious extremism, fanatics, sectarian, anti-civilization, anti-humanity and coercive ways of life which are most ruthless one. The aim of this kind of terrorism is to impose a self-proclaimed global agenda by killing humanity. What madness is this that the terrorist teacher issue the ticket of paradise to his soldier and marry him to a Hoor (beautiful women in paradise) and the soldier confirms the ticket of the paradise by ruthlessly killing innocent humanity including women and children! The obvious madness and in-human thinking behind the rationale of killing fellow human beings including women and children for one’s material and animalistic yearnings (Pure Wines and Beautiful Women) is beyond any comprehension and does not deserve any sympathy or empathy. To defeat this kind of terrorism of our region, it is mandatory to understand its causes and modus operandi, without which cure or elimination will not be possible.

Causes of the Terrorism in our Region:
The current wave of terrorism emanates from two sources i.e. Al-Qaeda and the Strategic Depth policy of Pakistan. Al-Qaeda is a caricature of Arab Expansionism in the disguise of global Islam. Due to the prevalence of Wahabism in the historical hub of Islam, Arabs have dominated the other Muslims. Due to this Al-Qaeda is a specialist of this kind of terrorism including all its ingredient, organizational structure, techniques and strategies.

The second ingredient contributing to this kind of terrorism is the Strategic Depth policy of Pakistan
army. The purpose of this policy is to use Jihadi Culture in order to counter India and protect nuclear weapons: to subjugate Afghanistan and making it fifth province or like Azad Kashmir model. The policy was advanced further in 1995 and was decided to make Central Asian Muslim states as their “clients” states.[3]

The Strategic Depth policy of Pakistan army has a complete background. The ideology of nationhood
on the basis of religion served its foundation. Cantonments were labeled with the slogans of Jihad Fi Sabel-e-La (Jihad in the name of Allah). Big crossing and turn- abouts in cities were furnished with tanks, fighter planes and replica of the Chaghai hills to make a war-like environment. Instead of a welfare state Pakistan was made a security state. The Objective Resolution (1949) gave birth to Mullah-Military Alliance. The same resolution was included, in letter and spirit, in the constitution by General Zia ul Haq. As a result of religious background, war-like environment, security state and Mullah-Military-Alliance, the first terrorist organizations in the names of Al-Shams and Al-Badar[4] were launched in Bengal . The defeat in Bengal should have been an eye-opener for the establishment and should have signaled end of the military-Jihadist nexus but unfortunately the same policy was practiced in Kashmir, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Terrorist organizations like Hizbul Mujahideen, Harkatul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Tayeeba and Jash-e-Muhamamd were installed in Kashmir. In Paksitan Sibah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangwi and in FATA Lashkar-e-Islam, Ansar-ul-Islam, Amarbil-Maroof, Tahreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi and Tahreek-e-Taliban have been operational.[5]
All these organizations were termed as strategic assets. In Afghanistan terrorism was started in 1972. First of all Gulbadin Hikmatyar was brought to Peshawar and Colonel Imam was sent to Afghanistan. During that period and till 1978 Gulbadin Hikmatyar, Professor Mujadidi, Burhan ud Din Rabbani, Pir Gilani and Abdul Rasool Siaf were trained to be the leaders of terrorists’ organizations.[6]
When these people conquered Afghanistan they tried to stop their patrons from interfering in Afghanistan. Thus strategic assets did not help their patrons. Even then the Army did not learn any lesson here and another asset with the name of Taliban was formed which tuned out to be more aggressive and destructive for Afghanistan. During this time the marriage between Taliban and Al-Qaeda took place and they became the rulers of Afghanistan .

Due to the policy of strategic assets the country had already plunged deep into the abyss of terrorism even before 9/11. The riots between Shia and Sunni Sects [7]were a common phenomenon. The suicide bombing in the country was started in 1993. The suicide attack that killed Ahmed Shah Masood was carried out just one day before the 9/11. India and Afghanistan had already been suffering from such attacks. But in due time Pakistan religious extremism spread its tentacles in Pakistan and sectarianism grew. Besides Shia, the Barelvi [8]were also targeted.

This is a historical fact that the US, China, Arab countries and Europe helped Pakistan in its aggression against Afghanistan. To quote just one example 24 billion petro-dollars were spent to establish seminaries (religious schools).[9] Military aggression was named as Jihad. The whole environment was
favorable to nurture the already strong triangular Mullah-Military-Militant nexus.

During the rule of the afore-mentioned religious and military components of terrorism, terrorists from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Sinkiang and other parts of the world came to Afghanistan. Thus Afghanistan
became the hub of international terrorism. After 9/11, all these peoples were shifted to FATA. No doubt these terrorists are now present in FATA and elsewhere in the country. There is no denying the fact that these terrorists have occupied FATA and some parts of Punjab like central Punjab and Muridke are their strong holds.

A contradictory perception in the minds towards terrorism by the people of those areas who are under direct control of terrorists and those who are less are not effected:
FATA and Malakand are the most affected areas due to terrorism. Similarly not a single village or city of Pukhtunkhwa province is spared by terrorists. Although the whole country and even the whole world is suffering from terrorism and the fact that central Punjab or Mureedki is also the hub of terrorists, still it remains a bitter fact that the people of FATA and Pukhtunkhwa are virtually hostage to the terrorists. The perception of terrorism and its causes or their opinions about military operations, the involvement of foreign hands in terrorism and drone attacks are poles apart from the rest of the country.

Why is this contradiction?

One of its reasons is a natural one. There is a Pushtu proverb that burns are felt where there is fire. The
second reason is the policy of the government. For example the media policy during General Pervez Musharaf allowed massive coverage to those people who were supporting terrorism. This also includes some of the retired generals, a few journalists and analysts. As a result, those living in other parts of the country or those who were not directly affected by terrorism were uninterruptedly indoctrinated with ideas for about eight years which further helped terrorism. Those living in the war zone are eye witness to all that is happening there and they have their own perception of this war of terrorism. A few examples are:
It was propagated over the media, though in an implied manner, that terrorism is the continuation of Jihad against the Soviet Russia. The fact is that almost all of those who were fighting against the Russians are eagerly and actively painting on the political canvas of Afghanistan in order to bring stability to the democratic process in Afghanistan. They are the foremost opponents of terrorism. They
include professor Mujadidi, Burhan ud Din Rabbani, Pir Gilani and Abdul Rasool Siab, Rasheed Dostam and the party of Ahmed Shah Masood late.[10]Only two of the anti-Soviet campaigns are now involved in terrorism i.e. Gulbadin Hikmatyar and Jalal ud Din Haqqani.[11]
Gulbadin’s party is almost non-existent. Only one of his commanders Kashmir Khan and a few friends are supporting him. Haqqani had already joined the Taliban.Uzbeks, Chechens, Sudanese and terrorists from Sankyang came to Afghanistan during the period of Taliban. At that time the Soviets had withdrawn and Dr. Najeeb’s government was toppled. These terrorist did not exists during the war against Soviets.None of the Pakistani terrorists’ organization like Hizbul Mujahideen, Harkatul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Tayeeba, Jash-e-Muhamamd Sibah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jangwi, Lashkar-e-Islam, Ansar-ul-Islam, Amar-bil-Maroof, Tahreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi and Tahreek-e-Taliban had participated in anti-Soviet campaign. Even the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan have no direct linkage with the anti-Soviet campaign. Despite this, it was propagated over the media that the on-going war is a continuation of the so-called Jihad in Afghanistan. It is propagated that these terrorists were part of the anti-Soviet campaign and they have been living in the tribal areas for thirty years where they had married the local women and thus became part and parcel of the tribal society. The fact is that in the tribal areas a foreinger is never called a native even if had taken asylum and lived there for
centuries. Mahsud tribe of South Waziristan had the peculiarity that did not allow a single non local to stay in their area during this whole period.

 

Another false propaganda over the media is the number of foreign militants. In the media the number of foreign militants is portrayed as hundred to two hundreds. The reality is that there are 11000 Uzbeks, 6000 Arabs and 9000 Punjabis.[12] From Waziristan to swat the number of Pushtun terrorist is merely 4000 but despite of this fact the whole Pushtun nation is falsely propagated as extremists and terrorist. On other issues such as military operations, peace deals and the fighting between army and Taliban the
people of war-affected areas have quite a different outlook than those living in the mainland.
For example the people of the war-affected areas think that the army and Taliban are not enemies (of each other) but friends. They have been persistently asking the question why the military failed to target the core leadership of the militants in all the 17 military operations in FATA? This is true that during the military operations the top as well as the second and third cadre leadership were neither killed nor wounded or
captured. Moreover, the news of the killing of many terrorist leaders is telecasted several times over the media but they are still alive. Commanders like Ibn-e-Amin, Shah Duran and Ikram ud Din are the prime examples of such false propaganda.[13]
In Swat, the news that Fazl Ullah is under a siege was three times telecasted by the ISPR but in the same month it was propagated through media that he had escaped to Afghanistan. Fazl Ullah’s close associates Muslim Khan, Haroon and Mahmood were arrested by the militants but six months have passed and nobody knows what happened to them.[14] In the past, Sufi Muhammad was arrested and then released in a so-called peace deal which was imposed upon the political leadership at gunpoint[15].

 

The valiant police of the province once arrested 28 terrorists with suicide jackets but these terrorists were taken by the intelligence agencies took them away with the plea of further investigation. These people were kept somewhere for few months. They were released on the day when General Pervez Musharaf imposed Emergency Plus.[16] Only a few words came to us about their release. It is due to these reasons that the people of the war-affected areas are neither satisfied with the military operations nor do they entertain false hopes. The people of the war-affected areas demand that these terrorists should be hanged in open space like they used to hang innocent civilian or like what they did to Shabana.[17]
These people call for a real and targeted military operation and strongly condemn the dramas in the name of military operations. These people do not support any peace deals with the militants but unlike them the rest of Pakistan talk of putting an end to the military operations and resuming the so-called peace deals.

The issue of Drone attacks is the most important one. If the people of the war-affected areas are satisfied with any counter militancy strategy, it is the Drone attacks which they support the most. According to the people of Waziristan , Drones have never killed any civilian. Even some people in Waziristan compare Drones with Ababels. (The holy swallows send by God to avenge Abraha, the intended conqueror the Khana Kaaba).[18] A component of the Pakistani media, some retired generals, a few journalists/analysts and pro-Taliban political parties never tire in their baseless propaganda against Drone attacks.

The same is true of the discourse of foreign hands in militancy. In FATA there is either military or the afore-mentioned militant organizations. Majority of the local people have migrated to other parts of the country. Those who could not flee are helpless and nothing is in their control. The questions arises
which one of the militant organization is not created by the Pakistan army and which one is serving a foreign agenda? If such is the case Pakistan should raise the issue on UN forum or name the organization which is serving a foreign agenda by using the diplomatic channel.

The possibility remains that there is a second or third tier terrorist with a few suicide bombers and he exchanges them for a handsome price. But this is not possible on organizational level and if the chaos persisted for a longer period there is also the possibility that some other countries would jumped into the fray or the UN would bring peace forces to these areas.

All the participants agreed that the failure of military operations and the ongoing terrorism which is spreading its tentacles very fast are not because of the inability of the Pakistan army but rather it is a deliberate attempt on the part of our establishment to secure its military assets at every cost.

Terrorism and the Identification of Friends and Foe:
The conference agreed upon the idea that every individual, writer, intellectual, organization or country who is against the terrorists is our friend.

Every individual, organization, party or country that provides sanctuary to the terrorists, extend financial or moral support to them or support them in any way like diverting peoples’ attention to non-issues by concealing the truth about them is a friend of the terrorists and hence an enemy of the participants of the conference—an enemy of Pushtuns, Pakistan and humanity in general.

The conference applied the above mentioned criterion to gauge political parties. The participants unanimously reached the conclusions that Jumat-e-Islami, both factions of Jameet-Ulema-e-Islam[19], Jumat Al-Hadis Sajid Mir Group, Tahreek-e-Insaf, a component of the Pakistani media and establishment are pro-terrorists. All the Baloch Nationalist Parties are opposing terrorism and supporting Drones so they are our friends. Pakistan Muslim League (N, Q) are primarily Punjab based parties, and very closed to establishment. There stand against terrorism is vague so they are on our watch list. MQM in it self is a terrorist organization. Though MQM is opposing terrorist but its because that they see their own terrorism vanishing if the new phenomena enters their constituency.

A) Political Recommendations for the Elimination of Terrorism:
1. The conference agreed upon the decision that the strategic depth policy is not only the cause of terrorism but also it is an end in itself regarding terrorism. The policy caused thousands times greater harm to Pakistan than any NRO or writing off debts could do. Due to this policy hundreds of thousands people killed or injured. The policy has pushed Pakistan into such abysmal depths that its foundations are eroding. The conference agreed upon the idea that the people of Pakistan would still be resolute to oppose terrorist ideology even if the US, NATO or ISAF are defeated in Afghanistan and the terrorist capture the throne of Kabul. If the terrorists succeeded in Afghanistan their next target would be Pakistan. Therefore, this policy is destructive for Pakistan and should be abolished above board.

2. Those who framed this policy should be tried in courts.

3. Interference in Afghanistan should be stopped at one and it should be treated as a sovereign neighbor state.

4. Sanctuaries of terrorism in FATA, Pukhtunkhwa province and other parts of the country like those in Bara, Darra Adam Khel, Mechanai, Mirnashah, Mir Ali, Kurram Agency and central Punjab should be destroyed.[20] A brief and targeted military operation should be launched against the terrorists. A half-hearted military operation is only spreading and helping the terrorists. Therefore, the blunders of the past should not be repeated.

5. NATO and ISAF are sent to Afghanistan under UN mandate. NATO and ISAF should stay in Afghanistan until terrorism is uprooted, foreign interference in Afghanistan must be stopped and the institutions of army and police are established on solid footings. However they should offer a clear time frame for the withdrawal of troops. The US has supported some of the terrorist and it still holds a double standard. Americans are blamed to supporting Jandullah Group.[21] Similarly they are least interested in dealing with the terrorist from Sangkiang.[22] Therefore, no peace loving person would tolerate them after terrorism is uprooted.

6. The conference appeals Saudi Arab and other Arab countries to stop financing the terrorists.

7. The Pakistan army should not indulge it self in registration of the IDP’s or Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of affected areas. This job should be done by the civilian authority the army should concentrate on elimination of the terrorist.

8. Some political forces and a component of the media and establishment are supporting terrorists. These people are enemy of Pushtuns and Pakistan. Such anti-human forces should be defeated and uprooted.

9. The conference urged to promote AFPAK people to people contacts and demanded both the countries not to pose obstacles in them.

10. Besides uprooting terrorism in FATA the people of FATA should be compensated for the damage done due to terrorism. A comprehensive developmental package should be planned and the people of FATA should be allowed to choose any administrative system for themselves.

11. The so-called nonfunctional terrorist organizations are still operative in the country. Merely naming them dysfunctional would not help. These organizations should be practically eliminated.

12. The conference demands that Pakistan army and intelligence agencies should not interfere in politics. They should do their jobs for which they have been recruited. Army and intelligence agencies should be made subservient to the parliament and their control should be in civilian hands.

13. The conference believes that every democratic government should complete its term. Any conspiracy to derail democracy will be defeated. The conference condemns the media trial of the politicians and the so-called corruption charges against them. The conference strongly demands that the establishment should stop dividing the political parties.[23]

14. The IDP’s as a result of army operations should be treated as per UN resolution.
15. The conference agreed that Pushtuns in FATA and Northern Pukhtoonkhwa are made hostage by the terrorists. The terrorists and security personnel are apparently engaged in fighting but their targets are innocent civilians. Four millions Pushtuns are living as IDPs. Our schools are closed and our youth unemployed. Whether there is chance for festivity or an occasion of mourning terrorism is feared. Our Jargas[24] are the target of terrorism. Jargas and Lashkars [25]are banned in tribal areas. In settled areas gatherings and processions are not possible.  Local Pushtuns names like Aimal Khan, Darya Khan and Khushal Khan are changed into Abu Zar and Abu Jandal.[26] Pushtun nation is not only hostage to these terrorists but there is also an organized campaign to Arabize them. The whole world is playing its due role against terrorism but the most affected people of this menace are unable to play their effective historical role. The participants in conference agreed that if Pushtuns are given an opportunity to fight terrorism they would definitely deal with the terrorists in their historical courageous way. It is suggested that a grand Pushtun Jarga of the Pushtun of Pakistan should be called upon under the auspices of United Nations. If possible, Afghanistan should also be given representation. The Jarga should deal with the sole agenda “how to eliminate terrorism.” The Jarga should not be arranged on the traditional pattern; rather it should be given a broader touch by inviting all the Khels[27] and tribes so that they can discuss the matter for two or three days the participation of women in this Jirga must be mandatory. It should be conveyed to all non-Pushtuns that these Jargas are actually time-tested indigenous workshops. We believe that this Jarga would supersede all effective counter terrorism efforts. If succeeded, the same experiments should be repeated with the Pushtuns of Afghanistan.

16. The conference unanimously analyzed that the ground realities suggest terrorism is on the rise and Pushtuns are drifting along the tides of national, social, educational and psychological hopelessness. If terrorism is not uprooted in the upcoming months or if it further increased, Pushtuns would distrust all state institution vis-à-vis eliminating terrorism. In that case Pushtuns will be forced to invite UN peace keeping forces. To avoid the worst scenario the problem of terrorism should be taken seriously. Participants of the conference were unanimous in their thinking that all responsibility would fall on the shoulders of the Pakistani establishment if UN peace-keeping forces landed in the area are the world finally opted to redraw the marking of various countries in the region.

B) Economic Recommendations to Eliminate Terrorism:
Fata and Pukhtunkwha province are the most deprived areas for the past 62 years. The irony is that despite of having vast natural resources and being the richest nation, Pushtuns are the poorest, the most uneducated, the most unemployed and perhaps the most displaced people of the world. The ongoing surge of terrorism is only adding insult to injury. To defeat terrorism, all the deprivations of Pushtuns should be dealt with and their economic problems should be solved.

All the aid and international assistance in the name of counter terrorism should be spent on FATA, Pukhtunkwha province and other terror-affected areas. The aid should not be diverted to other provinces or institution as is the routine in Pakistan. Reconstruction Opportunity Zones(Roz) should be established in FATA and the people of FATA should be given its ownership and they should also be equipped with the relevant technical know how. Pukhtunkwha province should be declared as war-affected area and support should be extended till terrorism is uprooted in the from of exemption from taxes and utility bills.In FATA the damages done due to terrorism should be compensated and a comprehensive developmental package approved to compensate the deprivations of the past. An economic database should be established in FATA and Pukhtunkwha province for planning and keeping record of the economic needs. Small and medium enterprises and large scale industries should be planned with the aim of imparting technical know how to the local population. Fata and Pukhtunkwha
province should be granted ownership of the resources of water, electricity, tobacco, gas and petrol and full fiscal autonomy should be granted accordingly. Pushtuns living in four divided administrative unites[28] should be merged to be gather and made a single united province. Full national autonomy should be granted to this Pukhtoon province named Afghania, Pukhtoonkhwa or Pukhtoonistan. All the liabilities of this province in regard to their resources that are due to the federal government should be paid immediately.Canals from Indus should be networked in Swabi, Shakardara, Laki Marwat and Dera Ismael Khan in order to irrigate and cultivatable 80% of the land which will contribute to the overall agricultural output of the country.[29] In order to increase the hydroelectricity output, the proposed plans in Pukhtuns land should be materialized.

C) Education and Awareness Related Recommendation to Eliminate Terrorism:
The need of education and awareness to combat terrorism should be overemphasized. Terrorism is a global phenomenon but it has become the core issue of Pakistan. The rulers of Pakistan openly admit that Pakistan is in a state of war but unfortunately an open willingness to declare war on terrorism is still a far cry. Minor and poorly coordinated military operations have aggravated the crisis even further. A close examination reveals that the menace of terrorism is spreading deeper and deeper into the society by eroding the basic social fabric.

Recommendations:
Media:
The government of Pakistan should institute and initialize a concentrated media campaign against terrorism and activities such as dramas, educational pictures, documentaries etc against terrorism should be promoted. The media should play its due role in the fight against terrorism. Pro-terrorism broadcasts should be banned. The media should also realize that discussion of non-issues further plays into the hands of the terrorists. The political parties, civil personalities and Lashkars constituted against terrorism should be given proper media coverage.

Positive portrayal of terrorists should be discouraged. Suicide bomber is the most lethal weapon in the hands of the terrorists. The experience of last many years has proved that the age of suicide bomber is from 12 – 20 years. This age group should be educated that this act is against humanity and Islam. A massive campaign in this regard should be lunched in all the schools, seminaries, every house and village and of course the media should be utilize for this purpose and repeatedly re-telecasted. If we are able to educate this age group it would been that the terrorists will lose their major weapon.

Education and Religious Seminaries:
Budget allocation for education should be increased. Education should be acknowledged as a basic human right. Education till matriculation should be provided free of cost and elementary education up to grade 8 should be made compulsory. Female education should be emphasized. Admission to higher educations should be based on merit while special arrangement should be made to secure the rights of the backward areas and lower classes. Participatory teaching methodology should be introduce in education. Corporal punishment should be banned in educational institutions. The syllabus of education should be renewed. The curriculum should be designed on broader humanistic goals and the aims of good citizenship. Modern scientific knowledge should be imparted on the basis of research and creativity. Laboratories and libraries should be declared necessary for all institutions and all areas. The need to inculcate the qualities of tolerance, peace and democracy should be emphasized and the contributions of people having these qualities should be highlighted to inspire the youth. All the material regarding hate, prejudice and Jihad should be removed from the curriculum. Sectarianism and religious hatred in any form should be termed as terrorism and the persons involved in such activities should be severely punished. All the seminaries that have direct or indirect link with terrorists should be closed and ‘Fatwas’ (Religious Decree) should be obtained from the remaining against the current terrorists. Orthodox seminaries should be streamlined and made answerable to the government. Old history of the region and the consequent major historical events should be incorporated in the curriculum. The curriculum should cater for broader national, regional and international understanding. Healthy co-curricular activities should be made compulsory.
Gender equality should be ensured in Education and it should be taught to the students. Discriminatory customs, traditions, laws and curriculum against women should be undone. Parent Teachers Association/ council should also be made compulsory for every school. Students Unions should be reinstated and literary and cultural activities should be termed mandatory in colleges.

D) Cultural Recommendation for the Elimination of Terrorism:
Pushtun nation has 6000 years old strong cultural heritage. Pushtun society and culture is the main target of the current wave of terrorism. Jargas, Lashkars and Collective Responsibility are the three hallmarks of social and cultural fabrics in the tribal areas. Terrorism has targeted these three pillars of the tribal structures in a very organized way. As a result the society has become vulnerable. If we empower Pushtuns socially and culturally it would mean we have won 50% of the war against terror.

1. There is a dire need to instill a new life in Jarga, Hujra [30]and Lashkar and reorganize them on modern modalities.

2. Arts Councils should be established in every district.

3. Community Centers should be set up in every district.

4. Pushtu Literary and Cultural Centers should be organized keeping the Press Clubs modality in view.

5. In this regard the literary organizations which are already contributing should be supported and Peace Committees should be organized in all parts of FATA and Pukhtunkwha province.

6. All illegal FM channels should be closed at once and the perpetrators should be severely dealt with.

7. FM channels should be started by the government to promote peace, development and Pushtun culture.

8. The artists who suffered due to terrorism should be compensated on emergency footings The female artists must also be compensated.

9. Fine Arts departments should be opened in colleges and universities and other educational institutions should be encouraged in this regard.

10.Pakistani media should take measures to discourage the negative trends of presenting Pushtuns as backward, ignorant, extremists and terrorists.

11. A national TV channel for Pushtuns should be started.

12. All those cultural activates should be banned which are against the basic human rights especially against the rights of women.

13. In FATA and Pukhtunkwha museums related to the historical, literary and political personalities should be established for example Khushal Khan Khattak, Aimal Khan Momand, Darya Khan Afridi, Umra Khan, Pir Rokhan, Faqir Ipi, Baacha Khan, Abbdul Samad Khan Achakzai and Sanubar Hussain Kaka Ji.[31]

14. Pushtu should be declared as official language and it should be made the language of education courts and offices.

15. The sign boards should be written in mother tongue.

Declaring Sanity In Peshawar

Declaring sanity

BY NADEEM F. PARACHA

In March 2010 animated conspiracy theorist, TV personality and poster-boy for stylised sofa-warming-jihad, Zaid Hamid finally met his nemesis at the Peshawar University.

Hamid, who till then, had been enjoying a virtual free run on certain TV channels and on privately-owned campuses, was chased away by large sections of the audience that turned up to listen to him speak at the state-owned Peshawar University.

As Hamid’s speech began being booed at, Hamid made a quick exit from the premises only to face another crowd of students outside who shouted slogans against him, and pelted his car with stones.

Suddenly a man who was lovingly being courted by TV channels and student bodies and administration of private educational institutions, was angrily courted out by the students of a state-owned university.

They accused the university administration for allowing a ‘fitna’ (provocateur) and ‘agent of military establishment’ to speak at the university.

Initial inquiry suggested that the main ‘perpetrators’ behind the incident were members of PkSF (the student-wing of the Awami National Party) and the PSF (the student-wing of the Pakistan Peoples Party). What’s more, the protest against Hamid was also joined by the right-wing IJT (the student-wing of the Jamat Islami).

It is interesting to note that IJT that is a traditional and ideological foe of organisations like PkSF and PSF was also present in giving Hamid a hostile send-away.

Further investigations into the matter revealed the narrative that had driven the students to confront Hamid. The narrative (that we will discuss later in the piece) was constructed by a little known organisation called the Aman Tehreek (Peace Movement).

The truth was it was not exactly a small outfit, but an umbrella organisation under which a number of mainstream progressive parties, student organisations and members of the civil society had gathered to protest not only against extremist outfits such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, but also against the way the Pakistani military establishment and media had been engaging with these organisations.

But since the Tehreek’s narratives on religious extremism, terrorism, the military-establishment and the American drone attacks were largely anti-theistic to the ones toed by the largely right-wing mainstream electronic media, its activities were never given much space.

Recently the Tehreek came into focus again when its members vehemently protested in the streets of Peshawar against the Difa-e-Pakistan Council – an umbrella organisation of right-wing Islamic parties, jihadist outfits and pro-establishment politicians.

The Council, that also has in its ranks members of some ‘banned’ sectarian organisations, is accused by detractors for being a front organisation of those sections of the Pakistani intelligence agencies that are suspected of having links and sympathies with some extremist and sectarian organisations.

Radical peace

So what is the Aman Tehreek? It is an umbrella organisation that was formed in 2009 by members of Peshawar’s civil society.

It was conceived to draw out a ‘peace plan’ for the people of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), a province at the centre of a rather enigmatic war being fought between the Pakistan military and Islamist terror outfits.

In December 2009, the Tehreek organised an elaborate seminar in Peshawar in which members of the civil society and NGOs were invited. Also present were delegations from mainstream secular political parties such as the Awami National Party (ANP), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Paktunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP), and the Baloch National Party (NP).

The Aman Tehreek was represented by a number of progressive intellectuals, lawyers, businessmen, doctors, and student and labour leaders.

Various delegates at the seminar presented their reports on the issue of extremism and terrorism in Pakistan. These reports were then critically evaluated and discussed among the delegates. After a hectic round of discussions, it was decided by the participants that a synthesis be constructed from the discussions. This synthesis was then expressed as a joint declaration, called the ‘Peshawar Declaration’ (PD).

Of hooris, ababeels and liars!

The Peshawar Declaration (PD) suggests that currently Pakistan is experiencing one of the most dangerous and complex kinds of terrorism. PD assails the indoctrination techniques of both the terrorists, as well as the military in which both the terrorist and the soldier are promised paradise and hooris for killing people that also include women and children.

PD states two sources of terrorism in Pakistan: (1) Militant Islamist organisations like al Qaeda and the Taliban and (2) the ‘Strategic Depth’ policy of the Pakistani military-establishment.

Interestingly, the Declaration describes the al Qaeda as ‘a caricature of (‘Wahabi/Salafi’) Arab expansionism in the disguise of global Islam.’

The second factor according to the Declaration that is contributing to the growth of extremist of terrorism is the ‘Strategic Depth’ policy of the Pakistan Army. The purpose of this policy is ‘to use Jihadi culture in order to counter India and protect nuclear weapons, and to subjugate Afghanistan by making it Pakistan’s fifth province on the Azad Kashmir model.’

The Declaration also elaborates on the psychological and cultural aspects of the Strategic Depth policy:

‘The Strategic Depth policy of the Pakistan army has a complete background. The ideology of nationhood on the basis of religion serves its foundation. Cantonments were labeled with the slogans of Jihad Fi Sabel-e-La (Jihad in the name of Allah). Big crossings and roundabouts in the cities were furnished with tanks, fighter planes and replicas of the Chaghai hills (where Pakistan first tested its nuclear bombs) to make a war-like environment.’

‘Instead of a welfare state Pakistan was made a security state. The Objective Resolution (1949) gave birth to Mullah-Military Alliance. The same resolution was included, in letter and spirit, in the constitution by General Ziaul Haq … Terrorist organisations like Hizbul Mujahideen, Harkatul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Tayeeba and Jash-e-Muhamamd were installed in Kashmir. In Paksitan Sibah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangwi and in Fata Lashkar-e-Islam, Ansar-ul-Islam, Amarbil-Maroof, Tahreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi and Tahreek-e-Taliban have been operational … All these organisations are termed as strategic assets (by the military).’

The Declaration informs that the US, China, Arab countries and Europe helped Pakistan in its aggression against Afghanistan (in the 1980s).

Twenty-four billion petro-dollars were spent to establish seminaries (religious schools) that implanted extremist ideas in the minds of young Pakistanis and Afghans. Military aggression was explained as Jihad.

The Declaration also assails the dictatorship of General Parvez Musharraf for allowing the media to give coverage to those people who were supporting jihadist organisations and the military’s Strategic Depth policy, such as retired generals, a few journalists and so-called ‘defense analysts’.

The Declaration laments that as a result those living in other parts of the country (that are outside the war-torn areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) or those who were not directly affected by terrorism ‘were uninterruptedly indoctrinated with ideas for about eight years which further helped terrorism.’

PD then goes on to suggest that those residing within and near the areas that are directly in the grip of extremism and terrorism have their own view of the issue, a view that is quite different than the one being propagated by the military and the media:

‘It was propagated over the media that terrorism is the continuation of Jihad against Soviet Russia. The fact is that almost all those who fought against the Russians are now actually working to bring stability to the democratic process in Afghanistan. They are the foremost opponents of terrorism …. Only two of the anti-Soviet groups are now involved in terrorism i.e. Gulbadin Hikmatyar and Jalal ud Din Haqqani.’

The Declaration also laments the fact that due to the media, the image of the Pushtuns has been distorted and they are now seen as being extremists.

It then continues about how those directly affected by extremist violence have a different view about the issue than those living away from war and terror, and are being fed news and perceptions about the subject by the military and the media:

‘ … the people of the war-affected areas think that the army and Taliban are actually partners. They have been persistently asking the question why the military failed to target the core leadership of the militants in all the 17 military operations in Fata?’

‘These people (residing in war-torn areas) call for a real and targeted military operation … These people do not support any peace deals with the militants but unlike them the rest of Pakistan talks of putting an end to the military operations and resuming the so-called peace deals.’

By observing the above, the Declaration lays bare the anxiety and anger of those sections of the society and political circles who have been criticising the military, the media and some politicians who have been misrepresenting the views and emotions of those Pakistanis stuck in areas dominated by extremist/terrorist organisations.
PD claims that most people in the tribal areas of KP actually call the American drones, Ababeel (the mythical holy swallows [mentioned in the Quran] that were send by Allah to avenge Abraha, the intended conqueror the Kaaba):

‘The issue of (US) drone attacks is the most important one. The people of the war-affected areas are actually satisfied with the drone attacks which they support the most …  Even some people in Waziristan compare Drones with Ababeels. A component of the Pakistani media, some retired generals, a few journalists/analysts and pro-Taliban political parties never tire in their baseless propaganda against the drone attacks.’

The Declaration makes the following recommendations: (Edited version)

• The Strategic Depth policy is not only the cause of terrorism but it is an end in itself regarding terrorism … If the terrorists succeeded in Afghanistan their next target would be Pakistan. Therefore, this policy is destructive for Pakistan and should be abolished.
• Sanctuaries of terrorism in Fata, KP and central Punjab should be destroyed. A brief and targeted military operation should be launched against the terrorists. A half-hearted military operation is only spreading and helping the terrorists.
• Nato forces were sent to Afghanistan under UN mandate. However they should offer a clear time frame for the withdrawal of troops. The US has supported some of the terrorists. Americans are blamed for supporting Jandullah. Similarly they are least interested in dealing with the terrorists from Sangkiang.
• Saudi Arab and other Arab countries should stop financing terrorists.
• Some political forces and a component of the media and establishment are supporting terrorists. Such forces should be uprooted.
• Besides uprooting terrorism in Fata, the people of Fata should be compensated for the damage done due to terrorism. A comprehensive developmental package should be planned and the people of Fata should be allowed to choose any administrative system for themselves.
• The so-called banned terrorist organisations are still operative in the country. Merely banning them would not help. These organisations should be practically eliminated.
• Pakistan army and intelligence agencies should not interfere in politics.
• Every democratic government should be allowed to complete its term. Any conspiracy to derail democracy should be defeated.
• All the aid and international assistance in the name of counter terrorism should be spent on Fata, KP and other terror-affected areas.
• Full national autonomy should be granted to KP province.
• The need of education and awareness to combat terrorism should be overemphasised.
• The government of Pakistan should institute and initialise a concentrated media campaign against terrorism.
• The media should play its due role in the fight against terrorism. Pro-terrorism broadcasts should be banned. The political parties, civil personalities and Lashkars who are against terrorism should be given proper media coverage.
• Positive portrayal of terrorists should be discouraged (in the media).
• Budget allocation for education should be increased. Education should be acknowledged as a basic human right. Education till matriculation should be provided free of cost and elementary education up to grade eight should be made compulsory. Female education should be emphasised.
• The syllabus of education should be renewed. The curriculum should be designed on broader humanistic goals. Modern scientific knowledge should be imparted on the basis of research and creativity. Laboratories and libraries should be declared necessary for all institutions. The need to inculcate the qualities of tolerance, peace and democracy should be emphasised and the contributions of people having these qualities should be highlighted to inspire the youth. All the material regarding hate, prejudice and Jihad should be removed from the curriculum.
• Gender equality should be ensured in education and it should be taught to the students.
• Arts Councils should be established in every district.
• Community Centers should be set up in every district.
• All illegal FM channels should be closed.
• All those cultural activates should be banned which are against the basic human rights, especially against the rights of women.

You can read the complete document of the Peshawar Declaration:

In English
In Urdu

Obama warns against “loose talk” of war on Iran

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama warned on Sunday against “loose talk” of a war with Iran ahead of a crucial meeting in which he will urge Israel’s prime minister to avoid a premature strike on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities.

On the eve of his talks with Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama used a speech to the pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group AIPAC to pledge his staunch support for the Jewish state and to argue that international sanctions on Iran must be given more time to work.

But there was no sign he and Netanyahu were moving any closer to agreeing on their approach to Iran.

Obama said the “bluster” about a military strike was counterproductive because it has been driving up global oil prices, boosting demand for Iran’s oil and helping to offset the impact of sanctions on its economy.

“I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy – backed by pressure – to succeed,” Obama told the crowd of 13,000 people in a cavernous ballroom.

“I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues, the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world. Already, there is too much loose talk of war,” he added.

Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu on Monday comes amid U.S. fears that Israel might opt to strike Iran on its own if it is not convinced of U.S. resolve to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Such speculation has gained traction as Obama has faced election-year criticism from Republicans who question the strength of his support for Israel and accuse him of not taking a tough enough approach toward Iran.

Analysts say such criticism could lead Israel to calculate that Obama could ill afford a rift with the Jewish state with a U.S. election looming in November and would be forced to give at least tacit support if Israel were to take military action against Iran.

‘NO OPTIONS OFF THE TABLE’

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa after Obama spoke, Netanyahu welcomed Obama’s speech but highlighted parts of it where the U.S. president said he would “take no options off the table” – a reference to the possibility of military action if necessary to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu said he appreciated that Obama “made clear that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Iran, containment is simply not an option.”

“Perhaps most important of all, I appreciated the fact that he said that Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat,” Netanyahu added.

Israeli President Shimon Peres, addressing the AIPAC conference just before Obama took the podium, said the United States and Israel shared the goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

“There is no space between us,” said Peres, a former leader of the center-left Labor Party whose post is largely ceremonial. Peres has often taken a softer line on Middle East issues than Netanyahu, who heads the right-wing Likud party.

‘I DON’T BLUFF’

Obama last week issued his most direct threat yet of U.S. military action against Iran, saying in an interview with the Atlantic magazine, “I don’t bluff.

However, as he did in the AIPAC speech, Obama argued in the interview for focusing on sanctions as the course of action with the most likely chance of success.

At the AIPAC conference, Obama received the strongest applause when he spoke of the bond between the United States and Israel and when he said the United States had a profound interest in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. The audience gave him a standing ovation at the conclusion of the speech.

In addition to framing his views on Iran ahead of the talks with Netanyahu, one of Obama’s aims in his remarks was to push back at Republican critics who have seized on differences between Netanyahu and Obama over Iran to argue he has not been supportive enough of a key U.S. ally.

“There should not be a shred of doubt by now: when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back,” Obama said.

Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Obama’s sanctions strategy “hasn’t worked” and called on the president to do more to warn Iran of a potential military strike.

Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner, told a campaign rally in Snellville, Georgia, that “if Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon.”

Romney, Gingrich and Republican candidate Rick Santorum are expected to address the AIPAC conference on Tuesday.

Obama signed a law in December threatening sanctions on financial institutions that deal with Iran’s central bank, and the EU in January announced an embargo on Iranian oil imports from July 1.

A decline in Iranian oil sales in the past couple of months has been one of the leading factors in the rise in oil prices.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and Jim Wolf in Washington; Jeffrey Heller in Ottawa and Sam Youngman in Snellville, Georgia; Editing by Will Dunham and Stacey Joyce)

Pakistan Goes Ahead With Iran-Pakistan Pipeline, Despite US Threats

German company awarded Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline contract

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has issued tender for the laying of Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline in its territory to a German company, Secretary Petroleum said.

According to the Secretary Petroleum, Pakistan has offered $250 million to a German company ILF Engineering for laying of gas pipeline inside its territory.

The laying of gas pipeline would be completed till 2014, the secretary added.

India Leads the Way Back To Sanity, With A Strategic Rail Corrider from Iran To Russia

[There is hope for India after all!  Survival mandates that India relax its bear hug on America just a bit, so that a little daylight might shine between them.  This is absolutely the most intelligent step that could be taken at this time, by those who are working for either hope or stability in Afghanistan.  Now, if Obama would suddenly come out for routing his Silk Road pipeline project through Iran as well, even I would campaign for the man.]

India initiates rail route plan through Central Asia

Shubhajit Roy : New Delhi
India has taken the lead in what it calls “kickstarting” an “international north-south corridor” from Iran to Russia via Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to ensure a seamless connectivity to Central Asia. New Delhi wants this corridor to be operational by 2013.

Government sources said here on Wednesday that New Delhi met interlocutors from these partner countries in January to initiate the process. The plan, kept under the wraps so far, is in keeping with the the country’s “Look Central Asia policy”.

In this context, experts have identified the “missing links” in rail connectivity. “There is road connectivity, but what we want is a seamless rail connectivity. This will ensure a faster, a more hassle-free and less expensive way to transport goods through Iran to the Central Asian countries and further north to Russia,” a government source said.

What has not deterred India is additional sanctions on Iran by the US and EU, and Washington’s calls for snapping ties with Tehran.

Sources said that Iran and this corridor — which will be essentially rail-based — is India’s gateway to the Central Asian countries. “They are vital to our interests, since they border with either Afghanistan or China,” the source said. Three of the Central Asian countries share border with Afghanistan, while three others with China. India wants to build economic linkages with the markets in these countries. “We also need to engage them since there are no direct links with any of the Central Asian countries,” said official sources.

New Delhi is talking to all these countries to work on the feasibility of the corridor, and they are looking at operationalising the link at the earliest.